Safety Standard for Toddler Beds, 22291-22303 [2010-6947]
Download as PDF
22291
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 75, No. 81
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1217
[No. CPSC–2010–0022]
RIN 3041–AC79
Safety Standard for Toddler Beds
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the
United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC’’) to
promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler
products. These standards are to be
‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable
voluntary standards or more stringent
than the voluntary standard if the
Commission concludes that more
stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
the product. The Commission is
proposing a safety standard for toddler
beds in response to the direction under
section 104(b) of the CPSIA. The
proposed safety standard would address
entrapment in bed end structures,
entrapment between the guardrail and
side rail, entrapment in the mattress
support system, and component failures
of the bed support system and
guardrails. The proposed standard also
addresses corner post extensions that
can catch items worn by a child.
DATES: Submit comments by July 12,
2010.
Submit comments relating to the
instructional literature and bed and
carton marking required by the
proposed rule, as these materials relate
to the Paperwork Reduction Act, by May
28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments relating to the
instructional literature and bed and
carton marking required by the
proposed rule relating to the Paperwork
Reduction Act should be directed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer,
FAX: 202–395–6974, or e-mailed to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket
No. CPSC–2010–0022, may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
1. Electronic Submissions. Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(To ensure timely processing of
comments, the Commission is no longer
directly accepting comments submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail). The
Commission encourages you to submit
electronic comments by using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.)
2. Written Submissions. Submit
written submissions in the following
ways:
a. Fax: 301–504–0127.
b. Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions):
Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Room 820,
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. All
comments received, including any
personal information provided, may be
posted without change to https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=
linklog&to=https://www.regulations.gov.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
not submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or
other sensitive information that you do
not want to be available to the public.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, CPSC 2010–0022, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical information: Celestine Kiss,
Division of Human Factors, Directorate
for Engineering Sciences, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East
West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301)504–7739, e-mail
ckiss@cpsc.gov. Legal information:
Harleigh Ewell, Office of the General
Counsel, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone
(301)504–7683; e-mail hewell@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background—The Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act as
Applied to Durable Infant or Toddler
Products
The Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA,’’
Pub. L. 110–314) was enacted on August
14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA
requires the Commission to promulgate
consumer product safety standards for
durable infant or toddler products.
These standards are to be ‘‘substantially
the same as’’ applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the
voluntary standard if the Commission
concludes that more stringent
requirements would further reduce the
risk of injury associated with the
product. The term ‘‘durable infant or
toddler product’’ is defined in section
104(f) of the CPSIA as a durable product
intended for use, or that may be
reasonably expected to be used, by
children under the age of 5 years.
Toddler beds are one of the products
specifically identified in section
104(f)(2) of the CPSIA as a durable
infant or toddler product.
In this document, the Commission
proposes a safety standard for toddler
beds. The proposed standard is largely
the same as a voluntary standard
developed by ASTM International
(formerly the American Society for
Testing and Materials), ASTM F 1821–
09 Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Toddler Beds, but with
several modifications that strengthen
the standard. The ASTM standard is
copyrighted, but can be viewed as a
read-only document, only during the
comment period on this proposal, at
https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by
permission of ASTM. Documents that
support statements in this notice are
identified by [Ref. #], where # is the
number of the reference document as
listed below in section M of this notice.
B. The Product
The ASTM voluntary standard defines
a toddler bed as any bed sized to
accommodate a full-size crib mattress
having minimum dimensions of 515⁄8
inches in length and 271⁄4 inches in
width and that is intended to provide
free access and egress to a child not less
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
22292
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
than 15 months of age and weighing no
more than 50 pounds.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Incident Data [Ref. 2]
1. Introduction. CPSC databases did
not have a dedicated product code for
identifying incidents before 2005 that
involved toddler beds. Accordingly, the
data discussed below begins with the
year 2005. The data come from two
databases: (1) Actual injuries and
fatalities of which the Commission is
aware; and (2) estimates derived from
reports of emergency-room treatment in
a statistical sample of hospitals that
makes up the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (‘‘NEISS’’). The
CPSC staff is aware of 4 fatalities and 81
nonfatal incidents (with and without
injuries) related to toddler beds that
were reported to have occurred since
2005.
2. Fatalities. Of the four fatalities
reported to CPSC staff, two resulted
from entrapments. The first death was
the result of a 6-month-old infant getting
entrapped in the footboard while
sleeping on a toddler bed. The second
death involved a 13-month-old getting
entrapped in the side rail of a flippedover toddler bed while playing with an
older sibling. The third death was due
to asphyxiation when a 10-month-old
was napping in an inflatable children’s
bed. (Although an inflatable children’s
bed does not meet the definition of a
toddler bed that is in ASTM F 1821–09,
this incident was coded as associated
with a toddler bed.) The last fatality was
a strangulation death of a 3-year-old on
the cord of mini blinds located over his
toddler bed. (The ASTM F 1821–09
standard addresses this hazard with a
warning label. The Commission does
not have information indicating whether
the toddler bed involved in this death
bore such a warning label.) It is notable
that three of the four reported fatalities
involved victims under the age of 15
months, which is recommended in the
current ASTM voluntary standard as the
minimum age for use of a toddler bed.
The ASTM standard requires a label
warning against using the bed with
children under 15 months.
3. Nonfatal Incidents. Of the 81
nonfatal incidents known to the CPSC
staff that were associated with a child
on a toddler bed, 26 involved injuries.
Three of the injuries were fractures of
limbs. The vast majority of the injuries
were bumps and bruises. Sprains,
scrapes, and lacerations were some of
the other reported injuries associated
with toddler beds.
Listed below are the hazard patterns
identified among the reports of nonfatal
incidents:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
• Entrapment was the most
commonly reported hazard.
Approximately 31 percent of the
incidents involved entrapment of a
limb. The associated injuries, if any,
ranged from fractures to sprains to
bruises. More serious, potentially fatal,
entrapments of head or body in the side
rails, in the mesh covering of the side
rails, or between the mattress-support
rails were reported in 14 percent of the
incidents.
• Broken, loose, or detached
components of the bed, such as the
guardrail, hardware, or other
accessories, were the next most
commonly reported problems. However,
only two injuries—one laceration and
one ingestion—resulted from these
problems.
• Product integrity issues, mostly
integrity of the mattress-support, were
the next most commonly encountered
hazard. These often resulted in the
collapse of the bed, causing the child to
fall through.
• Inadequate mattress-fit issues were
the next most common hazard. A few
children suffered sprains and broken
limbs from being caught in the gap
between the mattress and the bed frame.
• Finally, there were some
complaints of paint/coating issues, bed
height/clearance issues, and inadequacy
of guardrails, assembly instructions, and
recalls.
Among the nonfatal incidents that
reported the child’s age (67 out of 81),
the age ranged between 11 months to 6
years. Nearly 66 percent of these
incidents reported the age to be between
15 and 24 months. About 16 percent of
the incidents involved children less
than 15 months of age. However, it was
not always clear that the reported age
pertained to the child who was the
regular user of the toddler bed. Three of
the 81 nonfatal incident reports
involved inflatable children’s beds,
which do not conform to the ASTM
definition of toddler beds and are not
included within the scope of the
proposed standard.
4. National Injury Estimates. There
were an estimated 1,380 injuries related
to toddler beds that were treated in
hospital emergency departments in the
United States over the 4-year period
from 2005 to 2008. The injury estimates
for individual years are not reportable
because the numbers each year fail to
meet NEISS’s publication criteria. There
was no statistically significant increase
or decrease observed in the estimated
injuries from one year to the next, and
there was no statistically significant
trend observed over the 2005–2008
period. No deaths were reported
through NEISS. For the emergency
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
department-treated injuries related to
toddler beds, the following
characteristics occurred most
frequently:
• Hazard—falls out of the toddler bed
to a lower level (87%).
• Injured body part—head (30%) and
face (24%).
• Injury type—lacerations (26%) and
contusions/abrasions (20%).
• Disposition—treated and released
(nearly 100%).
The age of patients in these injuries
ranged between 4 months and 6 years,
with nearly 53 percent between 18
months and 2 years. It was not always
clear whether the patient injured was
the usual user of the toddler bed.
D. The ASTM Voluntary Standard
The ASTM F 1821–09 voluntary
standard contains requirements
addressing a number of hazards. The
requirements include:
1. Toddler beds must comply with
CPSC’s regulations at 16 CFR part 1303
(ban of lead in paint), 1500.48 (sharp
points), 1500.49 (sharp edges), 1500.50
through 1500.53 (use and abuse tests),
and part 1501 (small parts that present
choking, aspiration, or ingestion
hazards), both before and after the
product is tested according to the
standard.
2. Toddler beds must not present
scissoring, shearing, or pinching
hazards.
3. Openings must meet specified
dimensions in order to prevent finger
entrapment.
4. Openings that will permit passage
of a specified block with a wedge on one
end are prohibited in order to protect
against torso entrapment.
5. The distance that corner posts may
extend above the upper edge of an end
or side panel is limited.
6. Protective components shall not be
removable with a specified force after
torque and tension tests.
7. There are requirements for marking
and labeling each bed and its retail
carton, and for warning statements on
the bed. There are requirements for the
permanency of labels and warnings.
8. The mattress shall be supported
and contained so that it does not move
horizontally to cause a horizontal
opening that will allow the passage of
the wedge block when tested.
9. There are tests for the physical
integrity of the mattress support system
and its attachments and the side rails.
10. There are wedge block tests for
openings in the guardrails and end
structures that could cause entrapment.
11. There is a probe test to protect
against entrapment in partially-bounded
openings in the bed.
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
12. Instructions must be provided
with the bed.
13. Warning statements are required
on the bed to address entrapment and
strangulation hazards.
E. Description of the Proposed Rule and
Its Changes to the ASTM Standard
Due to the significant number of
incidents reported regarding component
failures of bed support systems and
guardrails, the Commission’s staff has
recommended additional testing
requirements to address those types of
incidents. Accordingly, the Commission
proposes a new 16 CFR 1217 that, if
finalized, would adopt the ASTM
standard F 1821–09 by reference, but
with some changes and additions that
would strengthen the ASTM standard’s
provisions.
1. Scope, Application, and Effective
Date (Proposed § 1217.1)
Proposed § 1217.1 would state that
part 1217 establishes a consumer
product safety standard for toddler beds
manufactured or imported after a date
that would be 6 months after the
publication date of a final rule in the
Federal Register.
2. Requirements for Toddler Beds
(Proposed § 1217.2)
a. The Applicable ASTM Standard
(Proposed § 1217.2(a))
Proposed § 1217.2(a) would explain
that, except as provided in § 1217.2(b),
each toddler bed as defined in ASTM F
1821–09, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Toddler Beds,’’ must
comply with all applicable provisions in
ASTM F 1821–09. The proposal also
would explain how interested parties
may obtain a copy of the ASTM
standard or inspect a copy at the CPSC.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Minimum Height for the Upper Edge
of Guardrails (Proposed § 1217.2(b)(1)
Through (3))
Proposed § 1217.2(b)(1) through (3)
would revise the ASTM standard to
require that guardrails be a minimum
height of 5 inches above the
manufacturer’s recommended sleeping
surface. This is intended to help prevent
falls. Although the proposed standard
does not require guardrails, persons
who choose to have guardrails on their
toddler beds should be able to rely on
the guardrail performing the function of
helping to prevent falls. The 5-inch
minimum height is widely adopted by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
industry as a minimum height for
guardrails in bunk beds [Ref. 3].
c. Structural Integrity of Guardrails
(Proposed § 1217.2(b)(4) and
1217.2(b)(6))
In addition to the already existing test
for guardrail openings, the Commission,
at proposed § 1217.2(b)(4) and
1217.2(b)(6), would add a test for the
overall stability of guardrails using a 50lb force while the bed is firmly secured.
The force is to be applied in the center
along the length of the guardrail and
then repeated with the force applied
directly over each of the outermost legs
of the guardrail. This additional test is
intended to prevent children from
falling out of bed; it is also calculated
to ensure that the guardrails remain
intact when children lean against them
or attempt to use them to climb into
bed. The 50-lb force was chosen because
that is the maximum weight of a child
that should use a toddler bed [Ref. 3].
After testing in accordance with 7.9, the
guardrail shall not be broken or
detached or create a condition that
would present any of the hazards
described in section 5. The guardrail
also shall not be deformed or displaced
so as to create a hazard addressed by the
performance requirements of section 6.
d. Slat/Spindle Testing for Guardrails,
Side Rails, and End Structures
(Proposed § 1217.2(b)(5) and
1217.2(b)(7))
Currently, the torso wedge is used in
combination with a 25-pound force
(‘‘lbf’’) on guardrails and end structures
in the most adverse orientation to assure
that the slats or spindles (hereafter
referred to collectively as ‘‘slats’’) do not
break and allow an opening in which a
child could become entrapped.
Proposed § 1217.2(b)(5) and 1217.2(b)(7)
would modify the existing ASTM test
requirements in the following ways.
First, 25 percent of all slats, rather
than just those of the end structures and
guardrails, would be tested using 80 lbf
instead of 25 lbf. The slats that present
the least resistance to bending shall
make up the 25 percent, except that
when a slat is selected for testing with
80 lbf, neither of its adjacent slats shall
be tested at that force. The 80 lbf is
chosen on the basis of tests performed
by the Commission’s staff on 18 cribs or
toddler beds that were involved in
actual breakage incidents in the field
(‘‘incident beds’’) and on two samples of
a model of a crib that has been widely
sold to consumers and has not been
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22293
reported to have been involved in a
breakage incident (‘‘the non-incident
crib’’) [Ref. 3].
There is very little anthropometric
data available to help determine the
forces a child can apply to a bed slat.
The tests of the slats of the non-incident
crib produced failures of the slats at
forces ranging from 85 lb to 123.5 lb
[Ref. 3]. Since there have not been any
incidents reported for this model crib
despite its wide distribution, it is
reasonable to conclude that the
occupants of this crib can exert a force
on the slats that is somewhat less than
the minimum failure force of 85 lb
obtained for this crib. The 18 incident
beds tested had minimum failure forces
ranging from 28.8 lb to 78.8 lb [Ref. 3].
Taken together, these two sets of failure
forces support setting a maximum test
force of 80 lb.
However, when testing the nonincident crib model, the Commission’s
staff observed that testing adjacent slats
significantly compromised the integrity
of the bed rails [Ref. 3]. This occurred
even at the lower end of the range of
failure forces, i.e., 85 to 90 lb. Therefore,
it is plausible that testing all slats to 80
lbf would have a similar effect and be
too stringent a test. Accordingly, the
Commission is proposing that 25
percent of the slats be tested to 80 lbf
so that adjacent slats would not have to
be tested at that force. The Commission
proposes that the remaining 75 percent
of slats be tested at 60 lbf. This
reduction in force is intended to
compensate for any damage to the bed
rail caused by testing an adjacent slat to
80 lbf and is a much higher force than
the 25 lbf specified in the current ASTM
standard. The Commission concludes
that the force of 60 lb is adequate for
these remaining slats since the slats
with geometry that is most likely to
bend (and thus break) will have been
tested to the full 80 lbf.
e. Improved Warning Label (Proposed
§ 1217.2(b)(8)) [Ref. 4]
ASTM F 1821–09 is intended to
minimize entrapments in bed end
structures, between the guardrail and
side rail, and in the mattress support
system. Entrapment of a child’s head or
neck can result in asphyxiation. Section
8.4 of ASTM F 1821–09 specifies
warning statements to be included on
toddler beds. Section 8.4.3 of ASTM F
1821–09 states that the warnings shall
include the following label, exactly as
stated:
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
22294
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The additional warning statements
specified in section 8.4.4 of ASTM F
1821–09 apparently address the same
hazards addressed by the warning label
specified in section 8.4.3 of ASTM F
1821–09. (Section 8.4.4.3 of ASTM F
1821–09 requires an additional warning
statement about placing the bed near the
cords of blinds and drapes, yet this
issue is already addressed explicitly in
the warning label specified in 8.4.3 of
ASTM F 1821–09.) In addition, the
warning label specified in section 8.4.3
of ASTM F 1821–09 merges two distinct
hazards into a single label, making it
difficult to tell what warning
information is associated with each
hazard. To address these issues, the
Human Factors staff suggested that all of
the required warnings specified in
section 8.4 of ASTM F 1821–09 be
presented as two separate warnings, one
addressing the entrapment hazard and
the other addressing the strangulation
hazard, and proposed § 1217.2(b)(8)
reflects the two warnings.
(i) Entrapment warning.
ASTM F 1821–09 specifies different
warning requirements for toddler beds
that employ a removable guardrail as
the mattress containment means.
Specifically, section 8.4.4.2 of ASTM F
1821–09 states that toddler beds that
employ a removable guardrail for this
purpose shall include a warning
statement telling consumers that the
guardrail must be used to avoid the
formation of a gap between the mattress
and the bed that could cause
entrapment. However, this warning
statement would not be needed for
toddler beds that did not present an
entrapment hazard with the guardrail
removed. Thus, the Commission
proposes that this warning statement
would not be required for toddler beds
that meet the performance requirements
of sections 5.8.2 (torso entrapment), 6.1
(mattress retention), 6.2 (mattress
support system integrity), 6.3 (mattress
support system attachment to end
structures), 6.4 (mattress support system
openings), 6.6 (end structure openings),
and 6.7 (partially bounded openings) of
ASTM F 1821–09 with the guardrails
removed. With this in mind, the
Commission proposes two alternative
labels that address the entrapment
hazard: One for toddler beds with
removable guardrails that will not meet
these performance requirements with
the guardrail removed and one for all
other toddler beds.
The entrapment warning for beds
with removable guardrails where the
beds present an entrapment hazard
when the guardrails are removed would
read as follows:
EP28AP10.001
The entrapment warning for all other
beds would read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
EP28AP10.000
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 8.4.4 of ASTM F 1821–09
specifies additional required warning
statements that address the following:
1. The minimum mattress dimensions
for use on the bed;
2. The use of provided guardrails to
avoid the formation of gaps that could
pose an entrapment hazard;
3. The placement of the bed relative
to cords from blinds or drapes;
4. The placement of strings, cords, or
similar objects around a child’s neck;
and
5. The suspension of strings over the
bed.
Like the warning label specified in
section 8.4.3 of ASTM F 1821–09, all of
these additional warning statements
appear to be intended to address
entrapment and strangulation hazards.
Proposed § 1217.2(b)(6) would revise
these warning requirements to reduce
the risk of injury associated with the use
of toddler beds.
The Commission’s Human Factors
staff believes that the warnings section
of ASTM F 1821–09 is confusing as it
is currently organized, with explicit
warning language for only certain
information, ‘‘additional’’ warning
statements that leave the applicable
hazards open to interpretation, and
redundancies between these two sets of
required warning information [Ref. 4].
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
‘‘ENTRAPMENT HAZARD’’ statement
would introduce unnecessary
redundancy. Furthermore, omitting this
statement from the warning allows
greater emphasis on the consequences of
the hazard (death, in this case) and the
subpopulation most at risk of dying
from exposure to the hazard. This
greater emphasis on the consequences of
the hazard is done by: (1) Moving the
statement, ‘‘Infants have died in toddler
beds from entrapment,’’ toward the
beginning of the warning message; and
(2) reformatting this statement in alluppercase, boldface type. The ASTM F
1821 subcommittee has pointed out that
there continue to be incidents with
toddler beds involving children younger
than the intended age for these
products, so emphasizing the at-risk
population is important [Ref. 4]. In
addition, warnings and persuasion
research has found that the degree of
seriousness of a perceived threat plays
a significant role in whether one
complies with a warning, so
emphasizing the potential for death
would tend to increase the efficacy of a
warning [Ref. 4].
The statement in the original warning,
‘‘Failure to follow these warnings * * *
could result in serious injury or death,’’
is unlikely to have a substantial impact
on injuries or warning compliance. The
warning already communicates the
safety importance of its content via a
safety alert symbol, the word
‘‘WARNING,’’ and a description of the
hazard and its consequences, so telling
consumers that not following the
warning could result in serious injury or
death is redundant at best. In contrast,
explicit hazard information in a warning
has been found to lead to higher levels
of perceived hazardousness and greater
intent to comply with the warning. The
original warning message did not
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specify the source of entrapment or how
entrapment might lead to death, and it
is unclear whether many consumers
could readily and correctly infer this
information. The sentence, ‘‘Openings in
and between bed parts can entrap head
and neck of a small child,’’ is intended
to remedy this situation by providing a
more explicit description of the
mechanism that creates the hazard. The
Commission also is keeping the warning
to follow the assembly instructions
because consumer misassembly has
been a problem with similar products,
such as cribs, and could lead to
entrapment.
Section 8.4.4.1 of ASTM F 1821–09
states that additional warning
statements shall address the minimum
mattress size. The language of this
section implies that the precise mattress
dimensions should be provided, both in
English and metric units. Section 8.3.2
of ASTM F 1821–09, however, already
specifies that both the bed and its retail
carton shall be clearly and legibly
marked with the intended mattress for
the bed, including the precise
dimensions in both English and metric
units. The Human Factors staff,
therefore, concluded that repeating
precise dimensions within the warning
is unnecessary and may, by making the
warning longer, discourage some
consumers from reading it. Therefore,
proposed § 1217.2(b)(8) would have the
warning label include the statement
‘‘ONLY use full-size crib mattress of the
recommended size’’ instead of repeating
the dimensions of the recommended
mattress.
(ii) Strangulation warning.
To address the strangulation hazard,
the Commission, at proposed
§ 1217.2(b)(8), is proposing the
following warning label for all toddler
beds:
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
EP28AP10.002
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
These warnings would use the typesize requirements described in the
standard, and the safety alert symbol
design is consistent with the latest
version of ANSI Z535.4 (2007),
American National Standard for
Product Safety Signs and Labels. The
primary differences between these
proposed warnings and the relevant
portions of the current ASTM warnings
are the following:
1. The proposed warnings do not state
‘‘ENTRAPMENT HAZARD,’’ which
would be analogous to the original
‘‘ENTRAPMENT/STRANGULATION
HAZARD’’ statement in the original
warning;
2. The proposed warning places
greater emphasis on the subpopulation
most at risk and the hazard
consequences;
3. The proposed warning includes a
more explicit description of the
mechanism that creates the entrapment
hazard; and
4. The proposed warning omits the
statement in the label in the voluntary
standard concerning the possibility of
serious injury or death from not
following the warnings.
To the CPSC staff’s knowledge, the
minimum age recommendation of 15
months for toddler beds is based largely
on the increased entrapment potential
for children younger than this. Thus, the
statement that ‘‘[i]nfants have died in
toddler beds from entrapment and
strangulation,’’ which appears in the
original warning, has been carried over,
with deletion of the reference to the
strangulation hazard, to the proposed
entrapment warning label as, ‘‘Infants
have died in toddler beds from
entrapment.’’ Given that this statement
already explicitly references
‘‘entrapment,’’ the CPSC staff concluded
that including an initial
22295
22296
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Like the proposed entrapment
warning labels, this warning would use
the type-size requirements described in
the standard, and the safety alert symbol
design is consistent with ANSI Z535.4–
2007, American National Standard for
Product Safety Signs and Labels. This
warning largely reflects all of the
information relevant to hazards that was
required in the original warnings. A
warning statement about not placing
items with a string, cord, or ribbon
around a child’s neck would be more
effective with an additional clarifying
sentence, ‘‘These items may catch on
bed parts.’’ Without this sentence,
consumers may find it difficult to infer
how the presence of a cord around a
child’s neck is relevant to the toddler
bed or how the cord and bed interact to
create the potential for strangulation.
Concern has been raised about the label
statement warning that a string, cord, or
ribbon around a child’s neck may catch
on bed parts. The concern is that the
label statement does not point out that
strings, cords, or ribbons around a
child’s neck can catch on many other
items as well and that the Commission
recommends against the use of such
items for children. The Commission
invites comments regarding this
concern.
F. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act
(‘‘APA’’) generally requires that the
effective date of a rule be at least 30
days after publication of the final rule.
5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for
toddler beds to come into compliance
after the final rule is issued, the
Commission proposes that the standard
would become effective 6 months after
publication of a final rule as to products
manufactured or imported on or after
that date. The Commission invites
comments on how long it would take
manufacturers of toddler beds to come
into compliance with the rule.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains
information collection requirements that
are subject to public comment and
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). We describe the provisions in
this section of the document with an
estimate of the annual reporting burden.
Our estimate includes the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing each
collection of information.
We particularly invite comments on:
(1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the CPSC’s functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
the CPSC’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques,
when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
Title: Safety Standard for Toddler
Beds.
Description: The proposed rule would
require each toddler bed and convertible
crib to comply with ASTM F 1821–09,
‘‘Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Toddler Beds.’’
Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 1821–09
contain requirements for marking and
instructional literature.
Description of Respondents: Persons
who manufacture or import toddler
beds.
We estimate the burden of this
collection of information as follows:
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Frequency of responses
Total Annual responses
Hours per response
Total burden
hours
44
10
440
0.5
220
There are no capital costs or operating
and maintenance costs associated with
this collection of information.
Our estimates are based on the
following:
Proposed § 1217.2(a) would require
each toddler bed and convertible crib to
comply with ASTM F 1821–09. Sections
8 and 9 of ASTM F 1821–09 contain
requirements for marking and
instructional literature that are
disclosure requirements, thus falling
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
within the definition of ‘‘collections of
information’’ at 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F 1821–09
requires that the name and place of
business (city, state, mailing address,
including zip code and telephone
number) of the manufacturer, importer,
distributor, of the manufacturer,
distributor, or seller be clearly and
legibly marked on each bed and its retail
carton. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM F 1821–
09 requires that each bed and its retail
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
carton be clearly and legibly marked
with the model number, stock number,
catalog number, item number, or other
symbol expressed numerically or
otherwise, such that only articles of
identical construction, composition and
dimensions bear identical markings and
requires the manufacturer to change the
model number whenever a significant
structural or design modification is
made that affects its conformance with
this consumer safety specification.
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
EP28AP10.003
Number of respondents
1217.2(a) ..........................................................
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
16 CFR Section
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Section 8.1.3 of ASTM F 1821–09
requires a code mark or other means
that identifies the date (month and year
as a minimum) of manufacture and
permits future identification of any
given model and that such mark be
clearly and legibly marked on each bed
and its retail carton.
There are 73 known firms supplying
toddler beds to the United States
market. Twenty-nine of the 48 firms are
known to already produce labels that
comply with sections 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and
8.1.3 of the standard, so there would be
no additional burden on these firms.
The remaining 44 firms are assumed to
already use labels on both their
products and their packaging, but would
need to make some modifications to
their existing labels. The estimated time
required to make these modification is
about 30 minutes per model. Assuming
that, on average, each of these firms
supplies 10 different models of toddler
beds or convertible cribs, the estimated
burden hours associated with labels is
30 minutes × 44 firms × 10 models per
firm = 13,200 minutes or 220 annual
hours.
The Commission estimates that
hourly compensation for the time
required to create and update labels is
$27.78 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
September 2009, all workers, goodsproducing industries, Sales and office,
Table 9). Therefore, the estimated
annual cost associated with the
Commission’s proposed labeling
requirements is approximately $6,112
($27.78 per hour × 220 hours =
$6,111.60, which we have rounded up
to $6,112).
Section 9.1 of ASTM F 1821–09
requires instructions, where applicable,
for assembly, maintenance, cleaning,
folding, and warning information to be
supplied with the bed. Toddler beds
and convertible cribs are products that
generally require some assembly and
maintenance, and products sold without
such information would not be able to
successfully compete with products
supplying this information. Under
OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)),
the time, effort, and financial resources
necessary to comply with a collection of
information that would be incurred by
persons in the ‘‘normal course of their
activities’’ are excluded from a burden
estimate where an agency demonstrates
that the disclosure activities needed to
comply are ‘‘usual and customary.’’
Therefore, because the CPSC is unaware
of toddler beds or convertible cribs that:
(a) Generally require some assembly and
maintenance, but (b) lack any
instructions to the user about these
topics, we tentatively estimate that there
are no burden hours associated with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
instruction requirement in section 9.1 of
ASTM F 1821–09. This is because any
burden associated with supplying
instructions with a toddler bed or
convertible crib would be ‘‘usual and
customary’’ and not within the
definition of ‘‘burden’’ under OMB’s
regulations.
Based on this analysis, the
requirements of the proposed toddler
bed rule would impose a burden to
industry of 220 hours at a cost of $6,112
annually.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the
information collection requirements of
this rule to OMB for review. Interested
persons are requested to fax comments
regarding this information collection by
May 28, 2010, to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB (see ADDRESSES).
I. Certification
Section 14(a) of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) imposes
the requirement that products subject to
a consumer product safety rule under
the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban,
standard, or regulation under any other
act enforced by the Commission, must
be certified as complying with all
applicable CPSC-enforced requirements.
15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification
must be based on a test of each product
or on a reasonable testing program or,
for children’s products, on tests on a
sufficient number of samples by a third
party conformity assessment body
accredited by the Commission to test
according to the applicable
requirements. As discussed above in
section H, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the
CPSIA refers to standards issued under
that section, such as the rule for toddler
beds being proposed in this notice, as
‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’
Furthermore, the designation as
consumer product safety standards
subjects such standards to certain
sections of the CPSA, such as section
26(a) regarding preemption. By the same
reasoning, such standards would also be
subject to section 14 of the CPSA.
Therefore, any such standard would be
considered to be a consumer product
safety rule to which products subject to
the rule must be certified.
In addition, the CPSIA is another act
enforced by the Commission, and the
standards issued under section
104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are similar to
consumer product safety rules. For this
reason also, toddler beds will need to be
tested and certified as complying with
the safety standard when it becomes
effective. Because toddler beds are
children’s products, they must be tested
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22297
by a third-party conformity assessment
body accredited by the Commission. In
the future, the Commission will issue a
notice of requirements to explain how
laboratories can become accredited as a
third party conformity assessment
bodies to test to the new safety standard.
(Toddler beds also must comply with all
other applicable CPSC requirements,
such as the lead content and phthalate
content requirements in sections 101
and 108 of the CPSIA, the tracking label
requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the
CPSA, and the consumer registration
form requirements in section 104 of the
CPSIA.) The Commission seeks
comment on what it may cost to comply
with all of the CPSC requirements
outlined above, including the proposed
modifications in section E, and how
these costs will impact toddler bed
manufacturers.
J. Environmental Considerations
The Commission’s environmental
review regulation at 16 CFR Part 1021
has established categories of actions that
normally have little or no potential to
affect the human environment and
therefore do not require either an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement. The
proposed rule is within the scope of the
Commission’s regulation, at 16 CFR
1021.5(c)(1), which provides a
categorical exclusion for rules to
provide design or performance
requirements for products. Thus, no
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement for this
rule is required.
K. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to
consider the impact of proposed rules
on small entities, including small
businesses. Section 603 of the RFA
requires that CPSC staff prepare an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis and
make it available to the public for
comment when the general notice of
proposed rulemaking is published. The
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
must describe the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities and
identify any alternatives that may
reduce the impact. Specifically, the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
must contain:
1. A description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply;
2. A description of the reasons why
action by the agency is being
considered;
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22298
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
3. A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
4. A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities subject to
the requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for the
preparation of reports or records; and
5. An identification, to the extent
possible, of all relevant federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
In addition, the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis must contain a
description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule that
would accomplish the stated objectives
of the proposed rule while minimizing
the economic impact on small entities.
Toddler beds and convertible cribs are
typically produced or marketed by
juvenile product manufacturers and
distributors or by furniture
manufacturers and distributors, some of
which have separate divisions for
juvenile products. The CPSC’s staff
believes that there are currently at least
73 known manufacturers or importers
that supply toddler beds and/or
convertible cribs to the United States
market. Approximately 48 suppliers are
domestic manufacturers (66 percent), 13
are domestic importers (18 percent), 11
are foreign manufacturers (15 percent),
and the remaining firm is a foreign
supplier who imports from other
countries and exports to the United
States. (For sources of information used
in this initial regulatory flexibility
analysis, see Ref. 5.)
Under Small Business Administration
(SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of
toddler beds or convertible cribs is
small if it has 500 or fewer employees
and an importer is small if it has 100 or
fewer employees. Based on these
guidelines, 11 of the domestic importers
and 34 domestic manufacturers known
to be supplying the United States
market are small. (Six of these small
domestic manufacturers have between
100 and 500 employees.) There are an
additional eight domestic manufacturers
of unknown size, most of which are
likely to be small as well. (In fact, there
was sufficient information to include
seven of these firms as small in the
analysis that follows.) However, there
are probably additional unknown small
manufacturers and importers operating
in the United States market as well.
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA), the major United
States trade association that represents
juvenile product manufacturers and
importers, runs a voluntary Certification
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
Program for several juvenile products.
Approximately 29 firms that supply
toddler beds and/or convertible cribs to
the United States market are compliant
with the current ASTM voluntary
standard (40 percent). (Twenty-six of
these firms are JPMA-certified as
compliant, while an additional three
firms claim compliance. Of the small
domestic businesses, 11 manufacturers
(27 percent) and 6 importers (55
percent) are JPMA-certified as ASTMcompliant. Additionally, there are two
small manufacturers that claim
compliance with the ASTM standard
that are not part of JPMA’s Certification
Program.
The most recent United States birth
data shows that there are approximately
4.3 million births per year. The vast
majority of these babies eventually use
cribs for sleeping purposes, although
there is some evidence that play yards
are becoming a common substitute. In
fact, according to a 2005 survey
conducted by the American Baby Group
(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study),
22 percent of new mothers own
convertible cribs. Approximately 16
percent of convertible cribs were
handed down or purchased secondhand.1 If these rates hold, this suggests
annual convertible crib sales of about
795,000 (0.22 × 0.84 × 4.3 million births
per year). Of those consumers with nonconvertible cribs, some proportion of
them will eventually use toddler beds
when their children get older. However,
consumers may choose to use a twin or
larger bed and use portable bed rails
rather than use a separate toddler bed.
Assuming that approximately 50
percent elect to use toddler beds and
that approximately 50 percent of those
buy them new, this would mean that
around 839,000 toddler beds are sold
per year (0.78 non-convertible cribs ×
4.3 million births × 0.5 use toddler beds
× 0.5 buy them new).2 Adding this to the
estimate of convertible cribs yields a
total of approximately 1.6 million units
(convertible cribs and toddler beds) sold
per year that might be affected by the
proposed toddler bed standard.
Reason for Agency Action and Legal
Basis for the Proposed Rule. Section 104
of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to
promulgate a mandatory standard for
toddler beds that is substantially the
1 The data on second-hand products for new
mothers was not available. Instead, data for new
mothers and expectant mothers was combined and
broken into first-time mothers and experienced
mothers. Data for first-time mothers and
experienced mothers was averaged to calculate the
approximate percentage that was handed down or
purchased second-hand.
2 Any per-year estimate for toddler beds will be
approximate since when parents make such a
purchase for their child is likely to vary.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
same as, or more stringent than, the
voluntary standard. The Commission is
proposing four additional requirements
to the current ASTM standard. The first
would assure more structurally sound
guardrails. The second is intended to
reduce the likelihood of entrapments
due to broken slats/spindles. The third
would improve the safety of guardrails
by adding height requirements. The
fourth, modified warnings, is intended
to emphasize that deaths in toddler beds
have occurred due to entrapments and
strangulation. The Commission
concludes that the more stringent
standard would reduce the risk of future
injuries and deaths associated with
toddler beds and convertible cribs.
Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule. The Commission
proposes adopting the voluntary ASTM
standard for toddler beds with four
additions. Key components of ASTM F
1821—09 include:
• Mattress retention requirements
intended to control the horizontal
position of the mattress and prevent
torso entrapments, as well as assure that
the mattress does not fall too far below
the mattress support when used by a
child of the maximum recommended
weight (50 lbs);
• Mattress support systems
requirements intended to prevent
disengagement which might result in a
sharp edge or an opening in which a
child might become entrapped;
• Requirements for mattress support
systems attached to end structures
intended to assure that the mattress
support system remains attached to the
end structures and does not create a
hazard, such as sharp edges or openings
in which a child might become
entrapped;
• Requirements for guardrails
intended to prevent openings in
guardrails in which children might be
trapped; and
• End structures intended to prevent
openings in end structures in which
children might be trapped.
The voluntary standard also includes:
(1) Requirements for several features to
prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum
and maximum opening size, hazardous
sharp points or edges, and edges that
can scissor, shear, or pinch); (2) torque
and tension tests to assure that
components cannot be removed; (3)
requirements for partially bounded
openings; (4) marking and labeling
requirements; (5) requirements for the
permanency and adhesion of labels; (6)
requirements for instructional literature;
and (7) requirements to address corner
post extensions, which may catch
various children’s items and pose a
choking hazard.
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Based on CPSC staff
recommendations, the Commission
proposes to modify the existing ASTM
standard by revising the entrapment/
strangulation warnings, and adding
three new requirements for guardrail
height, slat/spindle strength, and
structural integrity for guardrails:
• Guardrail height. The proposed rule
would require that guardrails be a
minimum height of 5 inches above the
manufacturer’s recommended sleeping
surface. This will help prevent falls.
• Slat/spindle strength. The proposed
rule adds a new requirement to test the
strength of spindles and slats in
guardrails, side rails, and end structures
using an 80-lb force.
• Structural integrity for guardrails.
In addition to the existing test for
guardrail openings, the proposed rule
would add a test for the overall stability
of guardrails using a 50-lb force while
the bed is firmly secured. This
additional test is intended to help
prevent children from falling out of bed;
it is also calculated to ensure that the
guardrails remain intact when children
lean against them or attempt to use them
to climb into bed.
• Entrapment/strangulation
warnings. The proposed rule would
modify the existing warnings by adding
a more detailed description of
mechanisms creating the hazard and
separating the entrapment and
strangulation messages into two
warning labels. This is intended to
increase the efficacy of the warning by
emphasizing the potential for death for
each of the two different mechanisms.
As explained earlier in section F of
this preamble, toddler beds and
convertible cribs entering commerce
would need to meet the new
requirements if they are manufactured
or imported after 6 months from the
date of publication of the final rule. In
other words, the standard, if finalized,
would not apply retroactively.
The recommended slat/spindle
strength requirement may help prevent
incidents where slats break and children
are either cut, fall through the opening,
or become entrapped. This proposed
modification to the current voluntary
standard could potentially add
significant costs to toddler bed and
convertible crib suppliers. Preliminary
testing indicates that some toddler beds
and convertible cribs currently on the
market would meet this requirement
with no further modifications, while
others would not.
Plastic toddler beds would be exempt
from the slat/spindle requirement,
because they do not have wooden slats/
spindles and have not been associated
with the hazards addressed by this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
requirement. Therefore, we believe that
some products will need to be modified
to meet the slat/spindle requirement,
which is likely to affect at least a few
firms.
Suppliers may also need to make
product modifications to meet the
revised structural integrity requirement
and new height requirement for
guardrails. No testing has been
performed so far that would indicate
how many products currently on the
market would meet these requirements,
but it appears that at least some
products will be able to meet the
guardrail height requirements. It is
possible for firms to eliminate guardrails
from their products entirely as a way to
address the proposed guardrails
requirements if they can comply with
the other requirements of the proposed
standard without the guardrail in place
(guardrails themselves are not required).
However, it would be unreasonable to
assume that all of the firms whose
products may require modifications can
or will take this approach. Therefore, it
is expected that at least some products
will require modifications to meet these
guardrail requirements and that at least
a few firms will be affected.
In meeting the slat/spindle strength
and guardrail structural integrity
requirements, it is possible that firms
may improve the quality of materials
used to make the slats/spindles or
guardrails. (Plastic toddler beds and
convertible cribs would not need to
make such modifications since they
have not been associated with the
identified risks from these parts.) For
wooden toddler beds and convertible
cribs, switching to a stronger material is
unlikely to exceed more than a few
dollars per unit. For example, using
white ash rather than western white
pine improves average strength
properties by an average of 74 percent
(https://www.woodbin.com/ref/wood/
strength_table.htm) while increasing the
price of the material by an average of 26
percent (https://
www.willardbrothers.net/
ORDER%20FORM.htm) for a maximum
of $1.55 more for the largest quantity
listed. These cost differentials are based
on raw lumber costs which would affect
firms differently, depending upon how
much wood was used in their particular
product. Metal toddler beds/convertible
cribs are less common than products
made from wood or plastic, but material
changes should not be substantially
more expensive than for wooden
products. Alternatively, firms could
undertake product redevelopment to
develop compliant toddler beds, which
would likely be more expensive than
using alternate materials. Therefore, it is
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22299
likely that at least some firms would
select the less expensive option.
Increasing the height of guardrails
may help prevent children from falling
from the bed. As discussed above, the
proposed rule would not require
guardrails to be included with toddler
beds or convertible cribs, so firms with
noncompliant products have the option
of eliminating guardrails entirely if their
products will comply with the other
requirements of the proposed standard
with the guardrails removed.
Alternatively, they could redesign their
product (or the guardrail portion of their
product) to make their guardrails higher.
If the second option is taken, there will
likely be some cost associated with
product redevelopment, as well as some
increased costs for additional materials.
The remaining requirements,
entrapment and strangulation warnings,
are expected to have only a minimal
impact on current suppliers of toddler
beds or convertible cribs. The revised
warnings would be only a minor
modification for firms currently
complying with the ASTM standard.
Even for those firms supplying toddler
beds without such a warning or with a
warning that differs from the one
outlined in the current voluntary
standard, the costs associated with
printing a revised warning or a
completely new warning would be low.
Other Federal Rules. CPSC staff has
not identified any federal or state rule
that either overlaps or conflicts with the
staff’s draft proposed rule.
Impact on Small Businesses. There
are 73 firms currently known to be
marketing toddler beds and/or
convertible cribs in the United States.
Six are large domestic manufacturers, 1
is a domestic manufacturer of unknown
size, 2 are large domestic importers, and
12 are foreign firms. The impact on the
remaining 52 small firms—34 firms
known to be small domestic
manufacturers, 7 firms that are
presumed to be small domestic
manufacturers, and 11 small domestic
importers—is the focus of the remainder
of this analysis.
Small Domestic Manufacturers. For
the most part, the impact of the
proposed standard on small
manufacturers will differ based on
whether they currently comply with the
voluntary ASTM standard. If they do
not, as is the case with 28 firms, the
impact could be significant. These firms
would likely have to undergo product
redevelopment. As explained below, the
cost of such an effort for toddler beds
and convertible cribs is unknown, but
could be substantial for some firms.
Product development costs include
product design, development and
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22300
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
marketing staff time, product testing,
and focus group expenses. These costs
can be very high, particularly when
there are multiple products, but they
can be treated as new product expenses
and amortized over time. If a firm deals
with multiple products subject to the
proposed standard, there may be some
economies of scale for some of these
development stages that would reduce
the marginal costs for each new product
being redeveloped. Other one-time costs
include the retooling of manufacturing
equipment, which could be gradually
recouped over the sales of numerous
units. There are also expected to be
increased costs of production.
Producing toddler beds and convertible
cribs that have greater structural
integrity, stronger slats/spindles, and
higher guardrails may require additional
raw materials or possibly heavier
materials. In addition to increasing the
costs of production, this could increase
shipping costs as well.
Even if these firms are able to pass
their increased costs on to consumers,
the impact could still be considerable.
This is because firms manufacturing
toddler beds and convertible cribs are
not simply competing against other
producers of toddler beds and
convertible cribs. They also compete
against producers of substitute products,
firms whose products would not be
subject to the proposed standard.
Toddler bed producers must compete
with producers of twin (or possibly
larger) beds that can be used with
portable guardrails, while convertible
cribs must compete with these same
products for larger children and with
standard cribs for smaller children.
There is expected to be less of an
impact on the 13 firms that are known
to comply with the current voluntary
standard. At least some of these firms
should be able to comply with the new
requirements without product
modifications other than labeling. The
remaining firms may opt to redesign
their products as well, which, again,
would result in some one-time costs and
a possible increase in production costs.
It is also possible, however, that they
may be able to select a potentially less
expensive option to address some of the
recommended requirements. A
modification in the materials used may
be sufficient for many products, and the
associated cost is not expected to exceed
a few dollars per unit.
There are two manufacturers that do
not comply with the current voluntary
ASTM standard that would be affected
differently by the proposed standard.
These firms take already manufactured
toddler beds and convertible cribs,
decorate them (often with original
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
artwork), and then sell them as a final
product. Because these firms do not
make the underlying toddler beds and
convertible cribs, the impact of the
proposed standard on these firms will
be the same as that of an importer.
These firms would need to find a new
supplier of compliant products if their
current supplier does not make the
necessary modifications. The new
products would presumably be of higher
quality, as well as more expensive since
some of the original manufacturer’s
production costs (and possibly
redevelopment costs) are likely to be
passed on to these firms.
The scenario described above assumes
that only those firms that are JPMAcertified or claim ASTM compliance
will pass the voluntary standard’s
requirements. This is not necessarily the
case. CPSC staff has identified many
cases where products not certified by
JPMA actually comply with the relevant
ASTM standard; however, there is
insufficient evidence of this for toddler
beds and convertible cribs to quantify
this impact. Additionally, the effect of
the new and modified requirements may
be less substantial than outlined above
to the extent that some products may
already comply with foreign standards
with some more rigorous requirements.
However, there is insufficient
information to quantify this effect.
Therefore, the Commission invites
comments from small businesses
affected by this proposal explaining the
economic impact it will impose on
them.
Small Domestic Importers. The
majority of small domestic importers
(six out of 11) comply with the current
voluntary standard. At least some of
these firms should not need to make any
product modifications (other than
labeling) to meet the proposed standard.
However, those whose products do
require modifications will need to find
an alternate supplier if their existing
one does not come into compliance. The
new products will presumably be of
higher quality, as well as more
expensive. However, the actual price
increase is unknown and likely to vary
based upon the degree of modification
required. All of the remaining five firms
not now in compliance with the ASTM
voluntary standard would need to either
require their current supplier to make
the modifications necessary to comply
with the standard or find other
suppliers that did comply. Depending
on the degree to which their toddler
beds and convertible cribs are out of
compliance with the voluntary
standard, the price increase (as well as
the increases in quality and safety)
could be relatively high. To the extent
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that some of these firms may actually
comply with the current voluntary
standard or one or more of the new/
modified requirements in the proposed
standard, the impact of the proposed
rule would be lower.
For the most part, the impact of the
proposed rule on importers should be
smaller than that on manufacturers.
Even if importers respond to the rule by
discontinuing the import of
noncomplying toddler beds and
convertible cribs, either by replacing
them with a complying product or
another juvenile product, deciding to
import an alternative product would be
a reasonable and realistic way to offset
any lost revenue. The one exception
would be firms for which convertible
cribs or toddler beds and their
associated products (i.e., matching
furniture) form the core of their product
line. For these firms, a substantial price
increase could possibly drive them out
of business or require them to rebuild
their business based on alternative
products.
Alternatives. Under section 104 of the
CPSIA, the primary alternative that
would reduce the impact on small
entities is to make the voluntary
standard mandatory with no
modifications. (This option may not be
feasible, given the CPSIA’s direction for
the Commission to issue more stringent
standards if that would further reduce
the risk of injury associated with
durable nursery products.) For small
domestic manufacturers that already
meet the requirements of the voluntary
standard, adopting the standard without
modifications may reduce their costs
relative to the proposed rule, but only
marginally. Similarly, limiting the
requirements of a final rule to those now
in the voluntary standard would
probably have little beneficial impact on
small manufacturers that do not
currently meet the requirements of the
voluntary standard. This is because, for
these firms, most of the cost increases
would be associated with meeting the
requirements of the current voluntary
standard, rather than the changes
associated with the proposed rule. The
difference for importers, whether
compliant with the voluntary standard
or not, is also likely to be minimal.
Conclusion. The proposed rule could
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Even if all the small firms that are
JPMA-certified as compliant with
ASTM’s voluntary standard did not
require any changes other than labeling
to comply with the proposed standard,
there would still be 63 percent (33 out
of 52 firms) that would probably need
to redevelop their products to comply.
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
This would typically need to be done
for multiple products for each firm. (To
the extent that some of the products not
certified by JPMA may still comply, the
impact will be reduced.) Firms
supplying products that already comply
with the voluntary standard may not
need to make any product modifications
(other than labeling) to meet the
proposed rule, but this applies to only
42 percent of the known small firms.
Some of these firms, and basically all of
the other small firms, will need to make
at least some modifications to their
toddler beds and convertible cribs to
comply with the proposed rule. The
extent of these costs is unknown, but
since product redevelopment would
likely be necessary in many cases, it is
possible that the costs could be large
and have the potential to reduce firms’
ability to compete with substitute
products.
Nineteen small businesses are
believed to have product lines
consisting entirely or primarily of
toddler beds, convertible cribs, and
related products (such as accompanying
furniture). These firms may be affected
disproportionately by the proposed rule.
If the cost of developing (or importing)
a compliant product proves to be a
barrier for these firms, the loss of
toddler beds and convertible cribs as a
product category could be significant
and may not be easily mitigated by the
sale of other juvenile products.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
L. Request for Comments
All interested persons are invited to
submit their comments to the
Commission on any aspect of the
proposed rule. Comments should be
submitted in accordance with the
instructions in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this notice.
M. References
1. CPSC staff memorandum, from
Celestine T. Kiss, Project Manager,
Division of Human Factors, Directorate
for Engineering Sciences, and Robert J.
Howell, Assistant Executive Director,
Office of Hazard Identification and
Reduction, ‘‘Staff’s Draft Proposed Rule
for toddler Beds,’’ March 3, 2010, with
Tabs A–D.
2. CPSC staff memorandum, from
Risana T. Chowdhury, Division of
Hazard Analysis, to Celestine T. Kiss,
Division of Human Factors, Directorate
for Engineering Sciences, ‘‘Toddler
Beds-Related Deaths, Injuries and
Potential Injuries, and NEISS Injury
Estimates; 2005–Present,’’ January 28,
2010 (Tab A to Ref. 1).
3. CPSC staff memorandum, from
Jacob J. Miller, Division of Mechanical
Engineering, Directorate for Engineering
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
Sciences, to Celestine T. Kiss, Project
Manager, Division of Human Factors,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences,
‘‘Proposed Changes to ASTM F 1821–09,
Standard consumer Safety Specification
for Toddler Beds, for Incorporation in
Staff’s Draft Proposed Rule,’’ February
23, 2010 (Tab B to Ref. 1).
4. CPSC staff memorandum, from
Timothy P. Smith, Engineering
Psychologist, Division of Human
Factors, Directorate for engineering
Sciences, to Celestine T. Kiss, Project
Manager, Division of Human Factors,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences,
‘‘Warning Statements for Toddler Beds
(CPSIA Section 104),’’ March 3, 2010
(Tab C to Ref. 1).
5. CPSC staff memorandum, from Jill
L. Jenkins, Ph.D., Economist, Directorate
for Economic Analysis, to Celestine T.
Kiss, Project Manager for Toddler Beds,
Division of Human Factors, Directorate
for Engineering Sciences, ‘‘Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
Proposed Standard for Toddler Beds,’’
February 18, 2010 (Tab D to Ref. 1).
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1217
Consumer protection, Infants and
children, Incorporation by reference,
Law enforcement, Safety, Toddler beds.
For the reasons stated above, and
under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553, and
sections 3 and 104 of Public Law 110–
314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008),
the Consumer Product Safety
Commission proposes to add a new 16
CFR part 1217 as follows:
PART 1217—SAFETY STANDARD FOR
TODDLER BEDS
Sec.
1217.1 Scope, application, and effective
date.
1217.2 Requirements for toddler beds.
Authority: Sections 3 and 104 of Pub. L.
110–314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
§ 1217.1
date.
Scope, application, and effective
This part 1217 establishes a consumer
product safety standard for toddler beds
manufactured or imported after 6
months after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register.
§ 1217.2
Requirements for toddler beds.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, each toddler bed as
defined in ASTM F 1821–09, Standard
Consumer Safety Specification for
Toddler Beds, approved April 1, 2009,
shall comply with all applicable
provisions of ASTM F 1821–09, as that
standard is amended by this part 1217.
The Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22301
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy
of this ASTM standard from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428–2959 USA, phone: 610–832–
9585; https://www.astm.org/. You may
inspect copies at the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Comply with ASTM 1821–09 with
the following additions or exclusions.
(1) Instead of the section number of
section 6.5 and its introductory heading
‘‘Guardrails—’’ comply with the
following:
(i) 6.5.1
(ii) Reserved.
(2) In addition to section 6.4 of ASTM
F 1821–09, comply with the following:
(i) 6.5 Guardrails:
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) In addition to complying with the
provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this section, comply with the
following:
(i) 6.5.2 The upper edge of the
guardrails shall be at least 5 in. (130
mm) above the sleeping surface when a
mattress of a thickness that is the
maximum specified by the
manufacturer’s instructions is used.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) In addition to section 6.4 of ASTM
1821–09 comply with the following:
(i) 6.8 Structural Integrity of
Guardrails—After testing in accordance
with 7.9, there shall be none of the
hazardous conditions described in
Section 5.
(ii) [Reserved.]
(5) In addition to the changes to
ASTM 1821–09 in paragraphs (b) (1), (2)
and (3) of this section comply with the
following:
(i) 6.9 Slat/Spindle Strength—
Toddler beds that contain wooden or
metal slats or spindles shall meet the
performance requirements outlined in
section 6.9.1.
(A) 6.9.1 After testing in accordance
with the procedure in 7.10, there shall
be no slat or spindle breakage or
separation of a slat or spindle from the
guardrails, side rails, or end structures.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) In addition to section 7.8 of ASTM
1821–09 comply with the following:
(i) 7.9 Test Method for Guardrail
Structural Integrity:
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
22302
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
section 8.4.4, all toddler beds shall bear
the following label, exactly as depicted:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
EP28AP10.005
toddler beds by section 8.4.3, shall bear
the following label, exactly as depicted:
(iii) 8.4.5 In addition to the label
allowed by section 8.4.3 or required by
previously tested under 7.10.2 and
7.10.3. This force shall be applied
through a contact area large enough to
not cause visible indentation or cutting
of the spindle/slat, but not wider than
1 in. (2.54 cm) when measured parallel
to the longitudinal axis of the spindle/
slat. This force shall be maintained for
30 s.
(E) 7.10.5 End vertical rails that are
joined between the slat assembly top
and bottom rails are not considered slats
and do not require testing under 7.10.
(ii) [Reserved]
(8) Comply with ASTM 1821–09
section 8.4. Instead of complying with
section 8.4.3, including the warning
label, and sections 8.4.4 through 8.4.5 of
ASTM 1821–09, use the following:
(i) 8.4.3 Toddler beds that meet the
performance requirements of sections
5.8.2 (torso entrapment), 6.1 (mattress
retention), 6.2 (mattress support system
integrity), 6.3 (mattress support system
attachment to end structures), 6.4
(mattress support system openings), 6.6
(end structure openings), and 6.7
(partially bounded openings) with the
guardrails removed may bear the
following label, exactly as depicted,
instead of the label required by section
8.4.4:
28APP1
EP28AP10.004
contoured shall be free to deflect under
the applied force.
(B) 7.10.2 Gradually, over a period
of not less than 2 s or greater than 5 s,
apply the force specified in 7.10.3 or
7.10.4 at the midpoint between the top
and bottom of the spindle/slat being
tested. This force shall be applied
through a contact area large enough to
not cause visible indentation or cutting
of the spindle/slat, but not wider than
1 in. (2.54 cm) when measured parallel
to the longitudinal axis of the spindle/
slat. This weight shall be maintained for
30 seconds.
(C) 7.10.3 Test, according to 7.10.2,
25% (or the next highest percentage if
4 does not divide evenly into the total
number) of all spindles/slats with a
force of 80 lb. Spindles/slats that offer
the least resistance to bending based
upon their geometry shall be selected to
be tested within this grouping of 25%,
except that adjacent spindles/slats shall
not be tested per 7.10.2. Place an
identifying mark on all tested spindles/
slats.
(D) 7.10.4 Upon completion of the
test described in 7.10.2 and 7.10.3,
gradually apply, over a period of not
less than 2 s or greater than 5 s, 60 lbf
(266.9 N) at the midpoint between the
top and bottom of all spindles/slats not
(ii) 8.4.4 All toddler beds that do not
bear the label allowed for certain
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
(A) 7.9.1 Firmly secure the toddler
bed on a stationary flat surface using
clamps. Gradually apply 50 lbf to the
uppermost horizontal part of the
mattress side of the guardrail in a
direction perpendicular to the plane of
the rail. The force should be applied in
the center along the length of the rail
and then repeated with the force
applied directly over each of the
outermost legs of the guardrail. The
force should be applied in the direction
away from the mattress within a period
of 5 s and maintained for an additional
10 s.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(7) In addition to the changes to
ASTM 1821–09 in paragraph (b)(5) of
this section comply with the following:
(i) 7.10 Slat/Spindle Testing for
Guardrails, Side Rails, and End
Structures:
(A) 7.10.1 The spindle/slat static
load test shall be performed for all slats
and spindles with the spindle/slat
assemblies removed from the bed and
supported only on the rail corners
through a contact area not more than 3
square inches when measured parallel
to the longitudinal axis of the end of the
rail. Besides the corners, the upper and
lower horizontal rails of both linear and
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules
submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
To ensure timely processing of
comments, the Commission is no longer
accepting comments submitted by
electronic mail (e-mail) except through
https://www.regulations.gov.
[FR Doc. 2010–6947 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1218
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0028]
Safety Standard for Bassinets and
Cradles: Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the
United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
to promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler
products. These standards are to be
‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable
voluntary standards or more stringent
than the voluntary standard if the
Commission concludes that more
stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
the product. The Commission is
proposing a more stringent safety
standard for bassinets and cradles that
will further reduce the risk of injury
associated with these products.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by July 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments relating to the
instructional literature and marking
required by the proposed rule relating to
the Paperwork Reduction Act should be
directed to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC
Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or
e-mailed to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket
No. CPSC–2010–llll, may be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Apr 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
https://www.regulations.gov. Do not
submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or
other sensitive or protected information
electronically. Such information should
be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Han
Lim, Project Manager, Directorate for
Engineering Sciences, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 EastWest Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301) 504–7538;
hlim@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background and Statutory Authority
The Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
110–314 (‘‘CPSIA’’) was enacted on
August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA requires the Commission to
promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler
products. These standards are to be
‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable
voluntary standards or more stringent
than the voluntary standard if the
Commission concludes that more
stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with
the product. In this document the
Commission proposes a safety standard
for bassinets and cradles. The proposed
standard is more stringent in some
respects than the voluntary standard
developed by ASTM International
(formerly the American Society for
Testing and Materials), ASTM F 2194–
07a ε1, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Bassinets and Cradles.’’
The proposed modifications, if
finalized, will further reduce the risk of
injury associated with bassinets and
cradles.
B. The Product
A bassinet or cradle is a small bed for
infants supported by free-standing legs,
a wheeled base, a rocking base, or that
can swing relative to a stationary base.
A bassinet or cradle is not intended to
be used with children who are beyond
the age of approximately 5 months.
Bassinet and cradle attachments for
non-full-size cribs or play yards are
considered a part of this product
category, as are bedside sleeper
bassinets that can be converted to a
four-sided bassinet not attached to a
bed.
Full-size cribs and infant swings are
not included under the definition of
bassinet or cradle. Products used in
conjunction with infant swings or
strollers or Moses baskets (handcarrying baskets) are not included under
the definition of bassinet or cradle.
However, a Moses basket or a similar
product used with infant swings or
strollers that can attach to a separate
base which can convert it to a bassinet
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
EP28AP10.006
Dated: March 24, 2010
Todd Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
22303
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22291-22303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6947]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 22291]]
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1217
[No. CPSC-2010-0022]
RIN 3041-AC79
Safety Standard for Toddler Beds
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
of 2008 (``CPSIA'') requires the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (``Commission,'' ``CPSC'') to promulgate consumer product
safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These
standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the
Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission
is proposing a safety standard for toddler beds in response to the
direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. The proposed safety
standard would address entrapment in bed end structures, entrapment
between the guardrail and side rail, entrapment in the mattress support
system, and component failures of the bed support system and
guardrails. The proposed standard also addresses corner post extensions
that can catch items worn by a child.
DATES: Submit comments by July 12, 2010.
Submit comments relating to the instructional literature and bed
and carton marking required by the proposed rule, as these materials
relate to the Paperwork Reduction Act, by May 28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments relating to the instructional literature and bed
and carton marking required by the proposed rule relating to the
Paperwork Reduction Act should be directed to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-
6974, or e-mailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0022, may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
1. Electronic Submissions. Submit electronic comments to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. (To ensure timely processing of
comments, the Commission is no longer directly accepting comments
submitted by electronic mail (e-mail). The Commission encourages you to
submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.)
2. Written Submissions. Submit written submissions in the following
ways:
a. Fax: 301-504-0127.
b. Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received, including
any personal information provided, may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov">https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=https://www.regulations.gov. Accordingly, we recommend that you not submit
confidential business information, trade secret information, or other
sensitive information that you do not want to be available to the
public.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, CPSC 2010-0022, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical information: Celestine Kiss,
Division of Human Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,
MD 20814; telephone (301)504-7739, e-mail ckiss@cpsc.gov. Legal
information: Harleigh Ewell, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301)504-7683; e-mail hewell@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background--The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act as Applied
to Durable Infant or Toddler Products
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (``CPSIA,''
Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the
CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety
standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are
to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary standards or
more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes
that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of
injury associated with the product. The term ``durable infant or
toddler product'' is defined in section 104(f) of the CPSIA as a
durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to
be used, by children under the age of 5 years. Toddler beds are one of
the products specifically identified in section 104(f)(2) of the CPSIA
as a durable infant or toddler product.
In this document, the Commission proposes a safety standard for
toddler beds. The proposed standard is largely the same as a voluntary
standard developed by ASTM International (formerly the American Society
for Testing and Materials), ASTM F 1821-09 Standard Consumer Safety
Specification for Toddler Beds, but with several modifications that
strengthen the standard. The ASTM standard is copyrighted, but can be
viewed as a read-only document, only during the comment period on this
proposal, at https://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by permission of ASTM.
Documents that support statements in this notice are identified by
[Ref. ], where is the number of the reference
document as listed below in section M of this notice.
B. The Product
The ASTM voluntary standard defines a toddler bed as any bed sized
to accommodate a full-size crib mattress having minimum dimensions of
51\5/8\ inches in length and 27\1/4\ inches in width and that is
intended to provide free access and egress to a child not less
[[Page 22292]]
than 15 months of age and weighing no more than 50 pounds.
C. Incident Data [Ref. 2]
1. Introduction. CPSC databases did not have a dedicated product
code for identifying incidents before 2005 that involved toddler beds.
Accordingly, the data discussed below begins with the year 2005. The
data come from two databases: (1) Actual injuries and fatalities of
which the Commission is aware; and (2) estimates derived from reports
of emergency-room treatment in a statistical sample of hospitals that
makes up the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(``NEISS''). The CPSC staff is aware of 4 fatalities and 81 nonfatal
incidents (with and without injuries) related to toddler beds that were
reported to have occurred since 2005.
2. Fatalities. Of the four fatalities reported to CPSC staff, two
resulted from entrapments. The first death was the result of a 6-month-
old infant getting entrapped in the footboard while sleeping on a
toddler bed. The second death involved a 13-month-old getting entrapped
in the side rail of a flipped-over toddler bed while playing with an
older sibling. The third death was due to asphyxiation when a 10-month-
old was napping in an inflatable children's bed. (Although an
inflatable children's bed does not meet the definition of a toddler bed
that is in ASTM F 1821-09, this incident was coded as associated with a
toddler bed.) The last fatality was a strangulation death of a 3-year-
old on the cord of mini blinds located over his toddler bed. (The ASTM
F 1821-09 standard addresses this hazard with a warning label. The
Commission does not have information indicating whether the toddler bed
involved in this death bore such a warning label.) It is notable that
three of the four reported fatalities involved victims under the age of
15 months, which is recommended in the current ASTM voluntary standard
as the minimum age for use of a toddler bed. The ASTM standard requires
a label warning against using the bed with children under 15 months.
3. Nonfatal Incidents. Of the 81 nonfatal incidents known to the
CPSC staff that were associated with a child on a toddler bed, 26
involved injuries. Three of the injuries were fractures of limbs. The
vast majority of the injuries were bumps and bruises. Sprains, scrapes,
and lacerations were some of the other reported injuries associated
with toddler beds.
Listed below are the hazard patterns identified among the reports
of nonfatal incidents:
Entrapment was the most commonly reported hazard.
Approximately 31 percent of the incidents involved entrapment of a
limb. The associated injuries, if any, ranged from fractures to sprains
to bruises. More serious, potentially fatal, entrapments of head or
body in the side rails, in the mesh covering of the side rails, or
between the mattress-support rails were reported in 14 percent of the
incidents.
Broken, loose, or detached components of the bed, such as
the guardrail, hardware, or other accessories, were the next most
commonly reported problems. However, only two injuries--one laceration
and one ingestion--resulted from these problems.
Product integrity issues, mostly integrity of the
mattress-support, were the next most commonly encountered hazard. These
often resulted in the collapse of the bed, causing the child to fall
through.
Inadequate mattress-fit issues were the next most common
hazard. A few children suffered sprains and broken limbs from being
caught in the gap between the mattress and the bed frame.
Finally, there were some complaints of paint/coating
issues, bed height/clearance issues, and inadequacy of guardrails,
assembly instructions, and recalls.
Among the nonfatal incidents that reported the child's age (67 out
of 81), the age ranged between 11 months to 6 years. Nearly 66 percent
of these incidents reported the age to be between 15 and 24 months.
About 16 percent of the incidents involved children less than 15 months
of age. However, it was not always clear that the reported age
pertained to the child who was the regular user of the toddler bed.
Three of the 81 nonfatal incident reports involved inflatable
children's beds, which do not conform to the ASTM definition of toddler
beds and are not included within the scope of the proposed standard.
4. National Injury Estimates. There were an estimated 1,380
injuries related to toddler beds that were treated in hospital
emergency departments in the United States over the 4-year period from
2005 to 2008. The injury estimates for individual years are not
reportable because the numbers each year fail to meet NEISS's
publication criteria. There was no statistically significant increase
or decrease observed in the estimated injuries from one year to the
next, and there was no statistically significant trend observed over
the 2005-2008 period. No deaths were reported through NEISS. For the
emergency department-treated injuries related to toddler beds, the
following characteristics occurred most frequently:
Hazard--falls out of the toddler bed to a lower level
(87%).
Injured body part--head (30%) and face (24%).
Injury type--lacerations (26%) and contusions/abrasions
(20%).
Disposition--treated and released (nearly 100%).
The age of patients in these injuries ranged between 4 months and 6
years, with nearly 53 percent between 18 months and 2 years. It was not
always clear whether the patient injured was the usual user of the
toddler bed.
D. The ASTM Voluntary Standard
The ASTM F 1821-09 voluntary standard contains requirements
addressing a number of hazards. The requirements include:
1. Toddler beds must comply with CPSC's regulations at 16 CFR part
1303 (ban of lead in paint), 1500.48 (sharp points), 1500.49 (sharp
edges), 1500.50 through 1500.53 (use and abuse tests), and part 1501
(small parts that present choking, aspiration, or ingestion hazards),
both before and after the product is tested according to the standard.
2. Toddler beds must not present scissoring, shearing, or pinching
hazards.
3. Openings must meet specified dimensions in order to prevent
finger entrapment.
4. Openings that will permit passage of a specified block with a
wedge on one end are prohibited in order to protect against torso
entrapment.
5. The distance that corner posts may extend above the upper edge
of an end or side panel is limited.
6. Protective components shall not be removable with a specified
force after torque and tension tests.
7. There are requirements for marking and labeling each bed and its
retail carton, and for warning statements on the bed. There are
requirements for the permanency of labels and warnings.
8. The mattress shall be supported and contained so that it does
not move horizontally to cause a horizontal opening that will allow the
passage of the wedge block when tested.
9. There are tests for the physical integrity of the mattress
support system and its attachments and the side rails.
10. There are wedge block tests for openings in the guardrails and
end structures that could cause entrapment.
11. There is a probe test to protect against entrapment in
partially-bounded openings in the bed.
[[Page 22293]]
12. Instructions must be provided with the bed.
13. Warning statements are required on the bed to address
entrapment and strangulation hazards.
E. Description of the Proposed Rule and Its Changes to the ASTM
Standard
Due to the significant number of incidents reported regarding
component failures of bed support systems and guardrails, the
Commission's staff has recommended additional testing requirements to
address those types of incidents. Accordingly, the Commission proposes
a new 16 CFR 1217 that, if finalized, would adopt the ASTM standard F
1821-09 by reference, but with some changes and additions that would
strengthen the ASTM standard's provisions.
1. Scope, Application, and Effective Date (Proposed Sec. 1217.1)
Proposed Sec. 1217.1 would state that part 1217 establishes a
consumer product safety standard for toddler beds manufactured or
imported after a date that would be 6 months after the publication date
of a final rule in the Federal Register.
2. Requirements for Toddler Beds (Proposed Sec. 1217.2)
a. The Applicable ASTM Standard (Proposed Sec. 1217.2(a))
Proposed Sec. 1217.2(a) would explain that, except as provided in
Sec. 1217.2(b), each toddler bed as defined in ASTM F 1821-09,
``Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler Beds,'' must
comply with all applicable provisions in ASTM F 1821-09. The proposal
also would explain how interested parties may obtain a copy of the ASTM
standard or inspect a copy at the CPSC.
b. Minimum Height for the Upper Edge of Guardrails (Proposed Sec.
1217.2(b)(1) Through (3))
Proposed Sec. 1217.2(b)(1) through (3) would revise the ASTM
standard to require that guardrails be a minimum height of 5 inches
above the manufacturer's recommended sleeping surface. This is intended
to help prevent falls. Although the proposed standard does not require
guardrails, persons who choose to have guardrails on their toddler beds
should be able to rely on the guardrail performing the function of
helping to prevent falls. The 5-inch minimum height is widely adopted
by industry as a minimum height for guardrails in bunk beds [Ref. 3].
c. Structural Integrity of Guardrails (Proposed Sec. 1217.2(b)(4) and
1217.2(b)(6))
In addition to the already existing test for guardrail openings,
the Commission, at proposed Sec. 1217.2(b)(4) and 1217.2(b)(6), would
add a test for the overall stability of guardrails using a 50-lb force
while the bed is firmly secured. The force is to be applied in the
center along the length of the guardrail and then repeated with the
force applied directly over each of the outermost legs of the
guardrail. This additional test is intended to prevent children from
falling out of bed; it is also calculated to ensure that the guardrails
remain intact when children lean against them or attempt to use them to
climb into bed. The 50-lb force was chosen because that is the maximum
weight of a child that should use a toddler bed [Ref. 3]. After testing
in accordance with 7.9, the guardrail shall not be broken or detached
or create a condition that would present any of the hazards described
in section 5. The guardrail also shall not be deformed or displaced so
as to create a hazard addressed by the performance requirements of
section 6.
d. Slat/Spindle Testing for Guardrails, Side Rails, and End Structures
(Proposed Sec. 1217.2(b)(5) and 1217.2(b)(7))
Currently, the torso wedge is used in combination with a 25-pound
force (``lbf'') on guardrails and end structures in the most adverse
orientation to assure that the slats or spindles (hereafter referred to
collectively as ``slats'') do not break and allow an opening in which a
child could become entrapped. Proposed Sec. 1217.2(b)(5) and
1217.2(b)(7) would modify the existing ASTM test requirements in the
following ways.
First, 25 percent of all slats, rather than just those of the end
structures and guardrails, would be tested using 80 lbf instead of 25
lbf. The slats that present the least resistance to bending shall make
up the 25 percent, except that when a slat is selected for testing with
80 lbf, neither of its adjacent slats shall be tested at that force.
The 80 lbf is chosen on the basis of tests performed by the
Commission's staff on 18 cribs or toddler beds that were involved in
actual breakage incidents in the field (``incident beds'') and on two
samples of a model of a crib that has been widely sold to consumers and
has not been reported to have been involved in a breakage incident
(``the non-incident crib'') [Ref. 3].
There is very little anthropometric data available to help
determine the forces a child can apply to a bed slat. The tests of the
slats of the non-incident crib produced failures of the slats at forces
ranging from 85 lb to 123.5 lb [Ref. 3]. Since there have not been any
incidents reported for this model crib despite its wide distribution,
it is reasonable to conclude that the occupants of this crib can exert
a force on the slats that is somewhat less than the minimum failure
force of 85 lb obtained for this crib. The 18 incident beds tested had
minimum failure forces ranging from 28.8 lb to 78.8 lb [Ref. 3]. Taken
together, these two sets of failure forces support setting a maximum
test force of 80 lb.
However, when testing the non-incident crib model, the Commission's
staff observed that testing adjacent slats significantly compromised
the integrity of the bed rails [Ref. 3]. This occurred even at the
lower end of the range of failure forces, i.e., 85 to 90 lb. Therefore,
it is plausible that testing all slats to 80 lbf would have a similar
effect and be too stringent a test. Accordingly, the Commission is
proposing that 25 percent of the slats be tested to 80 lbf so that
adjacent slats would not have to be tested at that force. The
Commission proposes that the remaining 75 percent of slats be tested at
60 lbf. This reduction in force is intended to compensate for any
damage to the bed rail caused by testing an adjacent slat to 80 lbf and
is a much higher force than the 25 lbf specified in the current ASTM
standard. The Commission concludes that the force of 60 lb is adequate
for these remaining slats since the slats with geometry that is most
likely to bend (and thus break) will have been tested to the full 80
lbf.
e. Improved Warning Label (Proposed Sec. 1217.2(b)(8)) [Ref. 4]
ASTM F 1821-09 is intended to minimize entrapments in bed end
structures, between the guardrail and side rail, and in the mattress
support system. Entrapment of a child's head or neck can result in
asphyxiation. Section 8.4 of ASTM F 1821-09 specifies warning
statements to be included on toddler beds. Section 8.4.3 of ASTM F
1821-09 states that the warnings shall include the following label,
exactly as stated:
[[Page 22294]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP10.000
Section 8.4.4 of ASTM F 1821-09 specifies additional required
warning statements that address the following:
1. The minimum mattress dimensions for use on the bed;
2. The use of provided guardrails to avoid the formation of gaps
that could pose an entrapment hazard;
3. The placement of the bed relative to cords from blinds or
drapes;
4. The placement of strings, cords, or similar objects around a
child's neck; and
5. The suspension of strings over the bed.
Like the warning label specified in section 8.4.3 of ASTM F 1821-
09, all of these additional warning statements appear to be intended to
address entrapment and strangulation hazards. Proposed Sec.
1217.2(b)(6) would revise these warning requirements to reduce the risk
of injury associated with the use of toddler beds.
The Commission's Human Factors staff believes that the warnings
section of ASTM F 1821-09 is confusing as it is currently organized,
with explicit warning language for only certain information,
``additional'' warning statements that leave the applicable hazards
open to interpretation, and redundancies between these two sets of
required warning information [Ref. 4]. The additional warning
statements specified in section 8.4.4 of ASTM F 1821-09 apparently
address the same hazards addressed by the warning label specified in
section 8.4.3 of ASTM F 1821-09. (Section 8.4.4.3 of ASTM F 1821-09
requires an additional warning statement about placing the bed near the
cords of blinds and drapes, yet this issue is already addressed
explicitly in the warning label specified in 8.4.3 of ASTM F 1821-09.)
In addition, the warning label specified in section 8.4.3 of ASTM F
1821-09 merges two distinct hazards into a single label, making it
difficult to tell what warning information is associated with each
hazard. To address these issues, the Human Factors staff suggested that
all of the required warnings specified in section 8.4 of ASTM F 1821-09
be presented as two separate warnings, one addressing the entrapment
hazard and the other addressing the strangulation hazard, and proposed
Sec. 1217.2(b)(8) reflects the two warnings.
(i) Entrapment warning.
ASTM F 1821-09 specifies different warning requirements for toddler
beds that employ a removable guardrail as the mattress containment
means. Specifically, section 8.4.4.2 of ASTM F 1821-09 states that
toddler beds that employ a removable guardrail for this purpose shall
include a warning statement telling consumers that the guardrail must
be used to avoid the formation of a gap between the mattress and the
bed that could cause entrapment. However, this warning statement would
not be needed for toddler beds that did not present an entrapment
hazard with the guardrail removed. Thus, the Commission proposes that
this warning statement would not be required for toddler beds that meet
the performance requirements of sections 5.8.2 (torso entrapment), 6.1
(mattress retention), 6.2 (mattress support system integrity), 6.3
(mattress support system attachment to end structures), 6.4 (mattress
support system openings), 6.6 (end structure openings), and 6.7
(partially bounded openings) of ASTM F 1821-09 with the guardrails
removed. With this in mind, the Commission proposes two alternative
labels that address the entrapment hazard: One for toddler beds with
removable guardrails that will not meet these performance requirements
with the guardrail removed and one for all other toddler beds.
The entrapment warning for beds with removable guardrails where the
beds present an entrapment hazard when the guardrails are removed would
read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP10.001
The entrapment warning for all other beds would read as follows:
[[Page 22295]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP10.002
These warnings would use the type-size requirements described in
the standard, and the safety alert symbol design is consistent with the
latest version of ANSI Z535.4 (2007), American National Standard for
Product Safety Signs and Labels. The primary differences between these
proposed warnings and the relevant portions of the current ASTM
warnings are the following:
1. The proposed warnings do not state ``ENTRAPMENT HAZARD,'' which
would be analogous to the original ``ENTRAPMENT/STRANGULATION HAZARD''
statement in the original warning;
2. The proposed warning places greater emphasis on the
subpopulation most at risk and the hazard consequences;
3. The proposed warning includes a more explicit description of the
mechanism that creates the entrapment hazard; and
4. The proposed warning omits the statement in the label in the
voluntary standard concerning the possibility of serious injury or
death from not following the warnings.
To the CPSC staff's knowledge, the minimum age recommendation of 15
months for toddler beds is based largely on the increased entrapment
potential for children younger than this. Thus, the statement that
``[i]nfants have died in toddler beds from entrapment and
strangulation,'' which appears in the original warning, has been
carried over, with deletion of the reference to the strangulation
hazard, to the proposed entrapment warning label as, ``Infants have
died in toddler beds from entrapment.'' Given that this statement
already explicitly references ``entrapment,'' the CPSC staff concluded
that including an initial ``ENTRAPMENT HAZARD'' statement would
introduce unnecessary redundancy. Furthermore, omitting this statement
from the warning allows greater emphasis on the consequences of the
hazard (death, in this case) and the subpopulation most at risk of
dying from exposure to the hazard. This greater emphasis on the
consequences of the hazard is done by: (1) Moving the statement,
``Infants have died in toddler beds from entrapment,'' toward the
beginning of the warning message; and (2) reformatting this statement
in all-uppercase, boldface type. The ASTM F 1821 subcommittee has
pointed out that there continue to be incidents with toddler beds
involving children younger than the intended age for these products, so
emphasizing the at-risk population is important [Ref. 4]. In addition,
warnings and persuasion research has found that the degree of
seriousness of a perceived threat plays a significant role in whether
one complies with a warning, so emphasizing the potential for death
would tend to increase the efficacy of a warning [Ref. 4].
The statement in the original warning, ``Failure to follow these
warnings * * * could result in serious injury or death,'' is unlikely
to have a substantial impact on injuries or warning compliance. The
warning already communicates the safety importance of its content via a
safety alert symbol, the word ``WARNING,'' and a description of the
hazard and its consequences, so telling consumers that not following
the warning could result in serious injury or death is redundant at
best. In contrast, explicit hazard information in a warning has been
found to lead to higher levels of perceived hazardousness and greater
intent to comply with the warning. The original warning message did not
specify the source of entrapment or how entrapment might lead to death,
and it is unclear whether many consumers could readily and correctly
infer this information. The sentence, ``Openings in and between bed
parts can entrap head and neck of a small child,'' is intended to
remedy this situation by providing a more explicit description of the
mechanism that creates the hazard. The Commission also is keeping the
warning to follow the assembly instructions because consumer
misassembly has been a problem with similar products, such as cribs,
and could lead to entrapment.
Section 8.4.4.1 of ASTM F 1821-09 states that additional warning
statements shall address the minimum mattress size. The language of
this section implies that the precise mattress dimensions should be
provided, both in English and metric units. Section 8.3.2 of ASTM F
1821-09, however, already specifies that both the bed and its retail
carton shall be clearly and legibly marked with the intended mattress
for the bed, including the precise dimensions in both English and
metric units. The Human Factors staff, therefore, concluded that
repeating precise dimensions within the warning is unnecessary and may,
by making the warning longer, discourage some consumers from reading
it. Therefore, proposed Sec. 1217.2(b)(8) would have the warning label
include the statement ``ONLY use full-size crib mattress of the
recommended size'' instead of repeating the dimensions of the
recommended mattress.
(ii) Strangulation warning.
To address the strangulation hazard, the Commission, at proposed
Sec. 1217.2(b)(8), is proposing the following warning label for all
toddler beds:
[[Page 22296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AP10.003
Like the proposed entrapment warning labels, this warning would use
the type-size requirements described in the standard, and the safety
alert symbol design is consistent with ANSI Z535.4-2007, American
National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels. This warning
largely reflects all of the information relevant to hazards that was
required in the original warnings. A warning statement about not
placing items with a string, cord, or ribbon around a child's neck
would be more effective with an additional clarifying sentence, ``These
items may catch on bed parts.'' Without this sentence, consumers may
find it difficult to infer how the presence of a cord around a child's
neck is relevant to the toddler bed or how the cord and bed interact to
create the potential for strangulation. Concern has been raised about
the label statement warning that a string, cord, or ribbon around a
child's neck may catch on bed parts. The concern is that the label
statement does not point out that strings, cords, or ribbons around a
child's neck can catch on many other items as well and that the
Commission recommends against the use of such items for children. The
Commission invites comments regarding this concern.
F. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires that
the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of
the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for toddler beds to come
into compliance after the final rule is issued, the Commission proposes
that the standard would become effective 6 months after publication of
a final rule as to products manufactured or imported on or after that
date. The Commission invites comments on how long it would take
manufacturers of toddler beds to come into compliance with the rule.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). We describe the provisions in this section of
the document with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Our
estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing each collection of information.
We particularly invite comments on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Title: Safety Standard for Toddler Beds.
Description: The proposed rule would require each toddler bed and
convertible crib to comply with ASTM F 1821-09, ``Standard Consumer
Safety Specification for Toddler Beds.'' Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F
1821-09 contain requirements for marking and instructional literature.
Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import
toddler beds.
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:
Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Total Annual Hours per Total burden
16 CFR Section respondents responses responses response hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1217.2(a)................................................ 44 10 440 0.5 220
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs
associated with this collection of information.
Our estimates are based on the following:
Proposed Sec. 1217.2(a) would require each toddler bed and
convertible crib to comply with ASTM F 1821-09. Sections 8 and 9 of
ASTM F 1821-09 contain requirements for marking and instructional
literature that are disclosure requirements, thus falling within the
definition of ``collections of information'' at 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F 1821-09 requires that the name and place of
business (city, state, mailing address, including zip code and
telephone number) of the manufacturer, importer, distributor, of the
manufacturer, distributor, or seller be clearly and legibly marked on
each bed and its retail carton. Section 8.1.2 of ASTM F 1821-09
requires that each bed and its retail carton be clearly and legibly
marked with the model number, stock number, catalog number, item
number, or other symbol expressed numerically or otherwise, such that
only articles of identical construction, composition and dimensions
bear identical markings and requires the manufacturer to change the
model number whenever a significant structural or design modification
is made that affects its conformance with this consumer safety
specification.
[[Page 22297]]
Section 8.1.3 of ASTM F 1821-09 requires a code mark or other means
that identifies the date (month and year as a minimum) of manufacture
and permits future identification of any given model and that such mark
be clearly and legibly marked on each bed and its retail carton.
There are 73 known firms supplying toddler beds to the United
States market. Twenty-nine of the 48 firms are known to already produce
labels that comply with sections 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 8.1.3 of the
standard, so there would be no additional burden on these firms. The
remaining 44 firms are assumed to already use labels on both their
products and their packaging, but would need to make some modifications
to their existing labels. The estimated time required to make these
modification is about 30 minutes per model. Assuming that, on average,
each of these firms supplies 10 different models of toddler beds or
convertible cribs, the estimated burden hours associated with labels is
30 minutes x 44 firms x 10 models per firm = 13,200 minutes or 220
annual hours.
The Commission estimates that hourly compensation for the time
required to create and update labels is $27.78 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, September 2009, all workers, goods-producing industries,
Sales and office, Table 9). Therefore, the estimated annual cost
associated with the Commission's proposed labeling requirements is
approximately $6,112 ($27.78 per hour x 220 hours = $6,111.60, which we
have rounded up to $6,112).
Section 9.1 of ASTM F 1821-09 requires instructions, where
applicable, for assembly, maintenance, cleaning, folding, and warning
information to be supplied with the bed. Toddler beds and convertible
cribs are products that generally require some assembly and
maintenance, and products sold without such information would not be
able to successfully compete with products supplying this information.
Under OMB's regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and
financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of
information that would be incurred by persons in the ``normal course of
their activities'' are excluded from a burden estimate where an agency
demonstrates that the disclosure activities needed to comply are
``usual and customary.'' Therefore, because the CPSC is unaware of
toddler beds or convertible cribs that: (a) Generally require some
assembly and maintenance, but (b) lack any instructions to the user
about these topics, we tentatively estimate that there are no burden
hours associated with the instruction requirement in section 9.1 of
ASTM F 1821-09. This is because any burden associated with supplying
instructions with a toddler bed or convertible crib would be ``usual
and customary'' and not within the definition of ``burden'' under OMB's
regulations.
Based on this analysis, the requirements of the proposed toddler
bed rule would impose a burden to industry of 220 hours at a cost of
$6,112 annually.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of
this rule to OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to fax
comments regarding this information collection by May 28, 2010, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see ADDRESSES).
I. Certification
Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA'') imposes
the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule
under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation
under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as
complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C.
2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product or
on a reasonable testing program or, for children's products, on tests
on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity
assessment body accredited by the Commission to test according to the
applicable requirements. As discussed above in section H, section
104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to standards issued under that
section, such as the rule for toddler beds being proposed in this
notice, as ``consumer product safety standards.'' Furthermore, the
designation as consumer product safety standards subjects such
standards to certain sections of the CPSA, such as section 26(a)
regarding preemption. By the same reasoning, such standards would also
be subject to section 14 of the CPSA. Therefore, any such standard
would be considered to be a consumer product safety rule to which
products subject to the rule must be certified.
In addition, the CPSIA is another act enforced by the Commission,
and the standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are
similar to consumer product safety rules. For this reason also, toddler
beds will need to be tested and certified as complying with the safety
standard when it becomes effective. Because toddler beds are children's
products, they must be tested by a third-party conformity assessment
body accredited by the Commission. In the future, the Commission will
issue a notice of requirements to explain how laboratories can become
accredited as a third party conformity assessment bodies to test to the
new safety standard. (Toddler beds also must comply with all other
applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content and phthalate
content requirements in sections 101 and 108 of the CPSIA, the tracking
label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer
registration form requirements in section 104 of the CPSIA.) The
Commission seeks comment on what it may cost to comply with all of the
CPSC requirements outlined above, including the proposed modifications
in section E, and how these costs will impact toddler bed
manufacturers.
J. Environmental Considerations
The Commission's environmental review regulation at 16 CFR Part
1021 has established categories of actions that normally have little or
no potential to affect the human environment and therefore do not
require either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement. The proposed rule is within the scope of the Commission's
regulation, at 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1), which provides a categorical
exclusion for rules to provide design or performance requirements for
products. Thus, no environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement for this rule is required.
K. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires
agencies to consider the impact of proposed rules on small entities,
including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires that CPSC
staff prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and make it
available to the public for comment when the general notice of proposed
rulemaking is published. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis
must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and
identify any alternatives that may reduce the impact. Specifically, the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis must contain:
1. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
[[Page 22298]]
3. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements
and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of
reports or records; and
5. An identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant
federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
In addition, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis must
contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the proposed rule
while minimizing the economic impact on small entities.
Toddler beds and convertible cribs are typically produced or
marketed by juvenile product manufacturers and distributors or by
furniture manufacturers and distributors, some of which have separate
divisions for juvenile products. The CPSC's staff believes that there
are currently at least 73 known manufacturers or importers that supply
toddler beds and/or convertible cribs to the United States market.
Approximately 48 suppliers are domestic manufacturers (66 percent), 13
are domestic importers (18 percent), 11 are foreign manufacturers (15
percent), and the remaining firm is a foreign supplier who imports from
other countries and exports to the United States. (For sources of
information used in this initial regulatory flexibility analysis, see
Ref. 5.)
Under Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a
manufacturer of toddler beds or convertible cribs is small if it has
500 or fewer employees and an importer is small if it has 100 or fewer
employees. Based on these guidelines, 11 of the domestic importers and
34 domestic manufacturers known to be supplying the United States
market are small. (Six of these small domestic manufacturers have
between 100 and 500 employees.) There are an additional eight domestic
manufacturers of unknown size, most of which are likely to be small as
well. (In fact, there was sufficient information to include seven of
these firms as small in the analysis that follows.) However, there are
probably additional unknown small manufacturers and importers operating
in the United States market as well.
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), the major
United States trade association that represents juvenile product
manufacturers and importers, runs a voluntary Certification Program for
several juvenile products. Approximately 29 firms that supply toddler
beds and/or convertible cribs to the United States market are compliant
with the current ASTM voluntary standard (40 percent). (Twenty-six of
these firms are JPMA-certified as compliant, while an additional three
firms claim compliance. Of the small domestic businesses, 11
manufacturers (27 percent) and 6 importers (55 percent) are JPMA-
certified as ASTM-compliant. Additionally, there are two small
manufacturers that claim compliance with the ASTM standard that are not
part of JPMA's Certification Program.
The most recent United States birth data shows that there are
approximately 4.3 million births per year. The vast majority of these
babies eventually use cribs for sleeping purposes, although there is
some evidence that play yards are becoming a common substitute. In
fact, according to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group
(2006 Baby Products Tracking Study), 22 percent of new mothers own
convertible cribs. Approximately 16 percent of convertible cribs were
handed down or purchased second-hand.\1\ If these rates hold, this
suggests annual convertible crib sales of about 795,000 (0.22 x 0.84 x
4.3 million births per year). Of those consumers with non-convertible
cribs, some proportion of them will eventually use toddler beds when
their children get older. However, consumers may choose to use a twin
or larger bed and use portable bed rails rather than use a separate
toddler bed. Assuming that approximately 50 percent elect to use
toddler beds and that approximately 50 percent of those buy them new,
this would mean that around 839,000 toddler beds are sold per year
(0.78 non-convertible cribs x 4.3 million births x 0.5 use toddler beds
x 0.5 buy them new).\2\ Adding this to the estimate of convertible
cribs yields a total of approximately 1.6 million units (convertible
cribs and toddler beds) sold per year that might be affected by the
proposed toddler bed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data on second-hand products for new mothers was not
available. Instead, data for new mothers and expectant mothers was
combined and broken into first-time mothers and experienced mothers.
Data for first-time mothers and experienced mothers was averaged to
calculate the approximate percentage that was handed down or
purchased second-hand.
\2\ Any per-year estimate for toddler beds will be approximate
since when parents make such a purchase for their child is likely to
vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for Agency Action and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule.
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate a mandatory
standard for toddler beds that is substantially the same as, or more
stringent than, the voluntary standard. The Commission is proposing
four additional requirements to the current ASTM standard. The first
would assure more structurally sound guardrails. The second is intended
to reduce the likelihood of entrapments due to broken slats/spindles.
The third would improve the safety of guardrails by adding height
requirements. The fourth, modified warnings, is intended to emphasize
that deaths in toddler beds have occurred due to entrapments and
strangulation. The Commission concludes that the more stringent
standard would reduce the risk of future injuries and deaths associated
with toddler beds and convertible cribs.
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule. The Commission
proposes adopting the voluntary ASTM standard for toddler beds with
four additions. Key components of ASTM F 1821--09 include:
Mattress retention requirements intended to control the
horizontal position of the mattress and prevent torso entrapments, as
well as assure that the mattress does not fall too far below the
mattress support when used by a child of the maximum recommended weight
(50 lbs);
Mattress support systems requirements intended to prevent
disengagement which might result in a sharp edge or an opening in which
a child might become entrapped;
Requirements for mattress support systems attached to end
structures intended to assure that the mattress support system remains
attached to the end structures and does not create a hazard, such as
sharp edges or openings in which a child might become entrapped;
Requirements for guardrails intended to prevent openings
in guardrails in which children might be trapped; and
End structures intended to prevent openings in end
structures in which children might be trapped.
The voluntary standard also includes: (1) Requirements for several
features to prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum and maximum opening
size, hazardous sharp points or edges, and edges that can scissor,
shear, or pinch); (2) torque and tension tests to assure that
components cannot be removed; (3) requirements for partially bounded
openings; (4) marking and labeling requirements; (5) requirements for
the permanency and adhesion of labels; (6) requirements for
instructional literature; and (7) requirements to address corner post
extensions, which may catch various children's items and pose a choking
hazard.
[[Page 22299]]
Based on CPSC staff recommendations, the Commission proposes to
modify the existing ASTM standard by revising the entrapment/
strangulation warnings, and adding three new requirements for guardrail
height, slat/spindle strength, and structural integrity for guardrails:
Guardrail height. The proposed rule would require that
guardrails be a minimum height of 5 inches above the manufacturer's
recommended sleeping surface. This will help prevent falls.
Slat/spindle strength. The proposed rule adds a new
requirement to test the strength of spindles and slats in guardrails,
side rails, and end structures using an 80-lb force.
Structural integrity for guardrails. In addition to the
existing test for guardrail openings, the proposed rule would add a
test for the overall stability of guardrails using a 50-lb force while
the bed is firmly secured. This additional test is intended to help
prevent children from falling out of bed; it is also calculated to
ensure that the guardrails remain intact when children lean against
them or attempt to use them to climb into bed.
Entrapment/strangulation warnings. The proposed rule would
modify the existing warnings by adding a more detailed description of
mechanisms creating the hazard and separating the entrapment and
strangulation messages into two warning labels. This is intended to
increase the efficacy of the warning by emphasizing the potential for
death for each of the two different mechanisms.
As explained earlier in section F of this preamble, toddler beds
and convertible cribs entering commerce would need to meet the new
requirements if they are manufactured or imported after 6 months from
the date of publication of the final rule. In other words, the
standard, if finalized, would not apply retroactively.
The recommended slat/spindle strength requirement may help prevent
incidents where slats break and children are either cut, fall through
the opening, or become entrapped. This proposed modification to the
current voluntary standard could potentially add significant costs to
toddler bed and convertible crib suppliers. Preliminary testing
indicates that some toddler beds and convertible cribs currently on the
market would meet this requirement with no further modifications, while
others would not.
Plastic toddler beds would be exempt from the slat/spindle
requirement, because they do not have wooden slats/spindles and have
not been associated with the hazards addressed by this requirement.
Therefore, we believe that some products will need to be modified to
meet the slat/spindle requirement, which is likely to affect at least a
few firms.
Suppliers may also need to make product modifications to meet the
revised structural integrity requirement and new height requirement for
guardrails. No testing has been performed so far that would indicate
how many products currently on the market would meet these
requirements, but it appears that at least some products will be able
to meet the guardrail height requirements. It is possible for firms to
eliminate guardrails from their products entirely as a way to address
the proposed guardrails requirements if they can comply with the other
requirements of the proposed standard without the guardrail in place
(guardrails themselves are not required). However, it would be
unreasonable to assume that all of the firms whose products may require
modifications can or will take this approach. Therefore, it is expected
that at least some products will require modifications to meet these
guardrail requirements and that at least a few firms will be affected.
In meeting the slat/spindle strength and guardrail structural
integrity requirements, it is possible that firms may improve the
quality of materials used to make the slats/spindles or guardrails.
(Plastic toddler beds and convertible cribs would not need to make such
modifications since they have not been associated with the identified
risks from these parts.) For wooden toddler beds and convertible cribs,
switching to a stronger material is unlikely to exceed more than a few
dollars per unit. For example, using white ash rather than western
white pine improves average strength properties by an average of 74
percent (https://www.woodbin.com/ref/wood/strength_table.htm) while
increasing the price of the material by an average of 26 percent
(https://www.willardbrothers.net/ORDER%20FORM.htm) for a maximum of
$1.55 more for the largest quantity listed. These cost differentials
are based on raw lumber costs which would affect firms differently,
depending upon how much wood was used in their particular product.
Metal toddler beds/convertible cribs are less common than products made
from wood or plastic, but material changes should not be substantially
more expensive than for wooden products. Alternatively, firms could
undertake product redevelopment to develop compliant toddler beds,
which would likely be more expensive than using alternate materials.
Therefore, it is likely that at least some firms would select the less
expensive option.
Increasing the height of guardrails may help prevent children from
falling from the bed. As discussed above, the proposed rule would not
require guardrails to be included with toddler beds or convertible
cribs, so firms with noncompliant products have the option of
eliminating guardrails entirely if their products will comply with the
other requirements of the proposed standard with the guardrails
removed. Alternatively, they could redesign their product (or the
guardrail portion of their product) to make their guardrails higher. If
the second option is taken, there will likely be some cost associated
with product redevelopment, as well as some increased costs for
additional materials.
The remaining requirements, entrapment and strangulation warnings,
are expected to have only a minimal impact on current suppliers of
toddler beds or convertible cribs. The revised warnings would be only a
minor modification for firms currently complying with the ASTM
standard. Even for those firms supplying toddler beds without such a
warning or with a warning that differs from the one outlined in the
current voluntary standard, the costs associated with printing a
revised warning or a completely new warning would be low.
Other Federal Rules. CPSC staff has not identified any federal or
state rule that either overlaps or conflicts with the staff's draft
proposed rule.
Impact on Small Businesses. There are 73 firms currently known to
be marketing toddler beds and/or convertible cribs in the United
States. Six are large domestic manufacturers, 1 is a domestic
manufacturer of unknown size, 2 are large domestic importers, and 12
are foreign firms. The impact on the remaining 52 small firms--34 firms
known to be small domestic manufacturers, 7 firms that are presumed to
be small domestic manufacturers, and 11 small domestic importers--is
the focus of the remainder of this analysis.
Small Domestic Manufacturers. For the most part, the impact of the
proposed standard on small manufacturers will differ based on whether
they currently comply with the voluntary ASTM standard. If they do not,
as is the case with 28 firms, the impact could be significant. These
firms would likely have to undergo product redevelopment. As explained
below, the cost of such an effort for toddler beds and convertible
cribs is unknown, but could be substantial for some firms.
Product development costs include product design, development and
[[Page 22300]]
marketing staff time, product testing, and focus group expenses. These
costs can be very high, particularly when there are multiple products,
but they can be treated as new product expenses and amortized over
time. If a firm deals with multiple products subject to the proposed
standard, there may be some economies of scale for some of these
development stages that would reduce the marginal costs for each new
product being redeveloped. Other one-time costs include the retooling
of manufacturing equipment, which could be gradually recouped over the
sales of numerous units. There are also expected to be increased costs
of production. Producing toddler beds and convertible cribs that have
greater structural integrity, stronger slats/spindles, and higher
guardrails may require additional raw materials or possibly heavier
materials. In addition to increasing the costs of production, this
could increase shipping costs as well.
Even if these firms are able to pass their increased costs on to
consumers, the impact could still be considerable. This is because
firms manufacturing toddler beds and convertible cribs are not simply
competing against other producers of toddler beds and convertible
cribs. They also compete against producers of substitute products,
firms whose products would not be subject to the proposed standard.
Toddler bed producers must compete with producers of twin (or possibly
larger) beds that can be used with portable guardrails, while
convertible cribs must compete with these same products for larger
children and with standard cribs for smaller children.
There is expected to be less of an impact on the 13 firms that are
known to comply with the current voluntary standard. At least some of
these firms should be able to comply with the new requirements without
product modifications other than labeling. The remaining firms may opt
to redesign their products as well, which, again, would result in some
one-time costs and a possible increase in production costs. It is also
possible, however, that they may be able to select a potentially less
expensive option to address some of the recommended requirements. A
modification in the materials used may be sufficient for many products,
and the associated cost is not expected to exceed a few dollars per
unit.
There are two manufacturers that do not comply with the current
voluntary ASTM standard that would be affected differently by the
proposed standard. These firms take already manufactured toddler beds
and convertible cribs, decorate them (often with original artwork), and
then sell them as a final product. Because these firms do not make the
underlying toddler beds and convertible cribs, the impact of the
proposed standard on these firms will be the same as that of an
importer. These firms would need to find a new supplier of compliant
products if their current supplier does not make the necessary
modifications. The new products would presumably be of higher quality,
as well as more expensive since some of the original manufacturer's
production costs (and possibly redevelopment costs) are likely to be
passed on to these firms.
The scenario described above assumes that only those firms that are
JPMA-certified or claim ASTM compliance will pass the voluntary
standard's requirements. This is not necessarily the case. CPSC staff
has identified many cases where products not certified by JPMA actually
comply with the relevant ASTM standard; however, there is insufficient
evidence of this for toddler beds and convertible cribs to quantify
this impact. Additionally, the effect of the new and modified
requirements may be less substantial than outlined above to the extent
that some products may already comply with foreign standards with some
more rigorous requirements. However, there is insufficient information
to quantify this effect. Therefore, the Commission invites comments
from small businesses affected by this proposal explaining the economic
impact it will impose on them.
Small Domestic Importers. The majority of small domestic importers
(six out of 11) comply with the current voluntary standard. At least
some of these firms should not need to make any product modifications
(other than labeling) to meet the proposed standard. However, those
whose products do require modifications will need to find an alternate
supplier if their existing one does not come into compliance. The new
products will presumably be of higher quality, as well as more
expensive. However, the actual price increase is unknown and likely to
vary based upon the degree of modification required. All of the
remaining five firms not now in compliance with the ASTM voluntary
standard would need to either require their current supplier to make
the modifications necessary to comply with the standard or find other
suppliers that did comply. Depending on the degree to which their
toddler beds and convertible cribs are out of compliance with the
voluntary standard, the price increase (as well as the increases in
quality and safety) could be relatively high. To the extent that some
of these firms may actually comply with the current voluntary standard
or one or more of the new/modified requirements in the proposed
standard, the impact of the proposed rule would be lower.
For the most part, the impact of the proposed rule on importers
should be smaller than that on manufacturers. Even if importers respond
to the rule by discontinuing the import of noncomplying toddler beds
and convertible cribs, either by replacing them with a complying
product or another juvenile product, deciding to import an alternative
product would be