Safety Standard for Toddler Beds, 22019-22030 [2011-9421]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22019-22030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9421]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1217

RIN 3041-AC79


Safety Standard for Toddler Beds

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(``CPSIA'') requires the United States Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (``Commission,'' ``CPSC'') to promulgate consumer product 
safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These 
standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary 
standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the 
Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission 
is issuing a safety standard for toddler beds in response to the CPSIA. 
The safety standard addresses entrapment in bed end structures, 
entrapment between the guardrail and side rail, entrapment in the 
mattress support system, and component failures of the bed support 
system and guardrails. The standard also addresses corner post 
extensions that can catch items worn by a child.

DATES: The rule will become effective on October 20, 2011, and apply to 
products manufactured or imported on or after that date. The 
incorporation by reference of the publications listed in this rule are 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 20, 
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Whitfield, Office of Compliance 
and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 
20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7548; twhitfield@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background: Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (``CPSIA'', 
Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety 
standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires that 
these standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable 
voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if 
the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The term 
``durable infant or toddler product'' is defined in section 104(f) of 
the CPSIA as a durable product intended for use, or that may be 
reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years. 
Toddler beds are one of the products specifically identified in section 
104(f)(2) of the CPSIA as a durable infant or toddler product.
    In this document, the Commission is issuing a safety standard for 
toddler beds. The standard is largely the same as a voluntary standard 
developed by ASTM International (formerly the American Society for 
Testing and Materials), ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Toddler Beds, but with several modifications that 
strengthen the standard.
    In the Federal Register of April 28, 2010, the Commission published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed to incorporate by 
reference ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Toddler Beds, with several modifications. 75 FR 22291. The final rule 
is very similar to the proposed rule. We summarize the proposed rule in 
section F of this preamble and discuss the final rule (including 
differences between the proposal and the final rule) in section G of 
this preamble. The information discussed in this preamble comes from 
CPSC staff's briefing package for the toddler bed final rule, which is 
available on the CPSC's Web site at https://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia11/brief/toddlerfinal.pdf.

B. The Product

    The ASTM voluntary standard defines a toddler bed as any bed sized 
to accommodate a full-size crib mattress having minimum dimensions of 
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 than 15 
months of age and weighing no more than 50 pounds. The standard 
includes cribs that can be converted into a toddler bed using a full-
size crib mattress.
    CPSC staff estimates that there are currently at least 73 known 
manufacturers or importers supplying toddler beds and/or convertible 
cribs to the U.S. market. Approximately 48 suppliers are domestic 
manufacturers (66 percent); 13 are domestic importers (18 percent); 11 
are foreign manufacturers (15 percent); and the remaining firm is a 
foreign supplier that imports from other countries and exports to the 
United States.
    Based on information from a 2005 survey conducted by the American 
Baby Group, CPSC staff estimates annual convertible crib sales to 
number about 776,000 and annual sales of toddler beds to total about 
819,000. Thus, a total of approximately 1.6 million units (convertible 
cribs and toddler beds) sold per year might be affected by the toddler 
bed standard.

[[Page 22020]]

C. Incident Data

    The preamble to the proposed rule summarized the data for incidents 
related to toddler beds for the period 2005 to 2009. During this period 
of time, CPSC staff is aware of 4 fatalities and 81 nonfatal incidents 
(with and without injuries) related to toddler beds. The data were 
drawn from two databases: (1) Actual injuries and fatalities of which 
the Commission is aware; and (2) estimates derived from reports of 
emergency room treatment in a statistical sample of hospitals that 
makes up the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System 
(``NEISS''). More information concerning those incidents is provided in 
the preamble to the proposed rule. 75 FR 22292 (April 28, 2010).
    While preparing the final rule, CPSC staff conducted a new search 
of CPSC's epidemiological databases and found that 41 toddler bed-
related incidents were reported between June 23, 2009 and December 12, 
2010. None of these were fatalities. Seventeen incidents reported an 
injury (primarily bumps, bruises, sprains, and lacerations). One report 
was of a child nearly choking on loose hardware; another report was of 
a child suffering a dental injury from falling on the bed; and another 
report was of a possible case of lead poisoning of a child from chewing 
paint on the toddler bed. While most of these injuries did not require 
any major medical intervention, one child was hospitalized for a 
fractured limb.
    In 31 of the 41 incidents, the age of the child was reported. In 
four of those incidents, a child younger than 15 months was involved. 
The majority of the incidents (17 out of 31) reported the child's age 
to be between 17 months and 2 years old. It was not always clear, 
however, that the age reported pertained to the child who was the 
regular user of the toddler bed. Occasionally, an incident report 
stated specifically that the injured child was playing on a sibling's 
toddler bed; a few others reported that the injured child was playing 
or climbing on a toddler bed. This indicates that the reported victim's 
age was not always the age of the regular user of the bed.
    Among the 41 incident reports, the following hazards were 
identified:
     Broken, loose, or detached components of the bed, such as 
the guardrail, hardware, or other accessories (14 incidents, 3 of which 
involved injuries);
     Entrapment, mostly of a limb (10 incidents, 8 of which 
resulted in injuries ranging from fractures and sprains to bruises);
     Product integrity issues, mostly the integrity of the 
mattress support (4 incidents, 1 of which also reported a finger injury 
to the child);
     Inadequate mattress fit issues (3 incidents, no injuries);
     Miscellaneous issues, such as a sharp surface, lead paint, 
bed height/clearance, guardrail inadequacy, and bed accessory 
involvement (9 reports, 4 of which reported associated injuries).
    CPSC staff reviewed data from NEISS for injuries related to toddler 
beds for 2009 and 2010. A total of 32 such injuries, and no deaths, 
were reported through NEISS from January 1, 2009 through December 12, 
2010. (The number of reported incidents was too small for NEISS to 
publish national injury estimates for injuries related to toddler 
beds.) The most frequent characteristics of the 32 toddler bed-related 
injuries reported through NEISS were:
     Hazard: falls out of the toddler bed to a lower level 
(78%);
     Injured body part: head and face (59%) and limbs (25%);
     Injury type: head injury (31%) and fractures (22%); and
     Disposition: treated and released (97%).
    About 9 percent of the patients were reported to be younger than 15 
months old, while about 69 percent were reported to be between 17 
months and 2 years old. As was the case for incident data reported 
through sources other than NEISS, it was not always clear whether the 
patient injured was the usual user of the toddler bed.

D. The ASTM Voluntary Standard

    ASTM F 1821, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler 
Beds, was first approved in 1997, and revised in 2003 and 2006. The 
current version, ASTM F 1821-09, was approved on April 1, 2009, and 
published in May 2009. ASTM has been working on revisions to the 
standard, but has not approved a subsequent version as of the date of 
this final rule.
    Requirements in the ASTM F 1821-09 Standard for toddler beds 
include:
     Toddler beds must comply with the CPSC's regulations at 16 
CFR part 1303 (ban of lead in paint); 1500.48 (sharp points); 1500.49 
(sharp edges); 1500.50 through 1500.53 (use and abuse tests); and part 
1501 (small parts that present choking, aspiration, or ingestion 
hazards), both before and after the product is tested according to the 
standard.
     Toddler beds must not present scissoring, shearing, or 
pinching hazards.
     Openings must meet specified dimensions to prevent finger 
entrapment.
     Openings that will permit passage of a specified block 
with a wedge on one end are prohibited to protect against torso 
entrapment.
     The distance that corner posts may extend above the upper 
edge of an end or side panel is limited.
     Protective components must not be removable with a 
specified force after torque and tension tests.
     There are requirements for marking and labeling each bed 
and its retail carton and for warning statements on the bed. There are 
requirements for the permanency of labels and warnings.
     The mattress must be supported and contained so that it 
does not move horizontally to cause an opening that will allow the 
passage of the wedge block when tested.
     There are tests for the physical integrity of the mattress 
support system and its attachments and the side rails.
     There are wedge block tests for openings in the guardrails 
and end structures to test whether they could cause entrapment.
     There is a probe test to protect against entrapment in 
partially bounded openings in the bed.
     Instructions must be provided with the bed.
     Warning statements are required on the bed to address 
entrapment and strangulation hazards.

E. Response To Comments on the Proposed Rule

    In the Federal Register of April 28, 2010, we published a proposed 
rule for toddler beds (75 FR 22291). We received 13 comments on the 
proposed rule. Four of the comments stated general support for the 
proposed rule, with minor changes in wording to emphasize the hazard. 
The other nine comments raised specific issues that are addressed by 
topic below.
    We describe and respond to the comments in section E of this 
document and also describe the final rule. To make it easier to 
identify the comments and our responses, the word ``Comment,'' in 
parentheses, will appear before the comment's description, and the word 
``Response,'' in parentheses, will appear before our response. We also 
have numbered each comment to help distinguish between different 
comments. The number assigned to each comment is purely for 
organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value, or 
importance, or the order in which it was received.

[[Page 22021]]

1. Guardrail Designs

    (Comment 1)--One commenter addressed guardrail designs for toddler 
beds. The commenter suggested that replacing spindles on the toddler 
bed guardrails with a full piece of wood or material would decrease the 
risk of children getting a body part entrapped in the guardrail.
    (Response 1)--We acknowledge that currently, some manufacturers use 
solid panel guardrails on their toddler beds. However, mandating that 
all guardrails be solid panels may limit the utility of converting some 
types of cribs to toddler beds. Although limb entrapments might be 
reduced if guardrails were limited to solid panels, the incident data 
reported in the preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 22292) indicate 
that only three of the reported injuries involving entrapment between 
slats were fractures of limbs, and the majority of the injuries were 
bumps and bruises. Only one fracture directly involved a guardrail. 
This occurred when the occupant fell from the bed after the occupant's 
leg became entrapped in the guardrail slats. The other two fractures 
involved entrapment between slats located on the headboard and 
footboard. Therefore, we encourage manufacturers to consider solid 
panel guardrails, but decline to make this a requirement in the final 
rule.

2. Guardrail Height

    (Comment 2)--One commenter disagreed with the guardrail height 
specified in the proposed rule. (The proposed rule stated that the 
guardrail height must be 5 inches above the top of the mattress.) The 
commenter suggested specifying that the guardrail must be 9 inches 
above the mattress support.
    (Response 2)--We disagree with a guardrail height of 9 inches above 
the mattress support. Because the majority of full-size crib mattresses 
are approximately 6 inches thick, a guardrail height of 9 inches above 
the mattress support would provide a barrier of only 3 inches 
approximately, which is not sufficient to prevent children from 
rolling/falling off the bed. Similarly, guardrails on bunk beds are 
intended to prevent children from rolling/falling off the bed. ASTM F 
1427-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Bunk Beds, requires 
a 5-inch barrier above the top of the mattress to prevent a sleeping 
child from rolling and falling off the bed. Therefore, the final rule 
does not change the proposed guardrail height provision, except to 
specify that, if no maximum mattress thickness is stated, the guardrail 
height is to be based on a 6 inch thick mattress.

3. Guardrail Structural Integrity Testing

    (Comment 3)--One commenter disagreed with the proposed test 
methodology for guardrail structural integrity. The commenter 
suggested: (1) Testing at the most onerous point instead of at three 
locations; (2) specifying the contact area of the force and how far 
from the top of the rail this force should be applied; and (3) 
specifying the height of the bed rail or measuring from the mattress 
support platform so the measurement will be consistent.
    (Response 3)-- We agree with the commenter's suggested test 
methodology for applying the test force to the guardrail. The language 
in the proposed rule was adopted from the portable bed rail structural 
integrity test, as stated in section 8.1 of ASTM F 2085-09, Standard 
Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Bed Rails. After the 
proposed rule had been published, an ASTM task group developed the 
alternative language that the commenter suggests. This suggested 
language is more applicable to the typical geometry of toddler bed 
guardrails as opposed to portable bed rails. For example, the proposed 
rule would require applying a horizontal force at three points along 
the uppermost horizontal edge of the rail (i.e., in the center of the 
upper rail and on the sides of the rail directly above each of the 
outermost legs). The majority of toddler bed guardrails only have one 
outermost leg or free end. The other end of a toddler bed guardrail 
typically is secured to a corner post attaching the headboard to the 
guardrail. Each of the guardrail failure incidents that have been 
reported involved a guardrail detaching or fracturing at the corner 
post attachment point. We agree with the commenter that applying a 
single force above the rail's free end is more onerous than the 
proposed test and exerts the greatest force on the guardrail's 
attachment points. Furthermore, the commenter's suggestion provides 
improved test repeatability by specifying a procedural method for 
applying the test force to a guardrail free end with a significantly 
contoured geometry. The final rule uses the language suggested by the 
commenter instead of the proposed wording for the guardrail structural 
integrity test (Sec.  1217.2(c)(5)(i)).
    (Comment 4)-- Another commenter stated that there was not 
sufficient justification for the proposed 50-pound force requirement 
and suggested a 40-pound force instead. The commenter stated that the 
incident data only refers to two injuries from broken components and 
that the incidents do not mention that guardrails were involved. The 
commenter further stated that only a fraction of a 50-pound force would 
be used by a sleeping child inadvertently rolling off the bed, and that 
a child pulling on the guardrail from outside of the bed in play would 
tip most toddler beds over before reaching the proposed 50-pound force.
    The commenter also requested an exemption for removable guardrails 
or guardrails that could be removed without the use of tools.
    (Response 4)-- We disagree with replacing the 50-pound force 
requirement with a 40-pound force requirement and disagree with the 
commenter's claim that there have not been any incidents involving a 
guardrail breaking or detaching from a toddler bed. In one reported 
incident, the occupant fell to the floor and received a bruise and 
laceration to the head. We also disagree with the commenter that 50 
pounds is an excessive amount of force. We have received several 
detailed reports of children climbing on, or leaning against, 
guardrails, which resulted in subsequent structural failure of the 
guardrail or its means of attachment.
    We tested several different makes and models of toddler beds to the 
50-pound force requirement, incorporating the commenter's suggested 
test methodology and applying the test force 11 inches above the top of 
the mattress support. We used the guardrail structural integrity test 
suggested by the commenter and the language in the proposed rule to 
test five toddler beds: two plastic and three wooden beds. Two of the 
five toddler beds chosen for testing had been involved in incidents 
where the guardrail detached or broke when the occupant leaned on the 
guardrail. The guardrails on all five toddler beds successfully 
withstood the application of 40 pounds (the force suggested by the 
commenter). Conversely, when performing the test as stated in the 
proposed rule, only the guardrails on the three toddler beds that had 
not been involved in incidents were able to withstand application of 
the 50-pound force. The guardrail on one toddler bed that had been 
involved in an incident broke at one of its attachment points at 
approximately 42 pounds. The guardrail of the other bed that had been 
involved in an incident withstood the initial application of 50 pounds, 
but detached from the toddler bed within the first 3 seconds after 
maintaining 50 pounds. Based on this testing, we concluded that the 50-
pound

[[Page 22022]]

force is appropriate and adequate to identify guardrails that could be 
susceptible to detachment. The final rule retains the 50-pound force 
requirement.
    Finally, we disagree with exempting removable guardrails from the 
guardrail structural integrity test. A guardrail should be attached to 
a toddler bed with sufficient means to provide substantial rigidity. 
Guardrails that would require only the consumer's strength to install 
would be susceptible to the foreseeable forces that a toddler could 
apply to the guardrail. Such a guardrail would not be sufficient to 
protect a child.

4. Spindle/Slat Strength of Guardrails, Side Rails, and End Structures

    (Comment 5)--Two comments addressed the testing requirements for 
the spindles/slats. One commenter suggested that language in the 
toddler bed standard regarding slat strength should match the language 
in the CPSC's new crib standards. A second commenter agreed with the 
proposal to test 25 percent of slats at 80 pound-force, but questioned 
the rationale for testing the remaining 75 percent of slats at 60 
pound-force.
    (Response 5)--We agree that the toddler bed spindle/slat strength 
test should be consistent with the full-size and non-full-size crib 
spindle/slat strength requirements in ASTM F 1169-10 and ASTM F 406-
10a, respectively, referenced in the recently published mandatory 
requirements, 75 FR 81766 (Dec. 28, 2010), to be codified at 16 CFR 
part 1219 and 16 CFR part 1220, respectively. This will harmonize the 
spindle/slat strength requirements for cribs and toddler beds and 
provide consistency and clarity because many toddler beds are converted 
from cribs, and many toddler bed manufacturers also manufacture cribs. 
Therefore, the final rule modifies the spindle/slat strength test 
language to reflect the changes made in the full-size and non-full-size 
crib standards. Changing the spindle/slat strength requirement to be 
consistent with the requirement in the crib standard means that no 
slats would be tested at 60 pound-force (the crib standard requires 
testing 25 percent of slats at 80 pound-force and then another 25 
percent of slats at 80 pound-force if needed, with no more than 50 
percent of the slats tested).

5. Mattress Retention and Warning

    (Comment 6)--One commenter requested that the mattress retention 
requirements, corresponding tests, and related warning labels be 
removed from the standard because they are now obsolete.
    (Response 6)--We agree with the commenter that the mattress 
retention sections 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, test method section 7.1, and 
warning section 8.4.4.2, as identified in ASTM F 1821-09 and referenced 
in the proposed rule, are obsolete. Accordingly, we have removed those 
sections from the final rule. The original intent of these sections was 
to ensure that the mattress did not horizontally or vertically 
dislocate enough to allow a child access to potentially dangerous 
mattress support openings, which could entrap a child's torso or head, 
possibly resulting in a fatality. The current ASTM standard, ASTM F 
1821-09, includes provisions to reduce entrapment hazards by testing 
for hazardous openings, not only in the mattress support system, but 
also in the bed's guardrails and end structures, including the 
headboard, footboard, and any point where these components could be 
joined. These requirements are more stringent than the mattress 
retention requirements, making the mattress retention provisions 
unnecessary. Accordingly, we have eliminated these requirements from 
the final rule.

6. Warning Labels

    (Comment 7)--Two commenters recommended that the full-size crib and 
toddler bed standards be harmonized with respect to the required 
warnings because many full-size cribs convert into toddler beds and, 
therefore, would require the warnings specified in both standards. The 
commenters argued that such harmonization would eliminate redundant 
warning statements, making the warnings more effective. One of these 
commenters suggested that specifying the content, but not the exact 
wording of the required warnings in the proposed toddler bed rule, 
would be one method of harmonizing these standards.
    (Response 7)--We agree that failing to harmonize warnings in the 
toddler bed rule and in the full-size crib standard could introduce 
redundant and extraneous warnings on convertible cribs, and that this 
might diminish the effectiveness of the warnings. For example, the 
strangulation warning requirements for toddler beds specified in the 
proposed rule are redundant with the strangulation warning requirements 
specified in section 8.4.1.2 of ASTM F 1169-10, Standard Consumer 
Safety Specification for Full-Size Baby Cribs. Additionally, the 
entrapment warning requirements for toddler beds specified in the 
proposed rule do not apply to full-size cribs that might convert to a 
toddler bed. Thus, we have revised the final rule's entrapment and 
strangulation warning requirements for toddler beds to apply only to 
toddler beds that do not convert from a crib. Toddler beds that convert 
from a crib must use the warnings specified in ASTM F 1169-10, 
incorporated by reference at 16 CFR part 1219, Safety Standard for 
Full-Size Baby Cribs, with additional text that specifies the minimum 
mattress thickness, as detailed below.
    The proposed rule for toddler beds, shortened the warning for the 
minimum mattress size that appears in section 8.4.4.1 of ASTM F 1821-09 
to state: ``ONLY use full-size crib mattress of the recommended size,'' 
based on our understanding that section 8.3.2 of that standard already 
required both the bed and its retail carton to be clearly and legibly 
marked with the intended mattress size (75 FR at 22294 through 22295). 
Since then, we have discovered that section 8.3.2 of ASTM F 1821-09 
only requires the retail carton to be marked with the intended mattress 
size. Given this, we believe that it would be reasonable to maintain a 
mattress size warning similar to that specified in section 8.4.4.1 of 
ASTM F 1821-09 in the final rule. Section 8.1.3 of the full-size crib 
standard, ASTM F 1169-10, specifies the exact wording of a warning 
statement regarding the intended mattress size. The language used in 
this warning is very similar to the warning content specified in 
8.4.4.1 of ASTM F 1821-09.
    Therefore, the final rule provides the following mattress size 
warning requirement:

[[Page 22023]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AP11.005

    Because full-size cribs that convert to toddler beds require the 
exact warning statement specified in section 8.1.3 of the full-size 
crib standard, ASTM F 1169-10, requiring the warning statement on all 
toddler beds would mean that convertible cribs would need two warning 
statements about mattress size that are largely redundant. Thus, as in 
the case of the entrapment and strangulation warnings, the final rule 
provides that the warning requirement for mattress size for toddler 
beds apply only to toddler beds that do not convert from a crib. To 
address the fact that the full-size crib standard specifies a maximum 
mattress thickness of 6 inches, but the toddler bed standard specifies 
a minimum mattress thickness of 4 inches, the final rule provides that 
toddler beds that convert from a crib must include additional text 
indicating that a minimum mattress thickness of 4 inches is required. 
This language would be included at the end of the warning statement 
specified in section 8.1.3 of the full-size crib standard, ASTM F 1169-
10.
    (Comment 8)--One commenter generally supported the proposed warning 
requirements but suggested that the statement, ``ALWAYS follow assembly 
instructions,'' is not useful on the product itself. The commenter 
suggested that it would be more appropriate for this statement to be 
located on the packaging and at the top of the assembly instructions.
    (Response 8)--We disagree with the commenter's assessment and 
believe that locating this warning statement on the product would be 
more beneficial than locating it either on the packaging or at the top 
of the assembly instructions. Generally, a warning should be located 
where the consumer is likely to be looking when the warning is needed. 
The warning is intended to alert consumers of the need to follow the 
assembly instructions, and the target audience for the message would be 
consumers who otherwise would not follow such instructions. For this 
reason, a warning located at the top of the assembly instructions is 
unlikely to be noticed or read by those who need the information most. 
A warning located on the product itself, however, is more likely to be 
noticed by these consumers because all consumers must interact with the 
product to assemble it, even if they do not examine the assembly 
instructions or product packaging beforehand. The final rule does not 
make any changes related to the placement of this warning statement.
    (Comment 9)--One commenter suggested that the warning statement 
specified in section 8.4.4.2 of ASTM F 1821-09 and referenced in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 22294), concerning the use of a 
guardrail as a means of containing the mattress, should be removed from 
the final rule. The commenter asserted that the warning statement, as 
well as the mattress retention requirements on which the warning 
statement is based (specified in sections 6.1, 6.1.1, and 6.1.2), are 
now obsolete.
    (Response 9)--We agree that the warning requirement regarding the 
use of a guardrail to contain the mattress is obsolete. The proposed 
rule would specify two alternative entrapment warnings because of the 
requirement of a warning about guardrail use. Therefore, removing this 
obsolete warning statement about guardrail use eliminates the need for 
two alternative warning labels that address the entrapment hazard.

7. Legal Authority

    (Comment 10)--A commenter objected to incorporating the ASTM 
standard by reference into the published regulation, arguing that the 
law requires that the terms of legal requirements must be freely 
available to the public, citing Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S. 
Ct. 36, 40 (1888). The commenter also cited Veeck v. Southern Building 
Code Congress International, Inc. (``SBCCI''), 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 
2002).
    (Response 10)--The cases to which the commenter refers do not apply 
to the rules issued under section 104 of the CPSIA. In Banks, the court 
held that a reporter authorized by the State of Ohio to publish the 
state's judicial opinions was not authorized by Federal law to obtain a 
copyright on the opinions because he was not the author of those 
opinions. That is not an issue here where ASTM already has copyright 
protection for its standards. In the Veeck case, Veeck posted the local 
building codes of two Texas towns on his Web site. The text of the 
building codes was created and copyrighted by a building code 
organization and was adopted by the towns as law. The court stated: 
``As law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject 
to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, 
however, the organization's works retain their protected status.'' Id. 
at 793 (emphasis in the original).
    The building code organization had encouraged local government 
entities to adopt its code into law without any cost to the government 
entity. Id. at 794. In contrast, ASTM has not given its permission for 
the CPSC to adopt its standards. Thus, the cases cited by the commenter 
do not require us to publish the copyrighted ASTM standard in the Code 
of Federal Regulations. Because the U.S. government is not immune from 
suit for copyright infringement, see Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 
(DC Cir. 1981, cert. denied, 102 S. Ct. 1448, the CPSC could be subject 
to a legal challenge if it copied the ASTM standard and published it in 
the Federal Register without permission from ASTM.

8. Validity of Data

    (Comment 11)-- One commenter observed that the majority of the 
incident data concerning fatalities involved children who were less 
than 15 months old (i.e., the intended minimum age for toddler beds) or 
involved a cord that was a strangulation risk. The commenter noted that 
the preamble to the proposed rule had acknowledged this, but the 
commenter expressed concern that CPSC staff appeared to be ``inflating 
the number of incidents and that data cited as `related to' or 
`associated with' are insufficient to rely upon in the absence of data 
and analysis that establishes that the products proximately caused the 
incident or injury complained of.''
    A second commenter expressed concern that although the current 
standard is intended to address children ``not less than 15 months and 
weighing no more than 50 pounds,'' the ``National Injury Estimates 
reported in the NPR identified victims between 4 months and 6 years.'' 
The commenter believed that this difference could affect the basis for 
the standard.

[[Page 22024]]

    (Response 11)--The commenters misinterpret the discussion of 
incident data in the preamble to the proposed rule. The discussion was 
intended to provide an overall view of problems associated with toddler 
beds that are reported to the CPSC. The discussion of the four 
fatalities noted that three of the decedents were under the age 
intended for use of the product and explained that the product 
involvement in the fourth fatality was incidental. The ``National 
Injury Estimates'' are used to identify the injuries associated with 
toddler beds; they are not used to change the age/weight designations 
in the standard. Age requirements for users and placement of toddler 
beds in relation to window cords are addressed in the warning labels 
specified in the current voluntary standard; therefore, these issues 
are relevant in evaluating the voluntary standard. In addition, the 
discussion in the proposed rule used appropriate qualifying statements 
(such as ``associated with'' and ``related to''). These statements are 
intended to qualify the types of incidents reported to the CPSC and do 
not ``inflate'' the data. This approach reflects the statutory 
directive of section 104 of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product 
safety standard for toddler beds that is substantially the same as, or 
more stringent than, the voluntary standard. The portions of the final 
rule that are more stringent than the ASTM standard are based upon 
human factors and engineering analyses, which concluded that the more 
stringent provisions would reduce further the identified risks of 
injury associated with toddler beds.

F. Summary of Commission-Proposed Modifications

    When the Commission issued its notice of proposed rulemaking in 
April 2010, the Commission proposed incorporating by reference ASTM F 
1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler Beds, with 
four modifications that are described below.
    The Commission proposed that guardrails be a minimum height of 5 
inches above the manufacturer's recommended sleeping surface. This 
requirement was intended to help prevent falls from the bed.
    The Commission proposed to add a test for the overall stability of 
guardrails. The proposed test requires applying a 50-pound force to the 
center along the length of the guardrail and directly over each of the 
outermost legs of the guardrail. The test was intended to keep children 
from falling out of bed and to ensure that guardrails remain intact 
when children lean against them or use them to climb into bed. The 
basis for selecting a 50-pound force was that 50 pounds is the maximum 
weight of a child intended to use a toddler bed.
    The Commission proposed modifying the ASTM standard's test for 
spindles/slats on guardrails, side rails, and end structures. ASTM F 
1821-09 uses a torso wedge and a 25-pound force on guardrails and end 
structures in the most adverse orientation to ensure that slats and 
spindles do not break and allow an opening in which a child could 
become entrapped. The Commission proposed modifying this provision to 
test 25 percent of all slats (rather than just those on the end 
structure and guardrails) using an 80-pound force. The 80-pound force 
was selected based on tests that CPSC staff performed on 20 cribs or 
toddler beds. (Details of this testing are provided in the preamble to 
the proposed rule, 75 FR 22293 (April 28, 2010).) The Commission 
proposed that the remaining 75 percent of slats be tested with a 60-
pound force.
    The Commission also proposed changes to the warning requirements in 
ASTM F 1821-09. The Commission proposed: (1) Changing the warning 
specified in 8.4.3 of ASTM F 1821-09 to separate this into two 
warnings, one for entrapment and one for strangulation; (2) providing 
two options for entrapment warnings: one for beds where the guardrail 
is the means of mattress containment and one where the guardrail is 
not; and (3) removing provisions in 8.4.4 of ASTM F 1821-09 concerning 
warning statements addressing issues (but not specifying wording and 
layout) because these warnings would be redundant and unclear with the 
warnings the Commission proposed to specify.

G. Assessment of the Voluntary Standard and Description of the Final 
Rule

1. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA: Consultation and CPSC Staff Review

    Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to assess the 
effectiveness of the voluntary standard in consultation with 
representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and 
other experts. This consultation process for the toddler bed standard 
began in late 2009, before we published the proposed rule. Our 
consultations with ASTM are ongoing.

2. Description of the Final Rule, Including Changes to the ASTM 
Standard's Requirements

    While most requirements of ASTM F 1821-09 are sufficient to reduce 
the risk of injury posed by toddler beds, we have determined that 
modifying or adding several provisions to the standard will make the 
requirements more stringent and further reduce the risk of injury. The 
following discussion describes the final rule, including changes to the 
ASTM requirements, and notes any changes from the proposed rule.
a. Scope, Application, and Effective Date (Sec.  1217.1)
    The final rule states that part 1217 establishes a consumer product 
safety standard for toddler beds manufactured or imported on or after a 
date which would be six months after the date of publication of a final 
rule in the Federal Register. We received no comments on this provision 
and are finalizing it without change.
b. Incorporation by Reference (Sec.  1217.2(a) and (b))
    Section 1217.2(a) provides language to incorporate by reference 
ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toddler 
Beds. The standard also incorporates by reference the labeling 
requirements in section 8 of ASTM's full-size crib standard (ASTM F 
1169-10, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Full-Size Baby 
Cribs) because CPSC's toddler bed standard requires toddler beds that 
convert from cribs to comply with the labeling requirements in the ASTM 
crib standard. Section 1217.2(a) also provides information on how to 
obtain a copy of the ASTM standards or to inspect a copy of the 
standards at the CPSC.
    We received no comments on this provision. We are changing it to 
include the language necessary to incorporate by reference the labeling 
provisions of the ASTM crib standard.
c. Mattress Retention Provisions (Sec.  1217.2(c)(1), (4), and (6))
    The final rule removes provisions concerning mattress retention (in 
the ASTM standard, these are performance provisions in sections 6.1 
through 6.1.2; test method provisions in sections 7.1.2 through 7.1.6; 
warning provision in section 8.4.4.2). As explained in response to a 
comment in section E.5 of this preamble, the mattress retention 
provisions are no longer necessary because of other changes in the 
standard that better address entrapment protection, which was the 
purpose of the mattress retention provisions. This is a change from the 
proposed rule.
d. Guardrails (Sec.  1217.2(c)(2) and (5)(i))
    The final rule makes several additions or modifications to ASTM F 
1821-09 to strengthen the guardrail provisions. As

[[Page 22025]]

in the proposal, the final rule requires that the upper edge of the 
guardrail be at least 5 inches above the manufacturer's recommended 
sleeping surface. The final rule adds a sentence to clarify that if the 
manufacturer does not specify a mattress thickness, the guardrail 
height must be based on a mattress thickness of 6 inches. We chose 6 
inches because many toddler beds convert from cribs, and the full-size 
crib standard specifies 6 inches as the maximum thickness allowed for a 
crib mattress. In response to a comment discussed in section E.3 of 
this preamble, the final rule modifies the test methodology that we had 
proposed. These changes, suggested by a commenter, make the test more 
suitable for the geometry of a guardrail (as opposed to that of a 
portable bed rail) and improve repeatability of the test. With these 
changes, the test is better suited to toddler bed guardrails and thus, 
will better address the risk of injury.
e. Spindle/Slat Static Load Strength (Sec.  1217.2(c)(3) and (5)(ii))
    As discussed in section F of this preamble, we had proposed adding 
requirements for testing the spindles/slats on guardrails, side rails, 
and end rails. These provisions in the final rule are largely the same 
as proposed. However, we received a comment (discussed in section E.4 
of this preamble) asking that spindle/slat requirements for toddler 
beds match such requirements for cribs, which are stated in ASTM's 
full-size crib standard, ASTM F 1169-10. In response to this comment, 
we have revised the spindle/slat requirements so that these provisions 
are more consistent with the requirements for cribs. Like the crib 
rule, the final rule requires testing 25 percent of spindles/slats at 
80 pound-force and then another 25 percent of spindles/slats at 80 
pound-force, if needed, with no more than 50 percent of the spindles/
slats tested. The 80 pound-force is applied for a period of 2 to 5 
seconds midway between the top and bottom of the spindle/slat being 
tested and is maintained for 10 seconds. The final rule also specifies, 
as provided in the crib standard, how to test toddler beds that may 
contain folding sides. The modifications make the standard in the final 
rule more stringent than ASTM F 1821-09 because ASTM F 1821-09 does not 
contain any requirements concerning spindle/slat strength.
f. Warning Label Requirements (Sec.  1217.2(c)(6))
    As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the warning 
provisions in ASTM F 1821-09 are confusing and redundant, see 75 FR 
22293-96. We proposed that the warning be separated into two warnings, 
one to address entrapment, and one to address strangulation.
    Like the proposal, the final rule requires that specified warnings 
addressing entrapment and strangulation appear on toddler beds. The 
final rule also requires a specified warning concerning mattress size 
to address potential entrapment in gaps surrounding the mattress. As 
noted in section E.6 of this preamble, the Commission agrees with a 
commenter who asked that warning labels on toddler beds be harmonized 
with warning labels required for cribs because many toddler beds 
convert from cribs. Accordingly, the final rule requires toddler beds 
that convert from cribs to meet the warning requirements specified in 
the full-size crib standard, ASTM F 1169-10 (incorporated by reference 
at 16 CFR part 1219, Safety Standard for Full-Size Baby Cribs) instead 
of using the warnings specified in the toddler bed standard. The 
mattress thickness requirements are different for cribs and for toddler 
beds. In order to avoid requiring a convertible crib to have two 
warnings concerning mattress size (one to address the crib requirements 
and one to address the toddler bed requirements), the final rule 
provides that toddler beds that convert from cribs must provide the 
mattress size warning required by the crib standard and add a line to 
the warning specifying that the minimum mattress thickness is 4 inches. 
The modifications to ASTM F 1821-09 make the standard more stringent. 
Separating the strangulation and entrapment warnings should increase 
consumers' understanding of the connection between the relevant 
behaviors and hazards. In addition, the entrapment hazard warning 
emphasizes the group most at risk and the consequences of the hazard, 
as well as provides a more explicit description of how the entrapment 
hazard occurs.

H. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires that 
the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of 
the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The preamble to the proposed rule 
indicated that the standard would become effective six months after 
publication of a final rule (75 FR at 22296). We did not receive any 
comments on the proposed six-month effective date. The final rule 
provides a six-month effective date (as measured from the date of 
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register).

I. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') generally requires that 
agencies review proposed rules for their potential economic impact on 
small entities, including small businesses, and prepare an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA further requires 
agencies to consider comments they receive on the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis and prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities and 
identifying alternatives that could reduce that impact. Id. 604. This 
section summarizes CPSC staff's final regulatory flexibility analysis 
for the toddler bed standard. (CPSC staff's final regulatory 
flexibility analysis can be found at Tab F of the staff's briefing 
package.)

1. The Market

    There are currently at least 73 known manufacturers or importers 
supplying toddler beds (including convertible cribs) to the U.S. 
market. Approximately 48 suppliers are domestic manufacturers (66 
percent); 13 are domestic importers (18 percent); 11 are foreign 
manufacturers (15 percent); and the remaining firm is a foreign 
supplier who imports from other countries and exports to the United 
States.
    Under U.S. Small Business Administration (``SBA'') guidelines, a 
manufacturer of toddler beds or convertible cribs is small if it has 
500 or fewer employees; an importer is considered small if it has 100 
or fewer employees. Based on these guidelines, 11 of the domestic 
importers and 34 domestic manufacturers known to be supplying the U.S. 
market are small. There are an additional eight domestic manufacturers 
of unknown size, most (at least seven) of which are likely to be small. 
However, there are probably additional unknown small manufacturers and 
importers operating in the U.S. market as well.
    The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (``JPMA''), the 
major U.S. trade association that represents juvenile product 
manufacturers and importers, runs a voluntary certification program for 
several juvenile products. Approximately 29 firms supplying toddler 
beds and/or convertible cribs to the U.S. market make or import 
products that comply with ASTM F 1821-09 (40 percent). Of the small 
domestic businesses, 11 manufacturers (27 percent) and 6 importers (55 
percent) make or import products that are JPMA-certified as ASTM 
compliant.

[[Page 22026]]

Additionally, there are two small manufacturers that claim compliance 
with the ASTM standard that are not part of the JPMA Certification 
Program.
    The most recent U.S. birth data shows that there are approximately 
4.2 million births per year (this figure has been updated since 
publication of the proposed rule). The majority of these babies 
eventually use cribs for sleeping purposes, although there is some 
evidence that play yards are becoming a common substitute. In fact, 
according to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group (2006 
Baby Products Tracking Study), 22 percent of new mothers own 
convertible cribs. Approximately 16 percent of convertible cribs were 
handed down or purchased secondhand. If these rates remained constant, 
this suggests annual convertible crib sales would be about 776,000 
(0.22 x 0.84 x 4.2 million births per year) currently. (These estimates 
are intended to provide a general characterization of the market. They 
are not intended to provide estimates of future sales.) Of those 
consumers with nonconvertible cribs, some proportion of them eventually 
will use toddler beds when their children get older. However, consumers 
may choose to use a twin or larger bed (and possibly use portable bed 
rails) rather than a separate toddler bed. Assuming that approximately 
50 percent of consumers elect to use toddler beds, and assuming that 
approximately 50 percent buy them new, this would mean that around 
819,000 toddler beds are sold per year (0.78 percent nonconvertible 
cribs x 4.2 million births x 0.5 percent use toddler beds x 0.5 percent 
buy them new). Adding this number to the estimate of convertible cribs, 
yields a total of approximately 1.6 million units (convertible cribs 
and toddler beds) sold per year that might be affected by the toddler 
bed standard.

2. Impact on Small Business

    There are 73 firms currently known to be marketing toddler beds 
and/or convertible cribs in the United States. Of these, 6 are large 
domestic manufacturers; 1 is a domestic manufacturer of unknown size; 2 
are large domestic importers; and 12 are foreign firms. The impact on 
the remaining 52 small firms (34 small domestic manufacturers, 7 
presumed to be small domestic manufacturers, and 11 small domestic 
importers) is the focus of the remainder of this analysis.
a. Small Domestic Manufacturers
    For the most part, the impact of the final rule on small 
manufacturers will differ based on whether they currently make products 
that comply with the voluntary ASTM standard. If they do not, as is the 
case with 28 firms, the impact on them could be significant. These 
firms likely would have to undergo product redevelopment. As explained 
below, the cost of such an effort for toddler beds/convertible cribs is 
unknown, but could be substantial for some firms.
    Product development costs include: product design, development, and 
marketing staff time; product testing; and focus group expenses. These 
costs can be very high, particularly when there are multiple products; 
but they can be treated as new product expenses and amortized. Other 
one-time costs include the retooling of manufacturing equipment, which 
could also be recouped gradually over the sales of numerous units. 
There also are expected to be increased costs of production. Producing 
toddler beds and convertible cribs that have greater structural 
integrity, stronger slats/spindles, and higher guardrails may require 
additional raw materials or possibly heavier materials. In addition to 
increasing the costs of production, this could increase shipping costs 
as well.
    Even if these firms are able to pass on some of their increased 
costs to consumers, the impact still could be considerable. This is 
because firms manufacturing toddler beds and convertible cribs are not 
simply competing against other producers of toddler beds and 
convertible cribs. They are competing against producers of substitute 
products as well, firms that would not be covered under the recommended 
standard. Toddler beds compete with twin (or possibly larger) beds, 
which can be used with portable guardrails. Similarly, convertible 
cribs compete with adult-size beds when children are older and with 
standard cribs for younger children.
    There is expected to be less impact on the 13 firms that are known 
to produce products that comply with the current voluntary standard. It 
is believed that at least some of these firms may be able to comply 
with the new requirements without modifying their products (except for 
labeling). The remaining firms may opt to redesign their product(s) as 
well, which again would result in some one-time costs, as well as a 
possible increase in production costs. It is also possible, however, 
that they may be able to select a potentially less expensive option to 
address some of the requirements that differ from the ASTM standard; 
modifying the materials used may be sufficient for many products, and 
the associated cost is not expected to exceed a few dollars per unit.
    Two of the 28 manufacturers supplying noncompliant products would 
be affected differently by the final rule. They are firms that take 
already-manufactured toddler beds and convertible cribs, decorate them 
(often with original artwork), and sell them as a final product. 
Because these firms do not make the underlying toddler beds/convertible 
cribs, the impact of the final rule on them will be the same as on an 
importer. They would need to find a new supplier of compliant products 
if their current supplier does not make the necessary modifications. 
The new products presumably would be higher quality, as well as more 
expensive, because some of the original manufacturer's production costs 
(and possibly redevelopment costs) will be passed on to these firms.
    The scenario described above assumes that only those firms that 
produce products which are JPMA-certified or claim ASTM compliance will 
pass the voluntary standard's requirements. This is not necessarily the 
case. We have identified many cases in which products not certified by 
JPMA actually comply with the relevant ASTM standard. However, there is 
insufficient evidence of this for toddler beds/convertible cribs to 
quantify this impact. To the extent that some products may already 
comply with non-U.S. standards, the effect of the new and modified 
requirements may be less substantial than outlined above. However, 
there is insufficient information to quantify this effect.
b. Small Domestic Importers
    The majority of small domestic importers (6 out of 11) supply 
products that comply with the current voluntary standard. We believe 
that at least some of these firms will not need to make any additional 
product modifications to meet the final rule (except for labeling). 
However, those whose products do require modifications will need to 
find an alternate supplier if their existing one does not come into 
compliance. The new products presumably will be more expensive, as well 
as higher in quality. However, the actual price increase is unknown and 
is likely to vary based upon the degree of modifications required. All 
of the remaining five firms supplying products that do not comply with 
the ASTM voluntary standard would need to find suppliers whose products 
comply with the standard or ensure that their current supplier made the 
modifications necessary to comply. Depending upon the degree to which 
their toddler beds and convertible cribs are out of compliance with the 
voluntary standard, the price increase

[[Page 22027]]

(as well as the increases in quality and safety) could be relatively 
high. To the extent that some of these firms actually may comply with 
ASTM F 1821-09 or one or more of the new/modified requirements in the 
final standard, the impact of the final rule would be lower.
    For the most part, the impact on importers tends to be smaller than 
on manufacturers. Even if importers respond to the rule by 
discontinuing the import of their noncomplying toddler beds and 
convertible cribs, either replacing them with a complying product or 
another juvenile product, deciding to import an alternative product 
would be a reasonable and realistic way to offset any lost revenue. The 
one exception would be firms for which convertible cribs/toddler beds 
and their associated products (i.e., matching furniture) form the core 
of their product line. For these firms, a substantial price increase 
possibly could drive them out of business or require them to rebuild 
their business based on alternative products.

3. Alternatives

    Under section 104 of the CPSIA, the primary alternative that would 
reduce the impact on small entities is to make the voluntary standard 
mandatory with no modifications. For small domestic manufacturers that 
already meet the requirements of the voluntary standard, adopting the 
standard without modifications may reduce their costs relative to the 
final rule, but only marginally. Similarly, limiting the requirements 
of the rule to those already in the voluntary standard probably would 
have little beneficial impact on small manufacturers that do not 
currently meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. This is 
because, for these firms, most of the cost increases would be 
associated with meeting the requirements of ASTM F 1821-09, rather than 
the changes associated with the final rule. The difference for 
importers also is likely to be minimal, whether they supply products 
that comply with the voluntary standard or not,
    A second alternative would be to set a later effective date. This 
would allow suppliers additional time to modify and/or develop 
compliant toddler beds and convertible cribs, thereby spreading the 
associated costs over a longer period of time.

4. Conclusion

    It is possible that the final rule could have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Firms supplying products 
that already comply with the voluntary standard may not need to make 
any product modifications to meet the final rule, but this group is 
known to include only 42 percent of the small firms identified. Some of 
these firms and all other firms will need to make at least some 
modifications to their toddler beds and convertible cribs to comply 
with the final rule. The extent of these costs is unknown; but because 
product redevelopment likely would be necessary in many cases, it is 
possible that the costs could be large and have the potential to reduce 
firms' ability to compete with substitute products.
    A few small businesses have product lines consisting entirely or 
primarily of toddler beds, convertible cribs, and related products 
(such as accompanying furniture). These firms may be affected 
disproportionately by any standard. If the cost of developing (or 
importing) a compliant product proves to be a barrier for these firms, 
the loss of toddler beds and convertible cribs as a product category 
could be significant and may not be mitigated easily by the sale of 
other juvenile products.

J. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for 
the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement because they ``have 
little or no potential for affecting the human environment.'' 16 CFR 
1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

K. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preamble to 
the proposed rule (75 FR at 22296 through 22297) discussed the 
information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically 
requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. We did not receive 
any comments concerning the information collection burden of the 
proposal, and the final rule does not make any changes to that burden. 
We have applied to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a 
control number for this information collection, and we will publish a 
notice in the Federal Register providing the number when we receive 
approval from the OMB.

L. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a 
``consumer product safety standard under [the CPSA]'' is in effect and 
applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may 
either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the 
same risk of injury unless the State requirement is identical to the 
Federal standard. (Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states 
or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an 
exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.) Section 
104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that 
section as ``consumer product safety standards,'' thus implying that 
the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 
Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 
preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes 
effective.

M. Certification

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products 
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a 
similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced 
by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC 
requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a 
test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program or, for 
children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a 
third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to 
test according to the applicable requirements. As noted in the 
discussion above concerning preemption, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the 
CPSIA refers to standards issued under that section as ``consumer 
product safety standards.'' By the same reasoning, such standards also 
would be subject to section 14 of the CPSA. Therefore, any such 
standard would be considered a consumer product safety rule, to which 
products subject to the rule must be certified.
    Because toddler beds are children's products, they must be tested 
by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has 
been accepted by the Commission. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register, we have issued a notice of requirements to explain how 
laboratories can become accredited as third party conformity assessment 
bodies to test to the new toddler bed standard. (Toddler beds also must 
comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead 
content requirements of section 101 of the CPSIA, the phthalate content 
requirements in section 108 of the CPSIA, the tracking label 
requirement in

[[Page 22028]]

section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form 
requirements in section 104 of the CPSIA.)

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1217

    Consumer protection, Infants and children, Incorporation by 
reference, Law enforcement, Safety, Toddler beds.
    For the reasons stated above, and under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 
553, and sections 3 and 104 of Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 
(August 14, 2008), the Consumer Product Safety Commission amends Title 
16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1217 to read as 
follows:

PART 1217--SAFETY STANDARD FOR TODDLER BEDS

Sec.
1217.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
1217.2 Requirements for toddler beds.

    Authority: Sections 3 and 104 of Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 
(August 14, 2008).


Sec.  1217.1  Scope, application, and effective date.

    This part 1217 establishes a consumer product safety standard for 
toddler beds manufactured or imported on or after October 20, 2011.


Sec.  1217.2  Requirements for toddler beds.

    (a) The Director of the Federal Register approves the 
incorporations by reference listed in this section in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of these ASTM 
standards from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA, phone: 610-832-9585; 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) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each 
toddler bed as defined in ASTM F 1821-09, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Toddler Beds, approved April 1, 2009, shall comply 
with all applicable provisions of ASTM F 1821-09.
    (c) Comply with ASTM F 1821-09 with the following additions or 
exclusions.
    (1) Do not comply wit