45704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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; 

pedwards@cpsc.gov. 

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 stairfall 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45705 

1The 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. 

2The 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. 

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: 

• 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 

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 noncompliant 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). 

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: 

• Prevention of falls down stairs— 

intended to ensure that a walker will 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
45706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

not fall over 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 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° 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 JPMAcertified 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° 

incline plane stability test and the 

parking devices test. 

The 30° 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° 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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° ± 0.5°). 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. 

d

V V W +W +W

W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

g drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( ) 2 2

2 ( ) − μk CAMI N

d

V V W +W +W

CAMI w / vest

f o CAMI w / vest walker drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( ) 2 2

2g drop weight k CAMI w / vest ( ) W N − μ

Where: 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec (for forward and 

rearward directions); 2 ft/sec (for 

sideward direction) 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI = Weight of CAMI dummy = 17 lb 

WCAMI w/vest = Weight of CAMI dummy with 

11 lb vest = 28 lbs 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = 8 lb 

μk = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05 

NCAMI = Normal force (for CAMI dummy 

scenario) = weight of CAMI dummy and 

walker 

NCAMI w/vest = Normal force (for CAMI dummy 

fitted with 11 lb vest scenario) = weight 

of CAMI dummy + vest + walker 

g = Acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2

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° 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° 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° 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° 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: 

• Update the illustration of types of 

models of walkers in Figure 1 of the 

ASTM standard to include an open back 

design (proposed § 1216.2(b)(1)). 

• Revise equipment specifications in 

section 4.6 of ASTM standard to 

eliminate brand and model of force 

gauge and provide performance 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03SE09.000</MATH> EP03SE09.001</GPH>
45708 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

specification instead (proposed 

§ 1216.2(b)(2) through (5)). 

• Revise Figure 10 of the ASTM 

standard to show specific rope, other 

equipment and procedures for stair step 

test (proposed § 1216.2(b)(17)). 

• In stair step test procedures, add a 

calculation (discussed above) to 

determine launching distance rather 

than assuming an 8-pound walker. 

(proposed § 1216.2(b)(7), (8), (11), (13), 

(15), (18), (20)). 

• In stair step test procedures, specify 

the position for walker wheels 

(proposed § 1216.2(b)(7), (13), (18)). 

• In stair step test procedures, specify 

the position for CAMI dummy. 

(proposed § 1216.2(b)(9)). 

• In stair step test procedures, specify 

rope type, pulley type, and force to be 

applied. (proposed § 1216.2(b)(6), (10), 

(14), (19)). 

• 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 

§ 1216.2(b)(12), (16), (21)). 

• 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 § 1216.2(b)(22)). 

• Revise the stair hazard warning to 

state: ‘‘Block stairs/steps securely before 

using walker, even when using parking 

brake.’’ (proposed § 1216.2(b)(23)). 

• Add 30° incline plane test 

(proposed § 1216.2(c)). 

• Add parking device test (proposed 

§ 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° 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45709 

discontinuing the import of its noncomplying 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). 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
45710 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 ± 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 ± 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, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03SE09.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 45711 

d

V V W +W +W

W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

g drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( ) 2 2

2 ( ) − μk CAMI N

Where: 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI = Weight of CAMI dummy = 17 lb 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

μk = 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/sec2

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

Section No. Facing direction of walker Weight of CAMI dummy, lb Simulated 

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 ± 0.5° 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: 

d

V V W +W +W

CAMI w / vest

f o CAMI w / vest walker drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( 2 2 )

2g drop weight k CAMI w / vest ( ) W N − μ

Where: 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI w/vest = Weight of CAMI dummy with 

11 lb vest = 28 lbs 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

μk = 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

(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, 

d

V V W +W +W

W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

g drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( ) 2 2

2 ( ) − μk CAMI N

Where: 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 2 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI = Weight of CAMI dummy =17 lb 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

μk = 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/sec2

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 ± 0.5° 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03SE09.011</MATH> EP03SE09.003</MATH> EP03SE09.004</GPH>
45712 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

d

V V W +W +W

W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

g drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( ) 2 2

2 ( ) − μk CAMI N

Where: 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 2 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI w/vest = Weight of CAMI dummy with 

11 lb vest = 28 lbs 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

μk = 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′′ 

(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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03SE09.005</MATH> EP03SE09.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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, 

d

V V W +W +W

W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

g drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( ) 2 2

2 ( ) − μk CAMI N

Where: 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI = Weight of CAMI dummy = 17 lb 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

μk = 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/sec2

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 ± 0.5° 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: 

d

V V W +W +W

CAMI w / vest

f o CAMI w / vest walker drop weight

= ( ) − ∗( ) 2 2

2g drop weight k CAMI w / vest ( ) W N − μ

Where: 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI w/vest = Weight of CAMI dummy with 

11 lb vest = 28 lbs 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

μk = 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

(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: 

(c) Static stability 30 ° 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° 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 ± 0.04 in (160 mm ± 1 mm) in 

diameter, 11.02 in ± 0.04 in (280 mm ± 

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 ± 0.04 in (20 

mm ± 1mm). 

(iii) Test Mass B: A rigid cylinder 6.30 

in ± 0.04 in (160 mm ± 1 mm) in 

diameter, 11.02 in ± 0.04 in (280 mm ± 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03SE09.007</MATH> EP03SE09.008</MATH> EP03SE09.012</GPH>
45714 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(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 

± 0.5°). 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 

± 0.5°). 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 ± 

0.5°). 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 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1500 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2009–0066] 

Revocation of Regulation Banning 

Certain Baby-Walkers, WalkerJumpers, and Similar Products 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is proposing to revoke certain 

regulations pertaining to baby-bouncers, 

walker-jumpers, baby-walkers, and 

similar products. CPSC is taking this 

action because the regulations, which 

originally were issued in 1971, are 

outdated and do not provide the degree 

of safety that is provided by currently 

manufactured baby-walkers that comply 

with a more effective voluntary 

standard. This action also will eliminate 

confusion about whether manufacturers 

should certify that their products 

comply with these regulations or with a 

new mandatory safety standard for 

baby-walkers proposed elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure timely processing 

of comments, the Commission is no 

longer directly accepting comments 

submitted by electronic mail (e-mail). 

The Commission encourages you to 

submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described below in paragraph 1, 

‘‘Electronic Submissions.’’ 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. CPSC–2009–0066, by any 

of the following methods: 

1. Electronic Submissions. 

Submit electronic comments to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ 

leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=

linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03SE09.009</MATH>