[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 118 (Monday, June 21, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35266-35279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14323]



[[Page 35265]]

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

Part III





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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



16 CFR Parts 1216 and 1500



Safety Standard for Infant Walkers; Revocation of Regulations Banning 
Certain Baby-Walkers; Third Party Testing for Certain Children's 
Products; Infant Walkers: Requirements for Accreditation of Third Party 
Conformity Assessment Bodies and Agency Information Collection 
Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Final Rules and 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 35266]]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1216

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2009-0066]


Safety Standard for Infant Walkers: Final Rule

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 issuing a safety standard for infant walkers in response to the 
direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission voted 5-0 to approve publication of this 
rule. Commissioner Thomas Moore filed a statement concerning this 
action which may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html or obtained from the Commission's 
Office of the Secretary.

DATES: The rule will become effective on December 21, 2010 and apply to 
products manufactured or imported on or after that date. The 
incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 21, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Manley, Office of Compliance 
and Field Operations, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 
telephone (301) 504-7607; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background and Statutory Authority

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (``CPSIA'', 
Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety 
standards for durable infant 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. Section 104(b)(2) of the CPSIA 
directs the Commission to begin rulemaking for two standards by August 
14, 2009. Under this provision, the Commission published a proposed 
standard for infant walkers in the Federal Register on September 3, 
2009. 74 FR 45704. The standard is substantially the same as a 
voluntary standard developed by ASTM International (formerly known as 
the American Society for Testing and Materials), ASTM F 977-07, 
Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Walkers, but with 
several modifications that strengthen the standard in order to reduce 
the risk of injury associated with walkers.
    There are existing mandatory regulations applicable to baby 
bouncers, walker-jumpers, and baby walkers, which were originally 
issued in 1971 by the Food and Drug Administration. 16 CFR 
1500.18(a)(6) and 16 CFR 1500.86(a)(4). These regulations do not 
address hazards associated with falls down stairs, structural 
integrity, occupant retention, or loading/stability issues. The ASTM F 
977-07 standard contains provisions that the mandatory regulations lack 
or requirements that are more stringent than the mandatory standard. On 
September 3, 2009, the Commission proposed to revoke the existing CPSC 
regulations for baby bouncers, baby jumpers and walkers. As explained 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the Commission has 
determined to revoke the existing regulations only with regard to 
walkers. They will remain in effect for baby bouncers and baby jumpers.

B. The Product

    Infant walkers are used to support very young children before they 
are walking (usually 6 to 15 months old). ASTM F 977-07 defines 
``walker'' as ``a mobile unit that enables a child to move on a 
horizontal surface when propelled by the child sitting or standing 
within the walker, and that is in the manufacturer's recommended use 
position.'' Children may use walkers to sit, recline, bounce, jump, and 
use their feet to move around. Walkers typically consist of fabric 
seats attached to rigid trays. The trays are fastened to bases that 
have wheels or casters to make them mobile.
    Currently, there are at least seven manufacturers or importers 
supplying walkers to the United States market (four domestic 
manufacturers, two foreign manufacturers with divisions in the United 
States, and one domestic importer).
    All known suppliers of infant walkers are members of the Juvenile 
Products Manufacturers Association (``JPMA''), the major United States 
trade association that represents juvenile product manufacturers and 
importers. Each supplies a variety of children's products, of which 
walkers are only a small proportion. Infant walkers are available in 
many countries besides the United States, including China, the United 
Kingdom, and Australia. Therefore, any foreign manufacturer is a 
potential supplier to the United States market, either directly or 
indirectly through an importer.
    Infant walkers made by all of the domestic manufacturers supplying 
walkers to the United States market are JPMA certified as compliant 
with the ASTM voluntary standard. Based on limited CPSC staff testing, 
CPSC staff does not believe that the two foreign manufacturers and the 
domestic importer are making walkers that are compliant with the 
voluntary standard.
    Sales of infant walkers peaked in the early 1990s at less than 2 
million annually. By 2005, however, annual walker sales had fallen to 
around 600,000. Following a similar pattern, walkers in use (the number 
of walkers estimated to still be in use, regardless of when sold) 
peaked in the mid-1990s, but have since fallen sharply as well (by 55 
percent between 1996 and 2005). As of 2005, the estimated number of 
walkers in use was probably less than 2 million.

C. Incident Data

    The preamble to the proposed rule summarized incident data 
involving walkers. There has been no change in the fatality reports or 
injury estimates related to walkers since publication of the proposed 
rule. That information is repeated below.

1. Injury Estimates

    There were an estimated total of 14,900 (an annual average of 
3,000) injuries related to infant walkers among children under the age 
of 15 months that were treated in hospital emergency departments in the 
United States over the five-year period 2004-2008.\2\ (This estimate 
has been adjusted to exclude jumpers from the walker code.) No deaths 
were reported through NEISS.

[[Page 35267]]

There was no statistically significant increase or decrease observed in 
the estimated injuries from one year to the next, nor was there any 
statistically significant trend observed over the 2004-2008 period. For 
injuries requiring emergency department treatment that were related to 
infant walkers, the following characteristics occurred most frequently 
based on an annual average:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The source of injury estimates is the National Electronic 
Injury Surveillance System (``NEISS''), a statistically valid injury 
surveillance system based on data gathered from emergency 
departments of hospitals selected as a probability sample of all the 
United States hospitals with emergency departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Hazard--falls either out of the walker or down stairs/to a 
lower level while in the walker (62%).
     Injured body part--head (45%) and face (27%).
     Injury type--contusions/abrasions (37%) and internal organ 
injury (28%).
     Disposition--treated and released (90%) and hospitalized 
(5%).
    For approximately 72 percent of the injuries reported, the walker 
was directly involved in the incident (such as the walker falling down 
stairs, tipping over, collapsing). However, many (nearly 20 percent) of 
the injuries treated in emergency departments were not necessarily 
caused by failures of the walkers.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR at 45705), 
the stair fall protection provisions in the ASTM standard dramatically 
affected incidents related to walkers (an 88% decrease in estimated 
incidents related to walkers treated in emergency rooms from 1994 to 
2008). However, the stair fall hazard remains the most prevalent hazard 
in incidents related to walkers with some of these incidents involving 
walkers that do not comply with the voluntary standard, damaged or worn 
walkers, or children who are strong enough to lift the walker and 
defeat the stair fall protection.

2. Fatalities

    CPSC staff has reports of eight fatal incidents involving an infant 
in a walker during the five year period 2004 to 2008.\3\ One of these 
appears to involve a stair fall incident. The walker involved did not 
conform to the ASTM walker standard's stair fall performance 
requirements and had been under recall at the time of the death (due to 
the lack of stair fall protection). There were three deaths that 
resulted from accidental drowning when the child moved in a walker into 
a residential pool or spa. Two of these three deaths involved walkers 
that were certified to the JPMA standard, though pictures showed that 
one of the walkers was missing a wheel. The physical condition of the 
other walker is unknown. The circumstances of the remaining four deaths 
varied and involved circumstances unrelated to falls (i.e., a slow 
cooker overturned on an infant in a walker who pulled the cord of the 
cooker, an infant pulled a heavy dining chair on himself, an infant 
rolled down a driveway and struck a moving vehicle, and an infant 
aspirated a screw while seated in a walker).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The reported fatalities and non-fatalities are neither a 
complete count of all incidents that occurred during the period nor 
a sample of known probability of selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Non-Fatal Injuries

    A total of 78 non-fatal injuries were reported to have occurred 
between 2004 and 2008. All of these injuries occurred when the infant 
was seated in a walker. The leading cause of injury (about 42% of the 
injuries) was falls down the stairs or to a lower level. The next major 
cause of injury was product failure, either structural or mechanical 
failure of the walker, and these accounted for another 37% of the 
incidents. The attached toys, toy bars, or toy trays on the walker 
caused another 17% of the injuries, such as lacerations, abrasions, 
pinching, etc. Three percent of the non-fatal reported injuries were 
serious burn injuries resulting from infants pulling cords of small 
cooking appliances and spilling hot liquids onto themselves. Finally, 
one percent of the reported incidents did not specify the injury.

D. Voluntary Standards

1. ASTM Voluntary Standard

    ASTM F 977, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant 
Walkers, was first published in 1986 and was revised in 1997 to address 
the stair fall hazard. The Commission's proposed rule, published 
September 3, 2009, was based on the 2007 version of the ASTM standard, 
ASTM F 977-07. In December 2009, ASTM published a revision to the 
infant walker standard, F 977-09. This revision included some of the 
changes in the Commission's proposed rule, but not the majority of 
them. The 2009 revision of the ASTM standard also included a 
significant change to the rearward facing stair fall test procedure for 
open back frame walker models. This test procedure was different from 
the test procedure the Commission proposed for these types of walkers. 
The proposed rule would require using a 1-inch aluminum angle firmly 
attached to the walker frame. The ASTM '09 version uses loops of cord 
and a lightweight floating bar. Because this method of attachment may 
not remain taut throughout the stair fall test, this procedure in the 
ASTM '09 version is not as stringent as the test method the Commission 
proposed for these types of walkers. For this reason, the final rule 
incorporates by reference ASTM F 977-07 rather than the 2009 revision.
    JPMA provides certification programs for juvenile products, 
including infant walkers. Manufacturers submit their products to an 
independent testing laboratory to test the product for conformance to 
the ASTM standard. Currently, infant walkers from five manufacturers 
are JPMA certified as being in compliance with the ASTM standard.
    The ASTM standard includes performance requirements specific to 
infant walkers, general performance requirements, and labeling 
requirements. The key provisions of the ASTM infant walker standard 
include the following:
     Prevention of falls down stairs--intended to ensure that a 
walker will not fall down stairs when facing front, back, and sideways.
     Tipping resistance--intended to ensure that walkers are 
stable and do not tip over when on a flat surface; includes tests for 
forward and rear tip resistance, as well as for the occupant leaning 
over the front.
     Dynamic and static load testing on seating area--intended 
to ensure that the child remains fully supported while stationary and 
while bouncing/jumping.
     Occupant retention--intended to prevent entrapment by 
setting requirements for leg openings.
    The ASTM standard also includes: (1) Torque and tension tests to 
assure that components cannot be removed; (2) requirements for several 
walker features to prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum and maximum 
opening size, accessible coil springs, leg openings, and edges that can 
scissor, shear, or pinch); (3) latching/locking mechanism requirements 
to assure that walkers do not accidentally fold while in use; (4) 
requirements for the permanency and adhesion of labels; and (5) 
requirements for instructional literature.
    The stair fall protection requirement, also called the step test, 
is the key provision in the ASTM standard. For this test, a walker with 
a Civil Aeromedical Institute infant dummy (Mark II) (subsequently 
referred to as ``CAMI dummy'') is placed in the walker's seat which is 
propelled with a horizontal dynamic force by means of a pulley, rope, 
and a falling 8-pound weight on a hardwood floor surface. The walker 
passes the test if it stays on the test table which has a hardwood 
floor surface. It fails the test if the walker completely falls off the 
table surface.
    The step test in the ASTM F 977-07 standard is based on the 
assumption that an average walker weighs 8 pounds. However, when CPSC 
staff weighed five

[[Page 35268]]

2008 to 2009 model walkers, the weight values ranged from 11 to 14 
pounds. Computing the launching distance ``d'' as described in section 
7.6 of ASTM F 977-07 depends on the weight of the walker, the weight of 
the CAMI dummy, the weight of the CAMI vest, the coefficient of 
friction between the walker wheels and the test table surface, and the 
maximum velocity at the edge of the test table platform (4 ft/sec or 2 
ft/sec). According to section 7.6 of ASTM F 977-07, the d value for the 
forward and rearward directions with only the CAMI dummy seated in the 
walker is 14.6 inches. The d value for the forward and rearward 
directions with the CAMI dummy fitted with the 11-pound vest seated in 
the walker is 21.2 inches. The values of 14.6 inches and 21.2 inches 
were based on the assumption that the walker weight is 8 pounds. As in 
the proposed rule, the final rule requires calculation of the launching 
distance using the actual weight of the walker.
    In the ASTM F 977-07 standard, most of the hardware and test 
apparatus components are not specified. Variability in the type and 
size of the pulley, rope type, test table flexure etc. can lead to 
different test results. Two different labs could test the same model 
walker and obtain different results. As in the proposed rule, the final 
rule adds specificity to these requirements.

2. European Standard EN 1273:2005

    CPSC staff evaluated EN 1273:2005 European Standard and its two 
performance tests that are not in the ASTM F 977-07: the 30[deg] 
incline plane stability test and the parking device test.
    The Commission proposed adding the 30[deg] incline plane test, 
which is a standard stability test common in several EN children's 
product safety standards, to the walker mandatory standard. In this 
test, the walker, occupied by a 26.4 lb (12 kg) test mass is placed on 
a sloping platform inclined at 30[deg] to the horizontal with a stop on 
the lower edge of the slope. The walker must not tip over. As explained 
in part F.2 of the preamble, the Commission is not including this test 
in the final rule.
    The parking device test is only applicable to walkers that are 
equipped with a parking brake. It essentially requires conducting a 
semi-static version of the stair fall test, but with the parking device 
engaged. The walker must not move more than 1.97 inches (50 mm) in 
order to pass. The Commission proposed adding this test, and the final 
rule retains this addition.

E. Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule

    CPSC received seven comments regarding the proposed rule for infant 
walkers, including five from individuals, one from JPMA, and one from 
various consumer groups, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation 
of America, and Kids in Danger. These comments and the Commission's 
responses are discussed below.

1. Parking Brake Requirement and Warning

    a. Comment: One commenter remarked that the parking brake 
requirement should be more stringent because parking brakes should keep 
the walker completely stationary and also commented that the proposed 
warning in the proposed rule is contradictory to the perception of a 
parking brake's function. Another commenter recommended requiring 
parking brakes for all infant walkers.
    Response: CPSC believes that the purpose of the parking brake 
warning is to alert the caregiver that the parking brake is used for 
temporarily preventing the walker from moving. In several ASTM 
meetings, some infant walker manufacturers have characterized the 
purpose of the parking brakes as such, and that the child in the walker 
must always be kept in view. The parking brake feature is added on some 
models for convenience to the caregiver. The parking brake is not meant 
to keep a child in the walker indefinitely without supervision. Also, 
the warning is meant to prevent any false sense of security by the 
caregiver. CPSC believes the proposed warning and the performance 
requirements as they appeared in the proposed rule are adequate.
    b. Comment: One commenter supported the concept for having a 
performance test for walkers with parking brakes, but disagreed with 
the proposal to adopt the EN 1273:2005 European Standard's test for 
parking brakes. The performance test is similar to that of the stair 
fall test, except that the 8-pound weight guided by a rope and pulley 
is released gradually and there is no set launching distance. Upon 
completion of the gradual 8-pound force application, the maximum 
allowable displacement (i.e., movement) of the walker is 1.97 inches. 
The commenter argued that a lack of incidents involving parking devices 
supports its argument. In addition, the commenter compared the proposed 
parking device test to the ASTM F 2012, Standard for Stationary 
Activity Centers. The commenter asserted that a stationary activity 
center is similar to that of an infant walker with its parking brakes 
engaged. Based on this comparison to stationary activity centers, the 
commenter advocated increasing the maximum allowable displacement to 6 
inches in accordance with ASTM F 2012.
    Response: CPSC believes that if a product is equipped with a 
feature, such as a parking brake, that feature should function properly 
and safely. Although CPSC is not aware of any incidents involving 
parking devices in the United States, the Commission believes that 
requiring the parking brake test is appropriate for the following 
reasons.
    There are important distinctions between walkers and stationary 
activity centers. An infant in a walker tends to exert a horizontal 
force to propel himself or herself horizontally, whereas a child in a 
stationary activity center may not necessarily exert the same type of 
horizontally concentrated forces because the infant may be preoccupied 
jumping up and down, spinning about the seat, and playing with toys. 
The parking brake performance test should set limits on the 
displacement of the walker in the horizontal direction to resist motion 
when the parking brakes are engaged. The appropriate amount of force 
should be applied. Furthermore, upon comparison between ASTM F 2012 and 
EN 1273:2005, CPSC staff noted the following observations:
     A force gauge is used to apply the 8-pound force in ASTM F 
2012 instead of a rope and pulley guided 8-pound weight as specified in 
EN 1273:2005. In the EN 1273:2005 test, the 8-pound weight is released 
gradually over a 5 second period and then hung from the test assembly 
for 1 minute. Arguably, the force of gravity is more consistent than a 
test technician applying a consistent rate of 8 pounds over a 10 second 
period (as in the ASTM F 2012 test). The longer duration of 1 minute is 
more stringent than 10 seconds.
     The location application of the 8-pound force in ASTM F 
2012 has infinite variability as it is any location 2 inches above the 
floor level. The EN 1273:2005 standard requires the rope to be secured 
onto the bottom frame member of the infant walker which is arguably 
more consistent.
     In the ``Rationale'' section of ASTM F 2012, there is no 
mention of how the maximum allowable limit for displacement of 6 inches 
per minute was obtained.
    EN 1273:2005's maximum allowable 1.97-inch displacement is more 
stringent than ASTM F 2012's 6 inches. Moreover, CPSC's adoption of 
this performance test would harmonize with

[[Page 35269]]

the European EN 1273:2005 Standard for this requirement.
    The Commission notes that this performance test is required only 
for infant walker models equipped with parking devices. Manufacturers 
can choose to exclude parking devices from their product.
    The final rule retains the EN 1273:2005 performance test and 
maximum allowable displacement for 1.97 inches (CPSC staff assumes the 
commenter referred to 2 inches in its discussions for convenience) for 
parking devices as it was proposed in the proposed rule, except for an 
editorial change (discussed in the next response) to address some 
walkers that have fixed direction rear wheels.
    c. Comment: The same commenter observed that the parking brake 
test, as written in the proposed rule, may present problems for 
measuring the displacement for walkers that have fixed direction wheels 
in the rear of the walker. With these types of wheels, the walker has a 
natural tendency to travel in a curved path instead of in a straight 
path. A walker with four casters does not have this issue.
    Response: To address this subset of walkers, the final rule adds 
the following new paragraph to the language the Commission previously 
proposed for the sideward facing test of parking devices:

    If the walker is equipped with fixed direction rear wheels and 
the walker is displaced in a curved path, establish the location of 
the rope attachment as the reference point and measure the linear 
displacement of that reference point after performing the procedure 
as described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) and (B).

2. The 30[deg] Incline Plane Test

    Comment: One commenter favored maintaining the cantilevered 
stability test as described in Section 7.3.4 of the ASTM F 977-07 
Standard for infant walkers, and advocated eliminating the additional 
CPSC proposed 30[deg] incline plane stability test to address tip over 
hazards.
    Response: From the time CPSC staff recommended the 30[deg] incline 
plane test (based on EN 1273:2005), numerous discussions about the 
added benefits of the 30[deg] incline plane stability test have 
occurred among CPSC staff and ASTM. Over the past year, these 
discussions have taken place at ASTM headquarters, as well as in 
conference calls. A JPMA member was tasked to perform analyses on the 
two test methods to determine if the 30[deg] incline plane test is 
needed. During ASTM's presentation at the October 13, 2009 meeting, the 
JPMA member demonstrated using real examples that Section 7.3.4 
stability test of the ASTM F 977-07 Standard is adequate and that the 
30[deg] incline plane test is not needed. The analyses included a 
comparison of the two stability test methods using the dimensions of an 
exemplar walker and concluded that the 30[deg] incline plane test was 
not as severe as the Section 7.3.4 stability test. CPSC staff concurred 
with this presentation and the comparison of stability test methods. 
Therefore, the final rule does not include the 30[deg] incline plane 
test that was in the proposed rule.

3. Adding Calculation To Determine Launching Distance To Step Test 
Procedures

    Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed rule's proposal to 
change the fixed distances in the step test to a computed value for d 
which will vary due to the weight of the test sample walkers. The 
commenter asserted that increasing the launching distance for heavier 
walkers is not necessary or is ``self correcting'' because a child 
seated in the heavier walker will naturally not move as fast. The 
commenter requested keeping the launching distances as they are in 
Table 1 of Section 7.6 of the ASTM F 977-07 Standard. The commenter 
also commented that no incident data indicates a need to change 
velocities in the step test.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR 
at 45706), the Commission believes that the step test requirements 
should be modified to account for heavier modern walkers. The 8-pound 
walker used to develop the ASTM step requirement for the original 1997 
standard is now outdated because the average modern walker is heavier 
than 8 pounds.
    The critical parameter of the step test is the velocity of a walker 
with a child in it. CPSC staff believes that it would be more robust to 
assume that the child maintains a 4 feet/second top speed, regardless 
of the walker's weight. CPSC staff showed that children can achieve 4 
feet/second in an 8-pound walker (1996 ASTM Working Group) and in a 
10.5-pound walker (2000 Austrian study \4\). (Both of these studies 
were based on small sample sizes of 7 and 5 children, respectively.) 
Stair fall incidents continue to occur, and some involve modern walkers 
that meet the ASTM requirements. Since the child/walker speed is the 
critical factor in determining stopping distance of a moving walker at 
the edge of the step, CPSC staff believes that a 4 feet/second velocity 
should be maintained regardless of the walker's weight. This 
necessitates using the walker's actual weight in the calculation for 
the stair fall test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Baby Walking Frames--Final Report,'' Consumer Council 
Austrian Standards Institute in co-operation with Association for 
Consumer Information, European Committee For Standardization, CEN/TC 
252/WG 1 N. 255 February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to incident data supporting the change, a special study 
conducted by CPSC indicates that several reported incidents involved 
walkers that were manufactured to comply with the ASTM stair step 
requirement and were reported to have been in good condition at the 
time of the incident. In addition, a review of a list compiled by CPSC 
staff of over 200 incidents (reported through sources other than NEISS) 
involving infant walkers from 1999 to 2008 indicates that over 40 
percent of those incidents involved stair falls, including one death 
which occurred due to a fractured skull.
    CPSC staff's review of the data has also shown that popular larger, 
heavier models (greater than 8 pounds) manufactured after 1998 were 
involved in stair falls. For example, in incident 081112HEP9038, a 10-
month old male fell down a set of steps when he traveled past an 
unlatched gate; the child required a trip to the emergency room. In 
incident 081113HEP9029, an 11-month old male fell down a set of stairs 
and was found upside down still in the walker. Both incidents involved 
walkers made by a leading manufacturer. Both incidents occurred from 
2007 to 2008, and both walkers were equipped with friction strips. 
Therefore, the data show that modern walkers continue to be involved in 
stair fall incidents. If a walker is traveling too fast, even if it is 
equipped with friction strips, it may fall down a set of steps. By 
increasing this launching distance, the Commission is making the 
standard stricter, which should result in walkers that are made to be 
safer when traveling at faster speeds.

4. Impact of Change to Step Test

    Comment: The same commenter stated that using a calculation in the 
step test would be a substantial change and would affect the outcome of 
the test results for walkers that pass the requirement.
    Response: Based on limited testing by CPSC staff, the Commission 
believes that some manufacturers will not need to make changes to their 
product. CPSC staff agrees that some manufacturers will have to modify 
their product. However, these changes are feasible. Possible 
modifications could include increasing the rolling friction within the 
walker's wheels, reducing the walker

[[Page 35270]]

weight, or refining the friction strip design.

5. CAMI Dummy Head Position

    Comment: One commenter requested CPSC to consider specifying how 
the CAMI dummy is to ``be positioned and restrained during testing so 
that the center of gravity will be consistent from lab to lab.''
    Response: CPSC agrees in principle that it is plausible that a CAMI 
dummy's flexibility properties may change over time and use. Last year, 
round robin testing was done by CPSC staff, several manufacturers, and 
a testing laboratory. In addition to pass/fail testing, quantitative 
measurements were made, measuring the displacement of the walker 
relative to the edge of the test table. Testing done by CPSC staff did 
not show any substantial variability in the CPSC test results when the 
CAMI dummy's head was not secured. However, many other parameters, such 
as rope type, pulley type, and the spring rate for the pulley mounting 
bracket, were standardized. Furthermore, the CPSC standard provides 
additional specificity concerning the CAMI positioning: arms positioned 
on top of the toy tray, use of the standardized military rope to secure 
the legs, etc. Securing the CAMI head in a most rearward or forward 
position could possibly produce different results, depending on the 
flexibility of the dummy. Thus, CPSC staff believes that the CAMI head 
should not be secured. When the CAMI is positioned as described in the 
proposed (and final) procedure, the CAMI head movement, while it 
exists, is minimized to the extent possible. Thus, the final rule, like 
the proposed rule, provides for the CAMI head to remain unrestrained 
during all the step tests.

6. Friction Pad Wear and Tear

    Comment: The same commenter asked the CPSC to consider the affect 
of wear and tear as well as dirt and dust on the walker's compliance 
with the step test.
     Response The final rule does not include any additional 
performance requirements involving step tests with worn friction 
strips. Although CPSC recognizes that friction pad wear may reduce the 
pad's effectiveness, this may not be the case for all walker friction 
pads. Some pads may last longer than others. Assessing the amount of 
wear and standardizing the wear characteristics may be somewhat 
subjective. Given the variation between friction pad vendors and the 
changing compositions of the rubber used in the friction pads, it may 
be difficult to standardize this aspect of the test. The final standard 
includes other changes that address the stair fall hazard, such as 
increasing the input kinetic energy for heavier walkers (i.e., walkers 
heavier than 8 pounds would need to be launched from a longer distance 
to achieve the target terminal velocities). In an indirect way, setting 
the higher input kinetic energy requirement for heavier walkers creates 
revised design criteria for walker manufacturers. One area where those 
manufacturers can address the resistance to stair falls may lie in 
revisions to the friction pad design. CPSC staff believes standardizing 
the target velocity will have an important impact on the actual test, 
as the kinetic energy of the walker and CAMI dummy is proportional to 
the square of the velocity. Furthermore, each walker will be subjected 
to 18 impacts which will sufficiently subject the sample walkers to 
abuse (3 directions x 2 configurations with and without vest x 3 
replicates). For these reasons, CPSC staff believes there is 
insufficient data and rationale to add performance requirements 
involving stair fall tests with worn friction strips.

F. Assessment of Voluntary Standard ASTM F 977-07 and Description of 
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 began in October 2008 during 
the ASTM subcommittee meeting regarding the ASTM infant walker 
voluntary standard. Consultations between Commission staff and members 
of this subcommittee have continued and are still ongoing.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR at 45706), 
CPSC staff conducted testing on JPMA certified walkers in order to 
evaluate the ASTM infant walker standard and develop recommendations 
for changes to it. The testing focused on the stair fall test in the 
ASTM standard, a stability performance requirement, and a parking brake 
requirement (the latter two both taken from EN 1273:2005).
    Consistent with section 104(b) of the CPSIA, this rule establishes 
a new 16 CFR part 1216, ``Safety Standard for Infant Walkers.'' The new 
part incorporates by reference the requirements for infant walkers in 
ASTM F 977-07 with certain changes to specific provisions to strengthen 
the ASTM standard, as discussed in the next section of this preamble, 
to further reduce the risk of injury. These modifications are similar 
to the changes the Commission proposed in its September 3, 2009 
proposed rule. Differences from the proposed rule are noted in the 
following section of this preamble.

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

    While most requirements of the ASTM F 977-07 standard are 
sufficient to reduce the risk of injury posed by infant walkers, the 
Commission has modified several provisions in the standard to make them 
more stringent and clarified the test procedures. The following 
discussion describes the final rule, including changes to the ASTM 
requirements, and notes any changes from the proposed rule. In 
addition, some editing and formatting changes have been made which make 
the final text different from the proposed rule. The Commission made 
these editing and formatting changes to respond to concerns raised by 
the Office of the Federal Register; the editing and formatting changes 
do not alter the substance of the rule.
a. Scope (Sec.  1216.1)
    The final rule states that part 1216 establishes a consumer product 
safety standard for infant walkers 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.
    The Commission received no comments on this provision in the 
proposed rule and is finalizing it without change.
b. Incorporation by Reference (Sec.  1216.2(a))
    Section 1216.2(a) explains that, except as provided in Sec.  
1216.2(b), each infant walker must comply with all applicable 
provisions of ASTM F 977-07, ``Standard Consumer Safety Specification 
for Infant Walkers,'' which is incorporated by reference. Section 
1216.2(a) also provides information on how to obtain a copy of the ASTM 
standard or to inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC.
    The Commission received no comments on this provision in the 
proposed rule and is finalizing it without change.
c. Summary of Changes to ASTM F 977-07
    The more substantive modifications to the ASTM standard for walkers 
are

[[Page 35271]]

discussed in greater detail in part F.2.d. of this preamble below. A 
summary of these changes along with the other, more editorial/technical 
changes that the rule makes to the ASTM standard follows. The final 
rule:
     Updates the illustration of types of models of walkers in 
Figure 1 of the ASTM standard to include an open back design (Sec.  
1216.2(b)(1));
     Revises equipment specifications in section 4.6 of the 
ASTM standard to eliminate brand and model of force gauge and provide 
performance specifications instead. The proposed rule would have a one 
year calibration interval. However, the final rule provides a more 
general interval because a force gauge could go out of calibration 
before one year. Appropriate calibrations are necessary to maintain 
accuracy. (Sec.  1216.2(b)(2));
     Revises Figure 10 of the ASTM standard to show specific 
rope, other equipment and procedures for the step test (Sec.  
1216.2(b)(15));
     In step test procedures, adds a calculation (discussed 
below) using the actual weight of the walker to determine the launching 
distance rather than assuming an 8-pound walker. (Sec.  
1216.2(b)(5)(i), (6)(i), (8)(i), (9)(i)(11), (13)(i), (16)(i), 
(18)(i));
     In step test procedures, specifies the position for walker 
wheels (Sec.  1216.2(b)(6)(i), (11)(i), (16)(i));
     In step test procedures, specifies the position for the 
CAMI dummy. (Sec.  1216.2(b)(7)(i));
     In step test procedures, specifies rope type, pulley type, 
and force to be applied. (Sec.  1216.2(b)(4)(i), (8)(i), (12)(i), 
(17)(i));
     In step test procedures, requires each aspect of the test 
(forward, sideward, and rearward) three times to make it consistent 
with EN 1273:2005 and allow more confidence in the test results. (Sec.  
1216.2(b)(10)(i), (14)(i), (19)(i));
     Adds the following warning concerning the parking brake if 
a walker has a parking brake: ``WARNING: Parking brake use does not 
totally prevent walker movement. Always keep child in view when in the 
walker, even when using the parking brakes.'' (Sec.  1216.2(b)(21)(i));
     Revises the stair hazard warning to state: ``Block stairs/
steps securely before using walker, even when using parking brake.'' 
(Sec.  1216.2(b)(22)(i)); and
     Adds parking device test (Sec.  1216.2(b)(20)).
d. More Detailed Description of Changes to the ASTM Standard's Step 
Test
    Specification of equipment and procedures. The ASTM F 977-07 
standard's step test lacks numerous details which allow for variability 
in testing that could result in different test results. The Commission 
proposed specifying the equipment and procedure needed for the test 
(e.g., type of rope and pulley to be used, orientation of wood grain in 
the floor). The final rule retains these changes. Additionally, the 
Commission proposed modifying the test procedure language in several 
provisions, such as specifying a tolerance for the term ``horizontal'' 
(0[deg]  0.5[deg]). The final rule retains these changes.
    The final rule removes a specification that the test table be 48 
inches. This specification appears in a notation in Figure 10 of the 
ASTM standard. The proposed rule showed figure 10 with the noted 48-
inch length table. However, the final rule leaves the length of the 
test table unspecified so that a test laboratory may use a table of 
adequate length to accommodate the maximum calculated launching 
distance d. A test table length of 48 inches may not be sufficient for 
all walkers once the calculation is based on the actual weight of the 
walker.
    Calculation of launching distance. The Commission proposed a change 
in the calculation of the launching distance used in the step test. The 
Commission proposed weighing the walker and computing the appropriate 
launching distances using the actual weight of the walker.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR at 45704) 
and in this preamble, the launching distances may vary depending on the 
weight of the walker and the maximum velocity of the walker at the edge 
of the platform (4 ft/sec or 2 ft/sec). If the walker weight is not 
appropriately accounted for, then it is possible the target maximum 
velocity cannot be achieved. For example, if the scenario involved 
computing distance d where the walker is tested in the forward 
direction with the CAMI dummy and the walker weight is 14 pounds, 
distance d would equal 18.0 inches (instead of 14.6 inches if the 
walker weight value is 8 pounds). The longer distance is needed to 
achieve the target velocity of 4 feet/second. If a 14-pound walker is 
launched from 14.6 inches, the walker may not achieve the maximum 
velocity of 4 feet/second. The final rule retains the distance d 
calculation with a slight modification that requires the testing lab to 
measure the weight of the CAMI dummy and vest. This will account for 
variations in the weight of CAMI dummies and vests.
e. More Detailed Description of Parking Brake Test
    The Commission proposed adding the parking brake test of the 
European Standard EN 1273:2005. The final rule retains this test. It 
applies to infant walkers that provide parking brakes, but it does not 
require walkers to have parking brakes. Under this test, the walker is 
set up to run a quasi-static version of the step test, but with the 
parking device activated. If the walker moves a distance greater than 
1.97 inches (50 mm), the walker fails the requirement. The parking 
brake test will ensure that, if a walker has a parking brake, it will 
work effectively.
f. Elimination of 30[deg] Incline Plane Test
    The Commission proposed adding the 30[deg] incline plane test from 
the European Standard EN 1273:2005 for walkers. As discussed more fully 
in the response to a comment in part E of this preamble, the final rule 
eliminates this additional requirement because testing and analysis by 
a JPMA member demonstrated the adequacy of the stability test in the 
ASTM F 977-07 standard.

G. Effective Date

    The Commission proposed that the standard would become effective 6 
months after publication of a final rule. The Commission received no 
comments on the proposed effective date. The final rule provides that 
the rule will become effective six months after publication and thus 
will require that infant walkers manufactured or imported on or after 
that date must meet this standard.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 977-07 contain requirements for marking, 
labeling and instructional literature that are considered ``information 
collection requirements'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520. In a separate notice elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register, the Commission is publishing a notice requesting comments on 
this collection of information.

I. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') generally requires that 
agencies review rules for their potential economic impact on small 
entities, including small businesses. 5 U.S.C. 604.

1. The Market

    There are currently at least seven manufacturers or importers 
supplying infant walkers to the United States market (four domestic 
manufacturers,

[[Page 35272]]

two foreign manufacturers with divisions in the United States, and one 
domestic importer). Under Small Business Administration (SBA) 
guidelines, a manufacturer of infant walkers is small if it has 500 or 
fewer employees and an importer is considered small if it has 100 or 
fewer employees. Two domestic manufacturers (a third small manufacturer 
also sells infant walkers, but based on their current product list is 
no longer manufacturing them) and one domestic importer known to be 
supplying the United States market qualify as small businesses under 
these guidelines. However, CPSC staff believes that there are probably 
other unknown small importers operating in the United States market as 
well.
    All domestic manufacturers supplying infant walkers to the United 
States market certify their products as compliant with the ASTM 
voluntary standard through the JPMA certification program. Based on 
limited CPSC staff testing, the two foreign manufacturers and the 
domestic importer are not believed to be complying with the voluntary 
standard.

2. Impact of the Rule

    The changes to the existing stair fall test requirements would 
reduce variability across manufacturers. Also, because the specific 
test modifications have been selected to minimize the friction 
associated with the test procedure, they may effectively add stringency 
to the tests. It is unknown the extent (if any) to which the 
modification in the existing stair fall requirements of the voluntary 
standard will affect infant walkers that now comply with the voluntary 
standard. However, initial testing shows that the requirements impact 
the test results of a few walkers. Therefore, it is possible that some 
manufacturers might need to make walker modifications to comply. Based 
on staff estimates of the costs of complying with the 1997 stair fall 
requirements, this cost is unlikely to exceed more than several dollars 
per unit. Possible modifications include: Increasing the rolling 
friction within the walker's wheels; reducing the walker weight; and 
refining the friction strip design.
    Infant walkers are not currently required to have parking brakes, 
nor would they be required to have them under the standard. However, 
the final rule includes a test of parking brakes, if a walker has them, 
to assure that they work properly. Initial testing finds that existing 
walkers have no difficulty in passing this requirement. Therefore, the 
Commission does not expect it to represent a burden to current 
manufacturers. However, its inclusion would minimize the risk of 
walkers with ineffective brakes entering the United States market in 
the future.
    Of the seven firms currently known to be marketing infant walkers 
in the United States, three are small firms--two small domestic 
manufacturers and a small domestic importer. We discuss the possible 
impact of the rule on these entities immediately below.
    Small manufacturers. One small domestic manufacturer has annual 
sales of approximately $31-72.5 million. It currently produces seven 
walker models and approximately 57 other juvenile products, one of 
which is a substitute for infant walkers. The second is a small 
domestic manufacturer with annual sales of approximately $2.5-5 
million. Although its annual sales are lower, it is currently producing 
only one infant walker model and approximately 110 other juvenile 
products.
    The two small domestic manufacturers (which are JPMA certified as 
compliant with the voluntary standard) may not need to make product 
modifications. If they do, it will most likely be due to changes needed 
to comply with the modified stair fall requirements. The costs to these 
manufacturers are not likely to be substantial, but may increase by as 
much as several dollars per unit.
    Small importers. The only known small domestic importer has annual 
sales of approximately $2.5-5 million and is not believed to be in 
compliance with the voluntary standard. Therefore, some product 
modifications would be necessary. The impact of the infant walker 
requirements on this importer is unclear, because little is known about 
the walkers sold by this company. However, the impact is unlikely to be 
large. Even if the company responded to the rule by discontinuing the 
import of its non-complying walkers, 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 from walker sales.
    There also may be additional importers of walkers that the staff 
has been unable to identify. However, the impacts of the rule on these 
firms, if any, are unknown.

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. Because the two small domestic 
manufacturers already meet the requirements of the voluntary standard, 
adopting the standard without modifications may reduce their costs, but 
only marginally. Similarly, limiting the requirements of the standard 
to those already contained in the voluntary standard would probably 
have little beneficial impact on small importers that do not currently 
meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. This is because, to 
these firms, most of the infant walker cost increases would be 
associated with meeting the requirements of the voluntary standard, 
rather than the minor additions associated with the Commission's 
modification of the standard.

4. Conclusion of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    It is not expected that the standard will have a substantial effect 
on a large number of small firms. In some cases, small firms may not 
need to make any product modifications to achieve compliance. Even if 
modifications were necessary, and the cost of developing a compliant 
product proved to be a barrier for individual firms, the loss of infant 
walkers as a product category is expected to be minor and would likely 
be mitigated by increased sales of competing products, such as activity 
centers, or entirely different 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 as they ``have little 
or no potential for affecting the human environment.'' 16 CFR 
1021.5(c)(1). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion.

K. 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) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section 
as ``consumer product safety rules,'' thus implying that the preemptive 
effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply.

[[Page 35273]]

Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 
preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes 
effective.

L. Certification

    Section 14(a) of the 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 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 part K of this preamble, section 
104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to standards issued under that 
section, such as the rule for infant walkers established in this final 
rule, 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 to be a consumer 
product safety rule to which products subject to the rule must be 
certified.
    Because infant walkers are children's products, they must be tested 
by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has 
been accepted by the Commission. The Commission is issuing a separate 
notice of requirements to explain how laboratories can become 
accredited as third party conformity assessment bodies to test to the 
new safety standard. (Infant walkers also must comply with all other 
applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements of 
section 101 of the CPSIA, potentially the phthalate content 
requirements in section 108 of the CPSIA if the walker incorporates a 
toy component, the tracking label requirement in 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 1216

    Consumer protection, Incorporation by reference, Imports, Infants 
and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.

0
Therefore, the Commission amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations by adding part 1216 to read as follows:

PART 1216--SAFETY STANDARD FOR INFANT WALKERS

Sec.
1216.1 Scope.
1216.2 Requirements for infant walkers.

    Authority:  The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, 
Pub. L. 110-314, Sec.  104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).


Sec.  1216.1  Scope.

    This part 1216 establishes a consumer product safety standard for 
infant walkers manufactured or imported on or after December 21, 2010.


Sec.  1216.2  Requirements for infant walkers.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each 
infant walker shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F 
977-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Walkers, 
approved April 1, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves 
this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar 
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; telephone 
610-832-9585; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office 
of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Comply with the ASTM F 977-07 standard with the following 
additions or exclusions:
    (1) Instead of Figure 1 of ASTM F 977-07, comply with the 
following:
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 35274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.002

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    (2) Instead of complying with section 4.6 through 4.6.8 of ASTM F 
977-07, comply with the following:
    (i) 4.6 The following guidelines shall apply to force gauges used 
for testing:
    (ii) 4.6.1 Equipment--Force gauge with a range of 0 to 25 lbf (110 
N), tolerance of  0.25 lbf (1.1 N). A calibration interval 
shall be maintained for the force guage which will ensure that the 
accuracy does not drift beyond the stated tolerance.
    (iii) 4.6.2 Equipment--Force gauge with a range 0 to 100 lbf (500 
N) tolerance of  1 lbf (4.44 N). A calibration shall be 
maintained for the force gauge which will ensure that the accuracy does 
not drift beyond the stated tolerance.
    (3) In addition to complying with section 6.3 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 6.4 Parking Device (applicable to walkers equipped with parking 
brakes)--The walker shall have a maximum displacement of 1.97 inches 
(50 mm) for each test in each direction (forward, rearward, and 
sideward) when tested in accordance with 7.7.
    (ii) [Reserved]

[[Page 35275]]

    (4) In addition to complying with section 7.6.1.2 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.1.2 The dummy's head shall remain unrestrained for all the 
step tests.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) Following section 7.6.2 of ASTM F 977-07, use the following 
table instead of Table 1 Summary of Step(s) Tests:
    (i) Table 1 Summary of Step(s) Tests

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Facing direction of     Weight of CAMI       Simulated
           Section No.                   walker             dummy, lb.        speed, ft/s    Apply tipover test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.6.3...........................  Forward............  17.................               4  Yes.
7.6.3.6.........................  Forward............  28 (vest)..........               4  Yes.
7.6.4...........................  Sideward...........  17.................               2  Yes.
7.6.4.6.........................  Sideward...........  28 (vest)..........               2  Yes.
7.6.5...........................  Rearward...........  17.................               4  No.
7.6.5.5.........................  Rearward...........  28 (vest)..........               4  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) Instead of complying with section 7.6.3.1 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.3.1 Center the walker on the test platform facing forward 
so that Plane A is perpendicular to the front edge of the platform and 
the walker is distance d from the center of the most forward wheel(s) 
to the edge of the test platform,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.003

Where

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
Vo = Initial velocity = 0
WCAMI = Measured weight of CAMI dummy
Wwalker = Weight of the walker
Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]k = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
NCAMI = Normal force (for CAMI dummy scenario) = weight 
of CAMI dummy and walker
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec\2\

Position the swivel wheels in such a way that the walker moves 
forward in a straight line parallel to Plane A.

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) Instead of complying with section 7.6.3.2 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.3.2 Place a CAMI infant dummy Mark II in the walker and 
position it as shown in Fig. 11 with the torso contacting the front 
of the occupant seating area and arms placed on the walker tray.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (8) Instead of complying with section 7.6.3.3 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.3.3 While holding the walker stationary, attach an 8 lb 
(3.6 kg) weight to the front of the walker base at Plane A by means 
of a 7-strand military rope with 550 lb tensile strength (e.g., 
paracord 550) and a stainless steel ball bearing pulley with an 
outside diameter of 1.25 in (32mm) and adjust the pulley so that the 
force is applied horizontally (0  0.5[deg] with respect 
to the table surface).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (9) Instead of complying with section 7.6.3.6 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.3.6 Repeat 7.6.3.1-7.6.3.5 using the CAMI dummy with the 
weighted vest and with distance d, computed using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.004

Where

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
Vo = Initial velocity = 0
WCAMI w/vest = Measured weight of CAMI dummy and weighted 
vest
Wwalker = Weight of the walker
Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]k = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
NCAMI w/vest = Normal force (for CAMI dummy fitted with 
11 lb vest scenario) = weight of CAMI dummy + vest weight + walker 
weight
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec\2\

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (10) In addition to complying with section 7.6.3.6 of ASTM F 977-
07, comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.3.7 Repeat tests in the following sequence: Section 
7.6.3.4, section 7.6.3.5, and section 7.6.3.6 two additional times.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (11) Instead of complying with 7.6.4.1 of ASTM F 977-07, comply 
with the following:
    (i) 7.6.4.1 Center the walker on the test platform facing sideways 
so that Plane B is perpendicular to the front edge of the platform and 
the walker is distance d from the center of the most sideward wheel(s) 
to the edge of the test platform,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.005


[[Page 35276]]


Where

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 2 
ft/sec
Vo = Initial velocity = 0
WCAMI = Measured weight of CAMI dummy
Wwalker = Weight of the walker
Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb
[micro]k = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
NCAMI = Normal force (for CAMI dummy scenario) = weight 
of CAMI dummy and walker
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec\2\


Position the swivel wheels in such a way that the walker moves sideward 
in a straight line parallel to Plane A.

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (12) Instead of complying with section 7.6.4.3 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.4.3 While holding the walker stationary, attach an 8 lb 
(3.6 kg) weight to the side of the walker base at Plane B by means of a 
rope (as specified in 7.6.3.3) and a pulley (as specified in 7.6.3.3) 
and adjust the pulley so that the force is applied horizontally (0 
 0.5[ordm] with respect to the table surface).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (13) Instead of complying with section 7.6.4.6 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.4.6 Repeat 7.6.4.1 through 7.6.4.5 using the CAMI dummy 
with the weighted vest (see Fig. 12) and with distance d, computed 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.006

Where

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 2 
ft/sec
Vo = Initial velocity = 0
WCAMI w/vest = Measured weight of CAMI dummy and weighted 
vest
Wwalker = Weight of the walker
Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb
[micro]k = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
NCAMI w/vest = Normal force (for CAMI dummy fitted with 
11 lb vest scenario) = weight of CAMI dummy + vest weight + walker 
weight
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2''

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (14) In addition to complying with section 7.6.4.6 of ASTM F 977-
07, comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.4.7 Repeat tests in the following sequence: section 
7.6.4.4, section 7.6.4.5, and section 7.6.4.6 two additional times.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (15) Instead of complying with Figure 10, use the following:
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 35277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.007

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    (16) Instead of complying with section 7.6.5.1 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.5.1 Center the walker on the test platform facing rearward 
so that Plane A is perpendicular to the front edge of the platform and 
the walker is distance d from the center of the most rearward wheel(s) 
to the edge of the test platform,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.008


[[Page 35278]]


Where

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
Vo = Initial velocity = 0
WCAMI = Measured weight of CAMI dummy
Wwalker = Weight of the walker
Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]k = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
NCAMI = Normal force (for CAMI dummy scenario) = weight 
of CAMI dummy and walker
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec\2\

Position the swivel wheels in such a way that the walker moves rearward 
in a straight line parallel to Plane A. If the walker has an open back 
design, attach the 1 in aluminum angle used in 7.3.4 to span the back 
frame.

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (17) Instead of complying with section 7.6.5.3 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.5.3 While holding the walker stationary, attach an 8 lb 
(3.6 kg) weight to the rear of the walker base at Plane A by means of a 
rope (as specified in 7.6.3.3) and a pulley (as specified in 7.6.3.3) 
and adjust the pulley so that the force is applied horizontally (0 
 0.5[deg] with respect to the table surface).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (18) Instead of complying with section 7.6.5.5 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.5.5 Repeat 7.6.5.1 through 7.6.5.4 using the CAMI dummy 
with the weighted vest (see Fig. 12) and with distance d, computed 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.009

Where

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
Vo = Initial velocity = 0
WCAMI w/vest = Measured weight of CAMI dummy and weighted 
vest
Wwalker = Weight of the walker
Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]k = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
NCAMI w/vest = Normal force (for CAMI dummy fitted with 
weighted vest scenario) = Measured weight of CAMI dummy + measured 
weight of vest + walker weight
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2''

    (19) In addition to complying with section 7.6.5.5 of ASTM F 977-
07, comply with the following:
    (i) 7.6.5.6 Repeat tests in the following sequence: section 
7.6.5.3, and section 7.6.5.5 two additional times.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (20) In addition to complying with section 7.6 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 7.7 Parking Device Test (see 6.4):
    (A) 7.7.1 Perform the parking device test using a Test Mass that is 
A rigid cylinder 6.30 in  0.04 in (160mm  1 mm) 
in diameter, 11.02 in  0.04 in (280 mm  1 mm) 
in height with a mass of 16.9 lb (7.65 kg), with its center of gravity 
in the center of the cylinder.
    (B) 7.7.2 Adjust the walker seat to the highest position (if 
applicable). Place the Test Mass vertically in the walker seat. Set any 
manual speed control to the fastest position (if applicable). Establish 
a vertical plane A that passes through the center of the seating area 
and is parallel to the direction the child faces. Establish a vertical 
plane B that is perpendicular to plane A and passes through the center 
of the seating area.
    (C) 7.7.3 Perform the parking device test in the forward, sideward, 
and rearward directions.
    (D) 7.7.4 Forward facing test of parking devices.
    (E) 7.7.4.1 Position the walker including the Test Mass facing 
forward so that plane A is perpendicular to the front edge of the 
platform (see fig. 10) and passes through the center of the pulley. 
Engage all parking devices in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions.
    (F) 7.7.4.2 Within one minute of placing the walker with the Test 
Mass on the platform, attach an 8 lb weight gradually within 5 seconds 
to the walker frame base at plane A by means of a rope and a pulley per 
the test apparatus specifications in the step test procedure, adjusted 
so that the force is applied horizontally (rope angle shall be 0  0.5[deg]). Remove the 8 lb weight after 1 minute. Measure the 
displacement.
    (G) 7.7.5 Sideward facing test of parking devices.
    (H) 7.7.5.1 Position the walker including the Test Mass facing 
sideward so that plane B is perpendicular to the front edge of the 
platform and passes through the center of the pulley. Engage all 
parking devices in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (I) 7.7.5.2 Within one minute of placing the walker with the Test 
Mass on the platform, attach an 8 lb weight gradually within 5 seconds 
to the walker frame base at plane B by means of a rope and a pulley per 
the test apparatus specifications in the step test procedure, adjusted 
so that the force is applied horizontally (rope angle shall be 0  0.5[deg]). Remove the 8 lb weight after 1 minute. Measure the 
displacement.
    (J) 7.7.5.3 If the walker is equipped with fixed direction rear 
wheels and the walker is displaced in a curved path, establish the 
location of the rope attachment as the reference point and measure the 
linear displacement of that reference point after performing the 
procedure as described in 7.7.5.1 and 7.7.5.2.
    (K) 7.7.6 Rearward facing test of parking devices.
    (L) 7.7.6.1 Position the walker including the Test Mass facing 
rearward so that plane A is perpendicular to the front edge of the 
platform and passes through the center of the pulley. Engage all 
parking devices in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions.
    (M) 7.7.6.2 Within one minute of placing the walker with the Test 
Mass on the platform, attach an 8 lb weight gradually within 5 seconds 
to the walker frame base at plane A by means of a rope and a pulley per 
the test apparatus specifications in the step test procedure, adjusted 
so that the force is applied horizontally (rope angle shall be 0  0.5[deg]). Remove the 8 lb weight after 1 minute. Measure the 
displacement.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (21) In addition to complying with section 8.2.3.2 of ASTM F 977-
07, comply with the following:
    (i) 8.2.3.3 A warning statement shall address the following:

WARNING: Parking brake use does not totally prevent walker movement. 
Always keep child in view when in the walker, even when using the 
parking brakes.

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (22) Instead of complying with section 8.2.4.2 of ASTM F 977-07, 
comply with the following:
    (i) 8.2.4.2 The stairs warning shall be stated exactly as follows:

[[Page 35279]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN10.010

    (ii) [Reserved]

    Dated: June 9, 2010.
Todd Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-14323 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P