[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 170 (Thursday, September 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45704-45714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20946]



[[Page 45703]]

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

Part III





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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



16 CFR Parts 1215, 1216, and 1500



Safety Standard for Infant Walkers; Revocation of Regulation Banning 
Certain Baby-Walkers, Walker-Jumpers, and Similar Products; Safety 
Standard for Infant Bath Seats; Infant Bath Seats: Termination of 
Rulemaking; Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 45704]]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1216

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2009-0065]


Safety Standard for Infant Walkers

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 
of 2008 (``CPSIA'') requires the United States Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (``CPSC'' or ``Commission'') to promulgate consumer product 
safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These 
standards are to be ``substantially the same as'' applicable voluntary 
standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the 
Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further 
reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission 
is proposing a safety standard for infant walkers in response to the 
direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA.

DATES: Written comments must be received by November 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-
0065, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. To ensure timely processing of 
comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by 
electronic mail (e-mail) except through http://www.regulations.gov.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be 
posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact 
information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Edwards, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 
504-7577; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#29594c4d5e485b4d5a694a595a4a074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9aeafffeedfbe8fee9daf9eae9f9b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority

1. 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. 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. In this document, the Commission proposes a safety standard 
for infant walkers. The proposed standard is substantially the same as 
a voluntary standard developed by 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.

2. Existing Mandatory Regulations for Walkers

    The Commission currently has regulations for infant walkers, 
originally issued in 1971 by the Food and Drug Administration, at 16 
CFR 1500.18(a)(6) and 16 CFR 1500.86(a)(4). These regulations apply to 
items known as baby bouncers, walker-jumpers, and baby walkers. The 
regulations declare as a banned hazardous substance such an item 
``which because of its design has any exposed parts capable of causing 
amputation, crushing, lacerations, fractures, hematomas, bruises, or 
other injuries to fingers, toes, or other parts of the anatomy of young 
children.'' 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(6). The regulations set out mechanical, 
labeling, and recordkeeping requirements with which such items must 
comply in order to be exempt from the ban. 16 CFR 1500.86(a)(4). These 
specifically address such hazards as scissoring, shearing or pinching; 
exposed coil springs in which a child could become caught; holes in 
plates or tubes; and accidental collapse of the item.
    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.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the Commission is 
proposing to revoke the existing CPSC regulations for walkers. As 
explained in the proposed revocation notice, the existing regulations 
are based on incomplete and outdated anthropometric data. Revoking the 
existing regulations will also avoid confusion about what requirements 
apply to infant walkers. The Commission is concerned, however, that the 
existing mandatory regulations may cover products not covered by the 
ASTM F 977-07 standard (or other voluntary standards) and that 
revocation of the mandatory requirements may leave a gap in regulation. 
The Commission's proposal to revoke the existing CPSC regulations for 
walkers invites comments on this issue.

3. Previous Rulemaking Concerning Stair Fall Hazard

    In August 1994, the Commission published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') in the Federal Register (59 FR 39306) 
initiating a rulemaking proceeding on infant walkers under the Federal 
Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA''). The Commission stated at that time 
that it had reason to believe that walkers presented an unreasonable 
risk of injury due to the hazard of walkers falling down steps or 
stairs. After the ANPR was published, CPSC staff worked with ASTM to 
develop new requirements that could be added to the existing voluntary 
standard to address the stair-fall hazard. A revised ASTM standard 
including such provisions was published in early 1997 as ASTM F 977-07. 
In May 2002, the Commission voted to terminate the FHSA walker 
rulemaking because it could not make the findings necessary to issue a 
mandatory rule in light of the revised voluntary standard. 67 FR 31165 
(May 9, 2002).

B. The Product

    Infant walkers are used to support very young children before they 
are

[[Page 45705]]

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 
baby walkers to the United States market are JPMA certified as 
compliant with the current 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 current 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

1. Injury Estimates

    There were an estimated total of 14,900 (an annual average of 
3,000) infant walker-related injuries 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.\1\ (This estimate 
has been adjusted to exclude jumpers from the walker code.) No deaths 
were reported through NEISS. 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 the emergency department-treated 
injuries related to infant walkers, the following characteristics 
occurred most frequently based on an annual average:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Hazard--falls either out of the walker or down stairs/to a 
lower level while in the walker (62%)
    <bullet> Injured body part--head (45%) and face (27%)
    <bullet> Injury type--contusions/abrasions (37%) and internal organ 
injury (28%)
    <bullet> 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 emergency department-treated injuries were not necessarily caused 
by failures of the walkers.
    The stair-fall protection provisions in the ASTM standard have 
dramatically affected walker-related incidents. From 1994 to 2008 there 
has been an 88% decrease in estimated walker-related incidents treated 
in emergency rooms (from 24,000 to 2,800). Nevertheless, the stair fall 
hazard is the most prevalent hazard in walker-related incidents. Some 
of these incidents involve non-compliant walkers, 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.\2\ 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 non-fall related circumstances (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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. ASTM Voluntary Standard

    ASTM F 977 Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant 
Walkers was first published in 1986. As mentioned above in part A.3 of 
the preamble, it was revised in 1997 to address the stair-fall hazard.
    JPMA provides certification programs for juvenile products, 
including walkers. Manufacturers submit their products to an 
independent test laboratory to test the product for conformance to the 
ASTM standard. Currently walkers from five manufacturers are JPMA 
certified as being in compliance with the ASTM standard.
    The current ASTM standard includes performance requirements 
specific to walkers, general performance requirements, and labeling 
requirements. The key provisions of the current ASTM walker standard 
include the following:
    <bullet> Prevention of falls down stairs--intended to ensure that a 
walker will

[[Page 45706]]

not fall over when facing front, back, and sideways.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Dynamic and static load testing on seating area--intended 
to ensure that the child remains fully supported while stationary and 
while bouncing/jumping.
    <bullet> Occupant retention--intended to prevent entrapment by 
setting requirements for leg openings.
    The current 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 Commission believes that the ASTM standard's performance tests 
for evaluating the stability and structural integrity of infant walkers 
are adequate. However, the Commission believes that changes to the 
stair fall requirement are needed to better control testing variability 
and consistency. As discussed below, the Commission also is proposing 
to add a 30[deg] incline plane test and a parking brake test from the 
European standard for walkers (EN 1273: 2005), and making editorial 
text changes to ASTM F 977-07 to clarify several provisions.

E. Assessment of Voluntary Standard ASTM F 977-07

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.
    To evaluate the ASTM infant walker standard and develop 
recommendations for changes to it, CPSC staff conducted testing on 
JPMA-certified walkers. The testing focused on the stair fall test in 
the current ASTM standard, a stability performance requirement, and a 
parking brake requirement (the latter two both taken from a European 
standard on walkers, EN 1273:2005).

2. Current Stair Fall Requirement in ASTM F 977-07

    The stair fall requirement 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 lb weight on 
a hardwood floor surface. The walker passes the test if it stays on the 
hardwood floor table surface. It fails the test if the walker 
completely falls off the table surface.
    The current ASTM standard is based on the assumption that an 
average walker weighs 8 pounds. However, the average weight of recent 
model walkers is greater than 8 pounds, the typical weight of earlier 
models. CPSC staff weighed five 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.
    In the current ASTM 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.
    CPSC staff participated in various round robin tests and conducted 
its own tests to evaluate the effects of test apparatus components and 
test conditions related to the stair fall test requirement. As a result 
of this testing, the Commission is proposing changes to the current 
ASTM test procedure to reduce test variability. These proposed changes 
are discussed in part F of this preamble.
    CPSC staff also performed a modified version of the stair fall 
performance test on the decking of various residential pools to assess 
if any changes to the ASTM standard were necessary to address the two 
fatal incidents involving children using JPMA-certified walkers that 
fell into residential pools. The test results indicated that JPMA-
certified walkers passed (i.e., did not fall in the pool) when tested 
to the same conditions as the ASTM standard (terminal velocity of 4 ft/
sec, CAMI dummy fitted with the 11 pound vest seated in the walker). 
CPSC staff did not recommend any changes to the ASTM standard as a 
result of this testing at pools, and the Commission is not proposing 
any.

3. European Standard EN 1273:2005

    CPSC staff evaluated another existing standard related to infant 
walkers to determine if any aspects of that standard should be 
considered for the future CPSC safety standard. The EN 1273:2005 
European Standard contains two performance tests that are currently not 
in the ASTM F 977-07: the 30[deg] incline plane stability test and the 
parking devices test.
    The 30[deg] incline plane test is a standard stability test which 
is common in several EN children's product safety standards. 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.
    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.
    Available incident data does not clearly demonstrate whether 
inclusion of these two performance tests would improve the safety of 
walkers. CPSC staff tested selected walkers that currently pass the 
ASTM standard to these additional tests. The walkers also passed these 
tests. As discussed further in part F of this preamble, however, based 
on our sound engineering judgment, inclusion of these provisions may 
provide some additional safety.

F. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM F 977-07

    As discussed at part E.2 of this preamble, CPSC staff conducted 
tests and evaluations of infant walkers to determine any modification 
that might

[[Page 45707]]

be needed to the ASTM standard. Based on this assessment and 
consultations with others, the Commission proposes as a consumer 
product safety standard for infant walkers the ASTM F 977-07 standard 
with the following modifications.
    To best understand the proposed standard it is helpful to view the 
current ASTM F 977-07 standard for walkers at the same time as the 
Commission's proposed modifications. The ASTM standard is available for 
viewing for this purpose during the comment period through this link: 
http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm.

1. Changes to the Stair Step Fall Test

    Specification of equipment and procedures. Currently, the ASTM 
stair fall test lacks numerous details. This allows for variability in 
testing that could result in different test results. The Commission is 
proposing to specify 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).
    Additionally, the Commission proposes to modify the test procedure 
language in several provisions, such as specifying a tolerance for the 
term ``horizontal'' (0[deg] <plus-minus> 0.5[deg]). These modifications 
would make the proposed standard more stringent than the ASTM standard 
if, due to the lack of clarity in the ASTM standard, some test 
laboratories are currently passing some walkers that do not in fact 
comply with the standard. In addition, minimizing friction in the test 
apparatus and flexure in the test table would maximize the transfer of 
dynamic energy to the walker and CAMI dummy, hence creating more 
stringent performance requirements.
    Calculation of launching distance. The Commission is also proposing 
a change in the calculation of the launching distance used in the stair 
fall test. The Commission proposes weighing the walker and computing 
the appropriate launching distances using the equations below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.001

Where:

V<INF>f</INF> = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec (for forward and rearward directions); 2 ft/sec (for sideward 
direction)
V<INF>o</INF> = Initial velocity = 0
W<INF>CAMI</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy = 17 lb
W<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy with 11 lb vest = 28 
lbs
W<INF>walker</INF> = Weight of the walker
W<INF>drop weight</INF> = 8 lb
[mu]<INF>k</INF> = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
N<INF>CAMI</INF> = Normal force (for CAMI dummy scenario) = weight 
of CAMI dummy and walker
N<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = Normal force (for CAMI dummy fitted with 
11 lb vest scenario) = weight of CAMI dummy + vest + walker
g = Acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec\2\

    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). The appropriate launching distances 
need to be computed for each walker model, in each direction, with and 
without the 11 pound vest. CPSC staff believes that 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 ft/sec. If a 14-pound walker is 
launched from 14.6 inches, the walker may not achieve the maximum 
velocity of 4 ft/sec. The proposed change will mean that each walker 
will be subjected to the same target maximum velocity even if the 
weight of the walkers varies. This proposed change may create more 
stringent performance requirements.

2. Addition of 30[deg] Incline Plane Test and Parking Brake Test

    As discussed above in part E.3 of this preamble, the Commission is 
proposing to add to the ASTM standard two provisions currently in the 
European Standard EN 1273:2005 for walkers.
    The 30[deg] incline plane test. Under this test, as explained 
above, a walker with a 26.4 pound (12 kg) test mass is placed on a 
sloping platform that is inclined at 30 degrees to the horizontal with 
a stop on the lower edge of the slope. In order to pass, the walker 
must not tip over. The current ASTM standard contains a provision to 
address children leaning out over the edge of the walker. The ASTM 
provision concerning leaning over the edge of the walker requires a 
cantilevered 17-pound force with approximately a 6 to 7 inch moment arm 
on a level surface. The 30[deg] test uses a 26.4-pound test mass seated 
on a (up to) 14-pound walker on an incline plane. In certain scenarios, 
the 30[deg] test may be more stringent.
    The parking brake test. The parking brake test would apply to 
walkers that have parking brakes. It would not require walkers to have 
parking brakes. Under this test, the walker is set up to run a quasi-
static version of the stair fall performance 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. This could affect safety because, if a parking brake is 
present, caregivers may rely on it to temporarily stop the walker.

3. Summary of Proposed Changes to ASTM F 977-07

    The more substantive proposed modifications to the ASTM standard 
for walkers have been discussed above in parts F.1 and F.2 of this 
preamble. A summary of these proposed changes and the other, more 
editorial/technical changes the Commission is proposing follows:
    <bullet> Update the illustration of types of models of walkers in 
Figure 1 of the ASTM standard to include an open back design (proposed 
Sec.  1216.2(b)(1)).
    <bullet> Revise equipment specifications in section 4.6 of ASTM 
standard to eliminate brand and model of force gauge and provide 
performance

[[Page 45708]]

specification instead (proposed Sec.  1216.2(b)(2) through (5)).
    <bullet> Revise Figure 10 of the ASTM standard to show specific 
rope, other equipment and procedures for stair step test (proposed 
Sec.  1216.2(b)(17)).
    <bullet> In stair step test procedures, add a calculation 
(discussed above) to determine launching distance rather than assuming 
an 8-pound walker. (proposed Sec.  1216.2(b)(7), (8), (11), (13), (15), 
(18), (20)).
    <bullet> In stair step test procedures, specify the position for 
walker wheels (proposed Sec.  1216.2(b)(7), (13), (18)).
    <bullet> In stair step test procedures, specify the position for 
CAMI dummy. (proposed Sec.  1216.2(b)(9)).
    <bullet> In stair step test procedures, specify rope type, pulley 
type, and force to be applied. (proposed Sec.  1216.2(b)(6), (10), 
(14), (19)).
    <bullet> In stair step test procedures, require each aspect of test 
(forward, sideward, and rearward) three times to make it consistent 
with the European Standard EN 1273:2005 and allow more confidence in 
the test results. (proposed Sec.  1216.2(b)(12), (16), (21)).
    <bullet> Add 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.'' (proposed Sec.  
1216.2(b)(22)).
    <bullet> Revise the stair hazard warning to state: ``Block stairs/
steps securely before using walker, even when using parking brake.'' 
(proposed Sec.  1216.2(b)(23)).
    <bullet> Add 30[deg] incline plane test (proposed Sec.  1216.2(c)).
    <bullet> Add parking device test (proposed Sec.  1216.2(d)).

G. Request for Comments

    This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the 
CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for walkers. All 
interested persons are invited to submit their comments to the 
Commission on any aspect of the proposed rule. Comments should be 
submitted in accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this notice.

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. Id. 553(d). To allow time for infant walkers to come 
into compliance the Commission proposes that the standard would become 
effective 6 months after publication of a final rule.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Commission is not proposing any collections of information in 
this regulation. Therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520, does not apply.

J. 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. 5 U.S.C. 603.

1. The Market

    As mentioned above, there are currently at least seven 
manufacturers or importers supplying infant walkers to the U.S. market 
(four domestic manufacturers, 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 baby 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.
    As noted above, all domestic manufacturers supplying infant walkers 
to the United States market certify their products as compliant with 
the current 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 current voluntary standard.

2. Impact of the Proposal

    As stated above, the proposed 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 proposed modification in the existing stair fall requirements of 
the voluntary standard will affect walkers that now comply with the 
current voluntary standard. However, initial testing shows that the 
proposed 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.
    Infant walkers are not currently required to have parking brakes, 
nor would they be required to have them under the proposed standard. 
However, the Commission proposes including 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.
    The 30[deg] incline plane test that the Commission proposes adding 
to the ASTM standard is comparable to, and may be duplicative of, the 
``Occupant Leaning Outward Over Edge Test'' in the current voluntary 
standard. Like the existing requirement, it tests walker vulnerability 
to tip-over. The safety impact of this inclusion is unclear, but may 
provide additional safety to walkers over and above the existing 
requirement. Based on limited testing, it appears that several walkers 
would pass these added tests without modifications.
    As noted before, 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. Below is a 
discussion of the possible impact of the proposal on these entities.
    Small manufacturers. 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 proposed modifications to the 
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 is not 
believed to be compliant with the current voluntary standard; 
therefore, at least some product modifications would be necessary. The 
impact of the proposed 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

[[Page 45709]]

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 importers of walkers that we have been unable to 
identify. However, the impacts of the proposed 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 current voluntary 
standard, rather than the minor add-ons associated with the proposed 
standard.

4. Conclusion of initial regulatory flexibility analysis

    It is not expected that the proposed 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.

K. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exemption 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)(2). This proposed rule falls within the categorical 
exemption.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1216

    Consumer protection, Imports, infants and children, Labeling, Law 
enforcement, and Toys.

    Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend 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, application and effective date.
1216.2 Requirements for infant walkers.

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


Sec.  1216.1  Scope, application and effective date.

    This part 1216 establishes a consumer product safety standard for 
infant walkers manufactured or imported on or after March 3, 2010.


Sec.  1216.2  Requirements for infant walkers.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) 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, PO Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 
19428; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East 
West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) The following provisions replace, or are added to, the 
indicated sections of the ASTM F 977-07 standard.
    (1) Instead of Figure 1:
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 45710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.002

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    (2) Instead of section 4.6.1: ``Equipment--Force gauge with a range 
of 0 to 25 lbf (110 N), tolerance of <plus-minus> 1 Div., and a 
calibration interval of 1 year.''
    (3) Delete sections 4.6.2 through 4.6.4.
    (4) Instead of section 4.6.5: ``Equipment--Force gauge with a range 
0 to 100 lbf (500 N) tolerance of <plus-minus> 1 Div., and a 
calibration interval of 1 year.''
    (5) Delete sections 4.6.6 through 4.6.8.
    (6) Instead of section 7.6.1.2: ``The dummy may be secured to the 
tray to maintain contact during the test. Raise the dummy's legs just 
enough so its feet do not touch the platform during the performance of 
the test and position using the rope specified in Figure 10.''
    (7) Instead of section 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,

[[Page 45711]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.011

Where:

V<INF>f</INF> = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
V<INF>o</INF> = Initial velocity = 0
W<INF>CAMI</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy = 17 lb
W<INF>walker</INF> = Weight of the walker
W<INF>drop weight</INF> = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]<INF>k</INF> = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
N<INF>CAMI</INF> = 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.''
    (8) Instead of Table 1 Summary of Step(s) Tests:

                                        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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) Instead of section 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.''
    (10) Instead of section 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 <plus-minus> 
0.5[deg] with respect to the table surface).''
    (11) Instead of section 7.6.3.6: ``Repeat 7.6.3.1-7.6.3.5 using the 
CAMI dummy with the weighted vest (see Fig. 12) and with distance d, 
computed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.003

Where:

V<INF>f</INF> = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
V<INF>o</INF> = Initial velocity = 0
W<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy with 11 lb vest = 28 
lbs
W<INF>walker</INF> = Weight of the walker
W<INF>drop weight</INF> = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]<INF>k</INF> = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
N<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = 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\

    (12) After section 7.6.3.6, add a new section 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.''
    (13) Instead of 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] TP03SE09.004

Where:

V<INF>f</INF> = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 2 
ft/sec
V<INF>o</INF> = Initial velocity = 0
W<INF>CAMI</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy =17 lb
W<INF>walker</INF> = Weight of the walker
W<INF>drop weight</INF> = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]<INF>k</INF> = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
N<INF>CAMI</INF> = 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.''
    (14) Instead of section 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 <plus-minus> 0.5[deg] with respect to 
the table surface).''
    (15) Instead of section 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:

[[Page 45712]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.005

Where:

V<INF>f</INF> = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 2 
ft/sec
V<INF>o</INF> = Initial velocity = 0
W<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy with 11 lb vest = 28 
lbs
W<INF>walker</INF> = Weight of the walker
W<INF>drop weight</INF> = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]<INF>k</INF> = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
N<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = 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\''

    (16) After section 7.6.4.6, add a new section 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.''
    (17) Instead of Figure 10:
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.006


[[Page 45713]]


BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    (18) Instead of section 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] TP03SE09.007

Where:

V<INF>f</INF> = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
V<INF>o</INF> = Initial velocity = 0
W<INF>CAMI</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy = 17 lb
W<INF>walker</INF> = Weight of the walker
W<INF>drop weight</INF> = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]<INF>k</INF> = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
N<INF>CAMI</INF> = 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.''
    (19) Instead of section 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 <plus-minus> 0.5[deg] with respect to 
the table surface).''
    (20) Instead of section 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] TP03SE09.008

Where:

V<INF>f</INF> = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of platform = 4 
ft/sec
V<INF>o</INF> = Initial velocity = 0
W<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = Weight of CAMI dummy with 11 lb vest = 28 
lbs
W<INF>walker</INF> = Weight of the walker
W<INF>drop weight</INF> = Drop weight = 8 lb
[mu]<INF>k</INF> = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05
N<INF>CAMI w/vest</INF> = 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\

    (21) After section 7.6.5.5, add a new section 7.6.5.6: ``Repeat 
tests in the following sequence: section 7.6.5.3, and section 7.6.5.5 
two additional times.''
    (22) Between section 8.2.3.2 and section 8.2.4, add a new section 
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.''
    (23) Instead of section 8.2.4.2: ``The stairs warning shall be 
stated exactly as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.012

    (c) Static stability 30 [deg] incline plane test--
    (1) Requirement. When tested to the procedure described in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the infant walker shall not overturn.
    (2) Test equipment. (i) A sloping platform inclined at 30[deg] to 
the horizontal with a stop fitted to the lower edge of the slope. The 
height of the stop shall be 3.94 in (100 mm). See Figure 15.
    (ii) Test Mass A: A rigid cylinder 6.30 in <plus-minus> 0.04 in 
(160 mm <plus-minus> 1 mm) in diameter, 11.02 in <plus-minus> 0.04 in 
(280 mm <plus-minus> 1 mm) in height with a mass of 26.4 lb (12 kg), 
with its center of gravity in the center of the cylinder. All edges 
shall have a radius of 0.79 in <plus-minus> 0.04 in (20 mm <plus-minus> 
1mm).
    (iii) Test Mass B: A rigid cylinder 6.30 in <plus-minus> 0.04 in 
(160 mm <plus-minus> 1 mm) in diameter, 11.02 in <plus-minus> 0.04 in 
(280 mm <plus-minus> 1 mm) in height with a mass of 16.8 lb (7.65 kg), 
with its center of gravity in the center of the cylinder.
    (3) Test method. (i) Adjustable seats shall be adjusted to their 
highest position. Place Test Mass A vertically in the center of the 
walker seat. To restrict movement of the test mass, packing of 
negligible mass may be used. Position the castors or wheels in their 
most onerous position. Place the walker on the slope against the stop. 
Carry out the test in the forward, sideward, and rearward directions.

[[Page 45714]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03SE09.009

    (d) Parking device test (applicable to walkers equipped with 
parking brakes)--
    (1) Requirement. When tested to the procedures in paragraph (d) of 
this section, the infant walker shall have a maximum displacement of 
1.97 inches (50 mm) for each test in each direction (forward, rearward, 
and sideward).
    (2) Test equipment. (i) A test platform as specified in Figure 10 
with a hardwood floor pre-finished with polyurethane.
    (ii) Test Mass A and Test Mass B as specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
    (3) Test method. (i) Preparation and procedure.
    (A) Adjust the walker seat to the highest position (if applicable). 
Place Test Mass A 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.
    (B) Perform the parking device test in the forward, sideward, and 
rearward directions.
    (ii) Forward facing test of parking devices.
    (A) Position the walker including Test Mass B facing forward 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 manufacturer's instructions.
    (B) Within one minute of placing the walker with Test Mass B 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 <plus-
minus> 0.5[deg]). Remove the 8 lb weight after 1 minute. Measure the 
displacement.
    (iii) Sideward facing test of parking devices.
    (A) Position the walker including Test Mass B 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.
    (B) Within one minute of placing the walker with Test Mass B 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 <plus-
minus> 0.5[deg]). Remove the 8 lb weight after 1 minute. Measure the 
displacement.
    (iv) Rearward facing test of parking devices.
    (A) Position the walker including Test Mass B 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.
    (B) Within one minute of placing the walker with Test Mass B 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 <plus-
minus> 0.5[deg]). Remove the 8 lb weight after 1 minute. Measure the 
displacement.

    Dated: August 25, 2009.
Todd Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-20946 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>