Monday, 

June 21, 2010 

Part III 

Consumer Product 

Safety Commission 

16 CFR Parts 1216 and 1500 

Safety Standard for Infant Walkers; 

Revocation of Regulations Banning 

Certain Baby-Walkers; Third Party Testing 

for Certain Children’s Products; Infant 

Walkers: Requirements for Accreditation 

of Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies and Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; Final Rules and Notice 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

35266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Commission voted 5–0 to approve 

publication of this rule. Commissioner Thomas 

Moore filed a statement concerning this action 

which may be viewed on the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html or 

obtained from the Commission’s Office of the 

Secretary. 

2The 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. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1216 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2009–0066] 

Safety Standard for Infant Walkers: 

Final Rule 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

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

to promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The Commission is issuing 

a safety standard for infant walkers in 

response to the direction under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA.1

DATES: The rule will become effective 

on December 21, 2010 and apply to 

products manufactured or imported on 

or after that date. The incorporation by 

reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of December 21, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Manley, Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations, Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7607; 

cmanley@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’, 

Pub. L. 110–314) was enacted on August 

14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA 

requires the Commission to promulgate 

consumer product safety standards for 

durable infant or toddler products. 

These standards are to be ‘‘substantially 

the same as’’ applicable voluntary 

standards or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard if the Commission 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. Section 104(b)(2) of the CPSIA 

directs the Commission to begin 

rulemaking for two standards by August 

14, 2009. Under this provision, the 

Commission published a proposed 

standard for infant walkers in the 

Federal Register on September 3, 2009. 

74 FR 45704. The standard is 

substantially the same as a voluntary 

standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly known as the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials), ASTM F 977–07, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Infant Walkers, but with several 

modifications that strengthen the 

standard in order to reduce the risk of 

injury associated with walkers. 

There are existing mandatory 

regulations applicable to baby bouncers, 

walker-jumpers, and baby walkers, 

which were originally issued in 1971 by 

the Food and Drug Administration. 16 

CFR 1500.18(a)(6) and 16 CFR 

1500.86(a)(4). These regulations do not 

address hazards associated with falls 

down stairs, structural integrity, 

occupant retention, or loading/stability 

issues. The ASTM F 977–07 standard 

contains provisions that the mandatory 

regulations lack or requirements that are 

more stringent than the mandatory 

standard. On September 3, 2009, the 

Commission proposed to revoke the 

existing CPSC regulations for baby 

bouncers, baby jumpers and walkers. As 

explained elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, the Commission has 

determined to revoke the existing 

regulations only with regard to walkers. 

They will remain in effect for baby 

bouncers and baby jumpers. 

B. The Product 

Infant walkers are used to support 

very young children before they are 

walking (usually 6 to 15 months old). 

ASTM F 977–07 defines ‘‘walker’’ as ‘‘a 

mobile unit that enables a child to move 

on a horizontal surface when propelled 

by the child sitting or standing within 

the walker, and that is in the 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

position.’’ Children may use walkers to 

sit, recline, bounce, jump, and use their 

feet to move around. Walkers typically 

consist of fabric seats attached to rigid 

trays. The trays are fastened to bases 

that have wheels or casters to make 

them mobile. 

Currently, there are at least seven 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

walkers to the United States market 

(four domestic manufacturers, two 

foreign manufacturers with divisions in 

the United States, and one domestic 

importer). 

All known suppliers of infant walkers 

are members of the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (‘‘JPMA’’), 

the major United States trade 

association that represents juvenile 

product manufacturers and importers. 

Each supplies a variety of children’s 

products, of which walkers are only a 

small proportion. Infant walkers are 

available in many countries besides the 

United States, including China, the 

United Kingdom, and Australia. 

Therefore, any foreign manufacturer is a 

potential supplier to the United States 

market, either directly or indirectly 

through an importer. 

Infant walkers made by all of the 

domestic manufacturers supplying 

walkers to the United States market are 

JPMA certified as compliant with the 

ASTM voluntary standard. Based on 

limited CPSC staff testing, CPSC staff 

does not believe that the two foreign 

manufacturers and the domestic 

importer are making walkers that are 

compliant with the voluntary standard. 

Sales of infant walkers peaked in the 

early 1990s at less than 2 million 

annually. By 2005, however, annual 

walker sales had fallen to around 

600,000. Following a similar pattern, 

walkers in use (the number of walkers 

estimated to still be in use, regardless of 

when sold) peaked in the mid-1990s, 

but have since fallen sharply as well (by 

55 percent between 1996 and 2005). As 

of 2005, the estimated number of 

walkers in use was probably less than 2 

million. 

C. Incident Data 

The preamble to the proposed rule 

summarized incident data involving 

walkers. There has been no change in 

the fatality reports or injury estimates 

related to walkers since publication of 

the proposed rule. That information is 

repeated below. 

1. Injury Estimates 

There were an estimated total of 

14,900 (an annual average of 3,000) 

injuries related to infant walkers among 

children under the age of 15 months 

that were treated in hospital emergency 

departments in the United States over 

the five-year period 2004–2008.2 (This 

estimate has been adjusted to exclude 

jumpers from the walker code.) No 

deaths were reported through NEISS. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 35267 

3The 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. 

There was no statistically significant 

increase or decrease observed in the 

estimated injuries from one year to the 

next, nor was there any statistically 

significant trend observed over the 

2004–2008 period. For injuries requiring 

emergency department treatment that 

were related to infant walkers, the 

following characteristics occurred most 

frequently based on an annual average: 

• Hazard—falls either out of the 

walker or down stairs/to a lower level 

while in the walker (62%). 

• Injured body part—head (45%) and 

face (27%). 

• Injury type—contusions/abrasions 

(37%) and internal organ injury (28%). 

• Disposition—treated and released 

(90%) and hospitalized (5%). 

For approximately 72 percent of the 

injuries reported, the walker was 

directly involved in the incident (such 

as the walker falling down stairs, 

tipping over, collapsing). However, 

many (nearly 20 percent) of the injuries 

treated in emergency departments were 

not necessarily caused by failures of the 

walkers. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (74 FR at 45705), the stair 

fall protection provisions in the ASTM 

standard dramatically affected incidents 

related to walkers (an 88% decrease in 

estimated incidents related to walkers 

treated in emergency rooms from 1994 

to 2008). However, the stair fall hazard 

remains the most prevalent hazard in 

incidents related to walkers with some 

of these incidents involving walkers that 

do not comply with the voluntary 

standard, damaged or worn walkers, or 

children who are strong enough to lift 

the walker and defeat the stair fall 

protection. 

2. Fatalities 

CPSC staff has reports of eight fatal 

incidents involving an infant in a 

walker during the five year period 2004 

to 2008.3 One of these appears to 

involve a stair fall incident. The walker 

involved did not conform to the ASTM 

walker standard’s stair fall performance 

requirements and had been under recall 

at the time of the death (due to the lack 

of stair fall protection). There were three 

deaths that resulted from accidental 

drowning when the child moved in a 

walker into a residential pool or spa. 

Two of these three deaths involved 

walkers that were certified to the JPMA 

standard, though pictures showed that 

one of the walkers was missing a wheel. 

The physical condition of the other 

walker is unknown. The circumstances 

of the remaining four deaths varied and 

involved circumstances unrelated to 

falls (i.e., a slow cooker overturned on 

an infant in a walker who pulled the 

cord of the cooker, an infant pulled a 

heavy dining chair on himself, an infant 

rolled down a driveway and struck a 

moving vehicle, and an infant aspirated 

a screw while seated in a walker). 

3. Non-Fatal Injuries 

A total of 78 non-fatal injuries were 

reported to have occurred between 2004 

and 2008. All of these injuries occurred 

when the infant was seated in a walker. 

The leading cause of injury (about 42% 

of the injuries) was falls down the stairs 

or to a lower level. The next major cause 

of injury was product failure, either 

structural or mechanical failure of the 

walker, and these accounted for another 

37% of the incidents. The attached toys, 

toy bars, or toy trays on the walker 

caused another 17% of the injuries, 

such as lacerations, abrasions, pinching, 

etc. Three percent of the non-fatal 

reported injuries were serious burn 

injuries resulting from infants pulling 

cords of small cooking appliances and 

spilling hot liquids onto themselves. 

Finally, one percent of the reported 

incidents did not specify the injury. 

D. Voluntary Standards 

1. ASTM Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 977, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Infant Walkers, 

was first published in 1986 and was 

revised in 1997 to address the stair fall 

hazard. The Commission’s proposed 

rule, published September 3, 2009, was 

based on the 2007 version of the ASTM 

standard, ASTM F 977–07. In December 

2009, ASTM published a revision to the 

infant walker standard, F 977–09. This 

revision included some of the changes 

in the Commission’s proposed rule, but 

not the majority of them. The 2009 

revision of the ASTM standard also 

included a significant change to the 

rearward facing stair fall test procedure 

for open back frame walker models. 

This test procedure was different from 

the test procedure the Commission 

proposed for these types of walkers. The 

proposed rule would require using a 1- 

inch aluminum angle firmly attached to 

the walker frame. The ASTM ’09 version 

uses loops of cord and a lightweight 

floating bar. Because this method of 

attachment may not remain taut 

throughout the stair fall test, this 

procedure in the ASTM ’09 version is 

not as stringent as the test method the 

Commission proposed for these types of 

walkers. For this reason, the final rule 

incorporates by reference ASTM F 977– 

07 rather than the 2009 revision. 

JPMA provides certification programs 

for juvenile products, including infant 

walkers. Manufacturers submit their 

products to an independent testing 

laboratory to test the product for 

conformance to the ASTM standard. 

Currently, infant walkers from five 

manufacturers are JPMA certified as 

being in compliance with the ASTM 

standard. 

The ASTM standard includes 

performance requirements specific to 

infant walkers, general performance 

requirements, and labeling 

requirements. The key provisions of the 

ASTM infant walker standard include 

the following: 

• Prevention of falls down stairs— 

intended to ensure that a walker will 

not fall down stairs when facing front, 

back, and sideways. 

• Tipping resistance—intended to 

ensure that walkers are stable and do 

not tip over when on a flat surface; 

includes tests for forward and rear tip 

resistance, as well as for the occupant 

leaning over the front. 

• Dynamic and static load testing on 

seating area—intended to ensure that 

the child remains fully supported while 

stationary and while bouncing/jumping. 

• Occupant retention—intended to 

prevent entrapment by setting 

requirements for leg openings. 

The ASTM standard also includes: (1) 

Torque and tension tests to assure that 

components cannot be removed; (2) 

requirements for several walker features 

to prevent entrapment and cuts 

(minimum and maximum opening size, 

accessible coil springs, leg openings, 

and edges that can scissor, shear, or 

pinch); (3) latching/locking mechanism 

requirements to assure that walkers do 

not accidentally fold while in use; (4) 

requirements for the permanency and 

adhesion of labels; and (5) requirements 

for instructional literature. 

The stair fall protection requirement, 

also called the step test, is the key 

provision in the ASTM standard. For 

this test, a walker with a Civil 

Aeromedical Institute infant dummy 

(Mark II) (subsequently referred to as 

‘‘CAMI dummy’’) is placed in the 

walker’s seat which is propelled with a 

horizontal dynamic force by means of a 

pulley, rope, and a falling 8-pound 

weight on a hardwood floor surface. The 

walker passes the test if it stays on the 

test table which has a hardwood floor 

surface. It fails the test if the walker 

completely falls off the table surface. 

The step test in the ASTM F 977–07 

standard is based on the assumption 

that an average walker weighs 8 pounds. 

However, when CPSC staff weighed five 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

35268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2008 to 2009 model walkers, the weight 

values ranged from 11 to 14 pounds. 

Computing the launching distance ‘‘d’’ 

as described in section 7.6 of ASTM F 

977–07 depends on the weight of the 

walker, the weight of the CAMI dummy, 

the weight of the CAMI vest, the 

coefficient of friction between the 

walker wheels and the test table surface, 

and the maximum velocity at the edge 

of the test table platform (4 ft/sec or 2 

ft/sec). According to section 7.6 of 

ASTM F 977–07, the d value for the 

forward and rearward directions with 

only the CAMI dummy seated in the 

walker is 14.6 inches. The d value for 

the forward and rearward directions 

with the CAMI dummy fitted with the 

11-pound vest seated in the walker is 

21.2 inches. The values of 14.6 inches 

and 21.2 inches were based on the 

assumption that the walker weight is 8 

pounds. As in the proposed rule, the 

final rule requires calculation of the 

launching distance using the actual 

weight of the walker. 

In the ASTM F 977–07 standard, most 

of the hardware and test apparatus 

components are not specified. 

Variability in the type and size of the 

pulley, rope type, test table flexure etc. 

can lead to different test results. Two 

different labs could test the same model 

walker and obtain different results. As 

in the proposed rule, the final rule adds 

specificity to these requirements. 

2. European Standard EN 1273:2005 

CPSC staff evaluated EN 1273:2005 

European Standard and its two 

performance tests that are not in the 

ASTM F 977–07: the 30° incline plane 

stability test and the parking device test. 

The Commission proposed adding the 

30° incline plane test, which is a 

standard stability test common in 

several EN children’s product safety 

standards, to the walker mandatory 

standard. In this test, the walker, 

occupied by a 26.4 lb (12 kg) test mass 

is placed on a sloping platform inclined 

at 30° to the horizontal with a stop on 

the lower edge of the slope. The walker 

must not tip over. As explained in part 

F.2 of the preamble, the Commission is 

not including this test in the final rule. 

The parking device test is only 

applicable to walkers that are equipped 

with a parking brake. It essentially 

requires conducting a semi-static 

version of the stair fall test, but with the 

parking device engaged. The walker 

must not move more than 1.97 inches 

(50 mm) in order to pass. The 

Commission proposed adding this test, 

and the final rule retains this addition. 

E. Response to Comments on the 

Proposed Rule 

CPSC received seven comments 

regarding the proposed rule for infant 

walkers, including five from 

individuals, one from JPMA, and one 

from various consumer groups, 

including Consumers Union, Consumer 

Federation of America, and Kids in 

Danger. These comments and the 

Commission’s responses are discussed 

below. 

1. Parking Brake Requirement and 

Warning 

a. Comment: One commenter 

remarked that the parking brake 

requirement should be more stringent 

because parking brakes should keep the 

walker completely stationary and also 

commented that the proposed warning 

in the proposed rule is contradictory to 

the perception of a parking brake’s 

function. Another commenter 

recommended requiring parking brakes 

for all infant walkers. 

Response: CPSC believes that the 

purpose of the parking brake warning is 

to alert the caregiver that the parking 

brake is used for temporarily preventing 

the walker from moving. In several 

ASTM meetings, some infant walker 

manufacturers have characterized the 

purpose of the parking brakes as such, 

and that the child in the walker must 

always be kept in view. The parking 

brake feature is added on some models 

for convenience to the caregiver. The 

parking brake is not meant to keep a 

child in the walker indefinitely without 

supervision. Also, the warning is meant 

to prevent any false sense of security by 

the caregiver. CPSC believes the 

proposed warning and the performance 

requirements as they appeared in the 

proposed rule are adequate. 

b. Comment: One commenter 

supported the concept for having a 

performance test for walkers with 

parking brakes, but disagreed with the 

proposal to adopt the EN 1273:2005 

European Standard’s test for parking 

brakes. The performance test is similar 

to that of the stair fall test, except that 

the 8-pound weight guided by a rope 

and pulley is released gradually and 

there is no set launching distance. Upon 

completion of the gradual 8-pound force 

application, the maximum allowable 

displacement (i.e., movement) of the 

walker is 1.97 inches. The commenter 

argued that a lack of incidents involving 

parking devices supports its argument. 

In addition, the commenter compared 

the proposed parking device test to the 

ASTM F 2012, Standard for Stationary 

Activity Centers. The commenter 

asserted that a stationary activity center 

is similar to that of an infant walker 

with its parking brakes engaged. Based 

on this comparison to stationary activity 

centers, the commenter advocated 

increasing the maximum allowable 

displacement to 6 inches in accordance 

with ASTM F 2012. 

Response: CPSC believes that if a 

product is equipped with a feature, such 

as a parking brake, that feature should 

function properly and safely. Although 

CPSC is not aware of any incidents 

involving parking devices in the United 

States, the Commission believes that 

requiring the parking brake test is 

appropriate for the following reasons. 

There are important distinctions 

between walkers and stationary activity 

centers. An infant in a walker tends to 

exert a horizontal force to propel 

himself or herself horizontally, whereas 

a child in a stationary activity center 

may not necessarily exert the same type 

of horizontally concentrated forces 

because the infant may be preoccupied 

jumping up and down, spinning about 

the seat, and playing with toys. The 

parking brake performance test should 

set limits on the displacement of the 

walker in the horizontal direction to 

resist motion when the parking brakes 

are engaged. The appropriate amount of 

force should be applied. Furthermore, 

upon comparison between ASTM F 

2012 and EN 1273:2005, CPSC staff 

noted the following observations: 

• A force gauge is used to apply the 

8-pound force in ASTM F 2012 instead 

of a rope and pulley guided 8-pound 

weight as specified in EN 1273:2005. In 

the EN 1273:2005 test, the 8-pound 

weight is released gradually over a 5 

second period and then hung from the 

test assembly for 1 minute. Arguably, 

the force of gravity is more consistent 

than a test technician applying a 

consistent rate of 8 pounds over a 10 

second period (as in the ASTM F 2012 

test). The longer duration of 1 minute is 

more stringent than 10 seconds. 

• The location application of the 8- 

pound force in ASTM F 2012 has 

infinite variability as it is any location 

2 inches above the floor level. The EN 

1273:2005 standard requires the rope to 

be secured onto the bottom frame 

member of the infant walker which is 

arguably more consistent. 

• In the ‘‘Rationale’’ section of ASTM 

F 2012, there is no mention of how the 

maximum allowable limit for 

displacement of 6 inches per minute 

was obtained. 

EN 1273:2005’s maximum allowable 

1.97-inch displacement is more 

stringent than ASTM F 2012’s 6 inches. 

Moreover, CPSC’s adoption of this 

performance test would harmonize with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 35269 

4 ‘‘Baby Walking Frames—Final Report,’’ 

Consumer Council Austrian Standards Institute in 

co-operation with Association for Consumer 

Information, European Committee For 

Standardization, CEN/TC 252/WG 1 N. 255 

February 2001. 

the European EN 1273:2005 Standard 

for this requirement. 

The Commission notes that this 

performance test is required only for 

infant walker models equipped with 

parking devices. Manufacturers can 

choose to exclude parking devices from 

their product. 

The final rule retains the EN 

1273:2005 performance test and 

maximum allowable displacement for 

1.97 inches (CPSC staff assumes the 

commenter referred to 2 inches in its 

discussions for convenience) for parking 

devices as it was proposed in the 

proposed rule, except for an editorial 

change (discussed in the next response) 

to address some walkers that have fixed 

direction rear wheels. 

c. Comment: The same commenter 

observed that the parking brake test, as 

written in the proposed rule, may 

present problems for measuring the 

displacement for walkers that have fixed 

direction wheels in the rear of the 

walker. With these types of wheels, the 

walker has a natural tendency to travel 

in a curved path instead of in a straight 

path. A walker with four casters does 

not have this issue. 

Response: To address this subset of 

walkers, the final rule adds the 

following new paragraph to the 

language the Commission previously 

proposed for the sideward facing test of 

parking devices: 

If the walker is equipped with fixed 

direction rear wheels and the walker is 

displaced in a curved path, establish the 

location of the rope attachment as the 

reference point and measure the linear 

displacement of that reference point after 

performing the procedure as described in 

paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) and (B). 

2. The 30° Incline Plane Test 

Comment: One commenter favored 

maintaining the cantilevered stability 

test as described in Section 7.3.4 of the 

ASTM F 977–07 Standard for infant 

walkers, and advocated eliminating the 

additional CPSC proposed 30° incline 

plane stability test to address tip over 

hazards. 

Response: From the time CPSC staff 

recommended the 30° incline plane test 

(based on EN 1273:2005), numerous 

discussions about the added benefits of 

the 30° incline plane stability test have 

occurred among CPSC staff and ASTM. 

Over the past year, these discussions 

have taken place at ASTM headquarters, 

as well as in conference calls. A JPMA 

member was tasked to perform analyses 

on the two test methods to determine if 

the 30° incline plane test is needed. 

During ASTM’s presentation at the 

October 13, 2009 meeting, the JPMA 

member demonstrated using real 

examples that Section 7.3.4 stability test 

of the ASTM F 977–07 Standard is 

adequate and that the 30° incline plane 

test is not needed. The analyses 

included a comparison of the two 

stability test methods using the 

dimensions of an exemplar walker and 

concluded that the 30° incline plane test 

was not as severe as the Section 7.3.4 

stability test. CPSC staff concurred with 

this presentation and the comparison of 

stability test methods. Therefore, the 

final rule does not include the 30° 

incline plane test that was in the 

proposed rule. 

3. Adding Calculation To Determine 

Launching Distance To Step Test 

Procedures 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the proposed rule’s proposal to change 

the fixed distances in the step test to a 

computed value for d which will vary 

due to the weight of the test sample 

walkers. The commenter asserted that 

increasing the launching distance for 

heavier walkers is not necessary or is 

‘‘self correcting’’ because a child seated 

in the heavier walker will naturally not 

move as fast. The commenter requested 

keeping the launching distances as they 

are in Table 1 of Section 7.6 of the 

ASTM F 977–07 Standard. The 

commenter also commented that no 

incident data indicates a need to change 

velocities in the step test. 

Response: As discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR at 

45706), the Commission believes that 

the step test requirements should be 

modified to account for heavier modern 

walkers. The 8-pound walker used to 

develop the ASTM step requirement for 

the original 1997 standard is now 

outdated because the average modern 

walker is heavier than 8 pounds. 

The critical parameter of the step test 

is the velocity of a walker with a child 

in it. CPSC staff believes that it would 

be more robust to assume that the child 

maintains a 4 feet/second top speed, 

regardless of the walker’s weight. CPSC 

staff showed that children can achieve 

4 feet/second in an 8-pound walker 

(1996 ASTM Working Group) and in a 

10.5-pound walker (2000 Austrian 

study 4). (Both of these studies were 

based on small sample sizes of 7 and 5 

children, respectively.) Stair fall 

incidents continue to occur, and some 

involve modern walkers that meet the 

ASTM requirements. Since the child/ 

walker speed is the critical factor in 

determining stopping distance of a 

moving walker at the edge of the step, 

CPSC staff believes that a 4 feet/second 

velocity should be maintained 

regardless of the walker’s weight. This 

necessitates using the walker’s actual 

weight in the calculation for the stair 

fall test. 

With regard to incident data 

supporting the change, a special study 

conducted by CPSC indicates that 

several reported incidents involved 

walkers that were manufactured to 

comply with the ASTM stair step 

requirement and were reported to have 

been in good condition at the time of the 

incident. In addition, a review of a list 

compiled by CPSC staff of over 200 

incidents (reported through sources 

other than NEISS) involving infant 

walkers from 1999 to 2008 indicates that 

over 40 percent of those incidents 

involved stair falls, including one death 

which occurred due to a fractured skull. 

CPSC staff’s review of the data has 

also shown that popular larger, heavier 

models (greater than 8 pounds) 

manufactured after 1998 were involved 

in stair falls. For example, in incident 

081112HEP9038, a 10-month old male 

fell down a set of steps when he 

traveled past an unlatched gate; the 

child required a trip to the emergency 

room. In incident 081113HEP9029, an 

11-month old male fell down a set of 

stairs and was found upside down still 

in the walker. Both incidents involved 

walkers made by a leading 

manufacturer. Both incidents occurred 

from 2007 to 2008, and both walkers 

were equipped with friction strips. 

Therefore, the data show that modern 

walkers continue to be involved in stair 

fall incidents. If a walker is traveling too 

fast, even if it is equipped with friction 

strips, it may fall down a set of steps. 

By increasing this launching distance, 

the Commission is making the standard 

stricter, which should result in walkers 

that are made to be safer when traveling 

at faster speeds. 

4. Impact of Change to Step Test 

Comment: The same commenter 

stated that using a calculation in the 

step test would be a substantial change 

and would affect the outcome of the test 

results for walkers that pass the 

requirement. 

Response: Based on limited testing by 

CPSC staff, the Commission believes 

that some manufacturers will not need 

to make changes to their product. CPSC 

staff agrees that some manufacturers 

will have to modify their product. 

However, these changes are feasible. 

Possible modifications could include 

increasing the rolling friction within the 

walker’s wheels, reducing the walker 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

35270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

weight, or refining the friction strip 

design. 

5. CAMI Dummy Head Position 

Comment: One commenter requested 

CPSC to consider specifying how the 

CAMI dummy is to ‘‘be positioned and 

restrained during testing so that the 

center of gravity will be consistent from 

lab to lab.’’ 

Response: CPSC agrees in principle 

that it is plausible that a CAMI dummy’s 

flexibility properties may change over 

time and use. Last year, round robin 

testing was done by CPSC staff, several 

manufacturers, and a testing laboratory. 

In addition to pass/fail testing, 

quantitative measurements were made, 

measuring the displacement of the 

walker relative to the edge of the test 

table. Testing done by CPSC staff did 

not show any substantial variability in 

the CPSC test results when the CAMI 

dummy’s head was not secured. 

However, many other parameters, such 

as rope type, pulley type, and the spring 

rate for the pulley mounting bracket, 

were standardized. Furthermore, the 

CPSC standard provides additional 

specificity concerning the CAMI 

positioning: arms positioned on top of 

the toy tray, use of the standardized 

military rope to secure the legs, etc. 

Securing the CAMI head in a most 

rearward or forward position could 

possibly produce different results, 

depending on the flexibility of the 

dummy. Thus, CPSC staff believes that 

the CAMI head should not be secured. 

When the CAMI is positioned as 

described in the proposed (and final) 

procedure, the CAMI head movement, 

while it exists, is minimized to the 

extent possible. Thus, the final rule, like 

the proposed rule, provides for the 

CAMI head to remain unrestrained 

during all the step tests. 

6. Friction Pad Wear and Tear 

Comment: The same commenter 

asked the CPSC to consider the affect of 

wear and tear as well as dirt and dust 

on the walker’s compliance with the 

step test. 

Response The final rule does not 

include any additional performance 

requirements involving step tests with 

worn friction strips. Although CPSC 

recognizes that friction pad wear may 

reduce the pad’s effectiveness, this may 

not be the case for all walker friction 

pads. Some pads may last longer than 

others. Assessing the amount of wear 

and standardizing the wear 

characteristics may be somewhat 

subjective. Given the variation between 

friction pad vendors and the changing 

compositions of the rubber used in the 

friction pads, it may be difficult to 

standardize this aspect of the test. The 

final standard includes other changes 

that address the stair fall hazard, such 

as increasing the input kinetic energy 

for heavier walkers (i.e., walkers heavier 

than 8 pounds would need to be 

launched from a longer distance to 

achieve the target terminal velocities). 

In an indirect way, setting the higher 

input kinetic energy requirement for 

heavier walkers creates revised design 

criteria for walker manufacturers. One 

area where those manufacturers can 

address the resistance to stair falls may 

lie in revisions to the friction pad 

design. CPSC staff believes 

standardizing the target velocity will 

have an important impact on the actual 

test, as the kinetic energy of the walker 

and CAMI dummy is proportional to the 

square of the velocity. Furthermore, 

each walker will be subjected to 18 

impacts which will sufficiently subject 

the sample walkers to abuse (3 

directions × 2 configurations with and 

without vest × 3 replicates). For these 

reasons, CPSC staff believes there is 

insufficient data and rationale to add 

performance requirements involving 

stair fall tests with worn friction strips. 

F. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 977–07 and Description of 

Final Rule 

1. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA: 

Consultation and CPSC Staff Review 

Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires 

the Commission to assess the 

effectiveness of the voluntary standard 

in consultation with representatives of 

consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and other experts. This 

consultation process began in October 

2008 during the ASTM subcommittee 

meeting regarding the ASTM infant 

walker voluntary standard. 

Consultations between Commission staff 

and members of this subcommittee have 

continued and are still ongoing. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (74 FR at 45706), CPSC 

staff conducted testing on JPMA 

certified walkers in order to evaluate the 

ASTM infant walker standard and 

develop recommendations for changes 

to it. The testing focused on the stair fall 

test in the ASTM standard, a stability 

performance requirement, and a parking 

brake requirement (the latter two both 

taken from EN 1273:2005). 

Consistent with section 104(b) of the 

CPSIA, this rule establishes a new 16 

CFR part 1216, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Infant Walkers.’’ The new part 

incorporates by reference the 

requirements for infant walkers in 

ASTM F 977–07 with certain changes to 

specific provisions to strengthen the 

ASTM standard, as discussed in the 

next section of this preamble, to further 

reduce the risk of injury. These 

modifications are similar to the changes 

the Commission proposed in its 

September 3, 2009 proposed rule. 

Differences from the proposed rule are 

noted in the following section of this 

preamble. 

2. Description of Final Rule Including 

Changes to the ASTM Standard’s 

Requirements 

While most requirements of the 

ASTM F 977–07 standard are sufficient 

to reduce the risk of injury posed by 

infant walkers, the Commission has 

modified several provisions in the 

standard to make them more stringent 

and clarified the test procedures. The 

following discussion describes the final 

rule, including changes to the ASTM 

requirements, and notes any changes 

from the proposed rule. In addition, 

some editing and formatting changes 

have been made which make the final 

text different from the proposed rule. 

The Commission made these editing 

and formatting changes to respond to 

concerns raised by the Office of the 

Federal Register; the editing and 

formatting changes do not alter the 

substance of the rule. 

a. Scope (§ 1216.1) 

The final rule states that part 1216 

establishes a consumer product safety 

standard for infant walkers 

manufactured or imported on or after a 

date which would be six months after 

the date of publication of a final rule in 

the Federal Register. 

The Commission received no 

comments on this provision in the 

proposed rule and is finalizing it 

without change. 

b. Incorporation by Reference 

(§ 1216.2(a)) 

Section 1216.2(a) explains that, 

except as provided in § 1216.2(b), each 

infant walker must comply with all 

applicable provisions of ASTM F 977– 

07, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Infant Walkers,’’ which 

is incorporated by reference. Section 

1216.2(a) also provides information on 

how to obtain a copy of the ASTM 

standard or to inspect a copy of the 

standard at the CPSC. 

The Commission received no 

comments on this provision in the 

proposed rule and is finalizing it 

without change. 

c. Summary of Changes to ASTM F 977– 

07 

The more substantive modifications to 

the ASTM standard for walkers are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 35271 

discussed in greater detail in part F.2.d. 

of this preamble below. A summary of 

these changes along with the other, 

more editorial/technical changes that 

the rule makes to the ASTM standard 

follows. The final rule: 

• Updates the illustration of types of 

models of walkers in Figure 1 of the 

ASTM standard to include an open back 

design (§ 1216.2(b)(1)); 

• Revises equipment specifications in 

section 4.6 of the ASTM standard to 

eliminate brand and model of force 

gauge and provide performance 

specifications instead. The proposed 

rule would have a one year calibration 

interval. However, the final rule 

provides a more general interval 

because a force gauge could go out of 

calibration before one year. Appropriate 

calibrations are necessary to maintain 

accuracy. (§ 1216.2(b)(2)); 

• Revises Figure 10 of the ASTM 

standard to show specific rope, other 

equipment and procedures for the step 

test (§ 1216.2(b)(15)); 

• In step test procedures, adds a 

calculation (discussed below) using the 

actual weight of the walker to determine 

the launching distance rather than 

assuming an 8-pound walker. 

(§ 1216.2(b)(5)(i), (6)(i), (8)(i), (9)(i)(11), 

(13)(i), (16)(i), (18)(i)); 

• In step test procedures, specifies the 

position for walker wheels 

(§ 1216.2(b)(6)(i), (11)(i), (16)(i)); 

• In step test procedures, specifies the 

position for the CAMI dummy. 

(§ 1216.2(b)(7)(i)); 

• In step test procedures, specifies 

rope type, pulley type, and force to be 

applied. (§ 1216.2(b)(4)(i), (8)(i), (12)(i), 

(17)(i)); 

• In step test procedures, requires 

each aspect of the test (forward, 

sideward, and rearward) three times to 

make it consistent with EN 1273:2005 

and allow more confidence in the test 

results. (§ 1216.2(b)(10)(i), (14)(i), 

(19)(i)); 

• Adds the following warning 

concerning the parking brake if a walker 

has a parking brake: ‘‘WARNING: 

Parking brake use does not totally 

prevent walker movement. Always keep 

child in view when in the walker, even 

when using the parking brakes.’’ 

(§ 1216.2(b)(21)(i)); 

• Revises the stair hazard warning to 

state: ‘‘Block stairs/steps securely before 

using walker, even when using parking 

brake.’’ (§ 1216.2(b)(22)(i)); and 

• Adds parking device test 

(§ 1216.2(b)(20)). 

d. More Detailed Description of Changes 

to the ASTM Standard’s Step Test 

Specification of equipment and 

procedures. The ASTM F 977–07 

standard’s step test lacks numerous 

details which allow for variability in 

testing that could result in different test 

results. The Commission proposed 

specifying the equipment and procedure 

needed for the test (e.g., type of rope 

and pulley to be used, orientation of 

wood grain in the floor). The final rule 

retains these changes. Additionally, the 

Commission proposed modifying the 

test procedure language in several 

provisions, such as specifying a 

tolerance for the term ‘‘horizontal’’ (0° ± 

0.5°). The final rule retains these 

changes. 

The final rule removes a specification 

that the test table be 48 inches. This 

specification appears in a notation in 

Figure 10 of the ASTM standard. The 

proposed rule showed figure 10 with the 

noted 48-inch length table. However, 

the final rule leaves the length of the 

test table unspecified so that a test 

laboratory may use a table of adequate 

length to accommodate the maximum 

calculated launching distance d. A test 

table length of 48 inches may not be 

sufficient for all walkers once the 

calculation is based on the actual weight 

of the walker. 

Calculation of launching distance. 

The Commission proposed a change in 

the calculation of the launching 

distance used in the step test. The 

Commission proposed weighing the 

walker and computing the appropriate 

launching distances using the actual 

weight of the walker. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (74 FR at 45704) and in 

this preamble, the launching distances 

may vary depending on the weight of 

the walker and the maximum velocity of 

the walker at the edge of the platform (4 

ft/sec or 2 ft/sec). If the walker weight 

is not appropriately accounted for, then 

it is possible the target maximum 

velocity cannot be achieved. For 

example, if the scenario involved 

computing distance d where the walker 

is tested in the forward direction with 

the CAMI dummy and the walker 

weight is 14 pounds, distance d would 

equal 18.0 inches (instead of 14.6 inches 

if the walker weight value is 8 pounds). 

The longer distance is needed to achieve 

the target velocity of 4 feet/second. If a 

14-pound walker is launched from 14.6 

inches, the walker may not achieve the 

maximum velocity of 4 feet/second. The 

final rule retains the distance d 

calculation with a slight modification 

that requires the testing lab to measure 

the weight of the CAMI dummy and 

vest. This will account for variations in 

the weight of CAMI dummies and vests. 

e. More Detailed Description of Parking 

Brake Test 

The Commission proposed adding the 

parking brake test of the European 

Standard EN 1273:2005. The final rule 

retains this test. It applies to infant 

walkers that provide parking brakes, but 

it does not require walkers to have 

parking brakes. Under this test, the 

walker is set up to run a quasi-static 

version of the step test, but with the 

parking device activated. If the walker 

moves a distance greater than 1.97 

inches (50 mm), the walker fails the 

requirement. The parking brake test will 

ensure that, if a walker has a parking 

brake, it will work effectively. 

f. Elimination of 30° Incline Plane Test 

The Commission proposed adding the 

30° incline plane test from the European 

Standard EN 1273:2005 for walkers. As 

discussed more fully in the response to 

a comment in part E of this preamble, 

the final rule eliminates this additional 

requirement because testing and 

analysis by a JPMA member 

demonstrated the adequacy of the 

stability test in the ASTM F 977–07 

standard. 

G. Effective Date 

The Commission proposed that the 

standard would become effective 6 

months after publication of a final rule. 

The Commission received no comments 

on the proposed effective date. The final 

rule provides that the rule will become 

effective six months after publication 

and thus will require that infant walkers 

manufactured or imported on or after 

that date must meet this standard. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 977–07 

contain requirements for marking, 

labeling and instructional literature that 

are considered ‘‘information collection 

requirements’’ under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. In 

a separate notice elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register, the Commission 

is publishing a notice requesting 

comments on this collection of 

information. 

I. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) generally requires that agencies 

review rules for their potential 

economic impact on small entities, 

including small businesses. 5 U.S.C. 

604. 

1. The Market 

There are currently at least seven 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

infant walkers to the United States 

market (four domestic manufacturers, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

35272 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

two foreign manufacturers with 

divisions in the United States, and one 

domestic importer). Under Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines, a manufacturer of infant 

walkers is small if it has 500 or fewer 

employees and an importer is 

considered small if it has 100 or fewer 

employees. Two domestic 

manufacturers (a third small 

manufacturer also sells infant walkers, 

but based on their current product list 

is no longer manufacturing them) and 

one domestic importer known to be 

supplying the United States market 

qualify as small businesses under these 

guidelines. However, CPSC staff 

believes that there are probably other 

unknown small importers operating in 

the United States market as well. 

All domestic manufacturers supplying 

infant walkers to the United States 

market certify their products as 

compliant with the ASTM voluntary 

standard through the JPMA certification 

program. Based on limited CPSC staff 

testing, the two foreign manufacturers 

and the domestic importer are not 

believed to be complying with the 

voluntary standard. 

2. Impact of the Rule 

The changes to the existing stair fall 

test requirements would reduce 

variability across manufacturers. Also, 

because the specific test modifications 

have been selected to minimize the 

friction associated with the test 

procedure, they may effectively add 

stringency to the tests. It is unknown the 

extent (if any) to which the modification 

in the existing stair fall requirements of 

the voluntary standard will affect infant 

walkers that now comply with the 

voluntary standard. However, initial 

testing shows that the requirements 

impact the test results of a few walkers. 

Therefore, it is possible that some 

manufacturers might need to make 

walker modifications to comply. Based 

on staff estimates of the costs of 

complying with the 1997 stair fall 

requirements, this cost is unlikely to 

exceed more than several dollars per 

unit. Possible modifications include: 

Increasing the rolling friction within the 

walker’s wheels; reducing the walker 

weight; and refining the friction strip 

design. 

Infant walkers are not currently 

required to have parking brakes, nor 

would they be required to have them 

under the standard. However, the final 

rule includes a test of parking brakes, if 

a walker has them, to assure that they 

work properly. Initial testing finds that 

existing walkers have no difficulty in 

passing this requirement. Therefore, the 

Commission does not expect it to 

represent a burden to current 

manufacturers. However, its inclusion 

would minimize the risk of walkers 

with ineffective brakes entering the 

United States market in the future. 

Of the seven firms currently known to 

be marketing infant walkers in the 

United States, three are small firms— 

two small domestic manufacturers and 

a small domestic importer. We discuss 

the possible impact of the rule on these 

entities immediately below. 

Small manufacturers. One small 

domestic manufacturer has annual sales 

of approximately $31–72.5 million. It 

currently produces seven walker models 

and approximately 57 other juvenile 

products, one of which is a substitute 

for infant walkers. The second is a small 

domestic manufacturer with annual 

sales of approximately $2.5–5 million. 

Although its annual sales are lower, it 

is currently producing only one infant 

walker model and approximately 110 

other juvenile products. 

The two small domestic 

manufacturers (which are JPMA 

certified as compliant with the 

voluntary standard) may not need to 

make product modifications. If they do, 

it will most likely be due to changes 

needed to comply with the modified 

stair fall requirements. The costs to 

these manufacturers are not likely to be 

substantial, but may increase by as 

much as several dollars per unit. 

Small importers. The only known 

small domestic importer has annual 

sales of approximately $2.5–5 million 

and is not believed to be in compliance 

with the voluntary standard. Therefore, 

some product modifications would be 

necessary. The impact of the infant 

walker requirements on this importer is 

unclear, because little is known about 

the walkers sold by this company. 

However, the impact is unlikely to be 

large. Even if the company responded to 

the rule by discontinuing the import of 

its non-complying walkers, either 

replacing them with a complying 

product or another juvenile product, 

deciding to import an alternative 

product would be a reasonable and 

realistic way to offset any lost revenue 

from walker sales. 

There also may be additional 

importers of walkers that the staff has 

been unable to identify. However, the 

impacts of the rule on these firms, if 

any, are unknown. 

3. Alternatives 

Under section 104 of the CPSIA, the 

primary alternative that would reduce 

the impact on small entities is to make 

the voluntary standard mandatory with 

no modifications. Because the two small 

domestic manufacturers already meet 

the requirements of the voluntary 

standard, adopting the standard without 

modifications may reduce their costs, 

but only marginally. Similarly, limiting 

the requirements of the standard to 

those already contained in the voluntary 

standard would probably have little 

beneficial impact on small importers 

that do not currently meet the 

requirements of the voluntary standard. 

This is because, to these firms, most of 

the infant walker cost increases would 

be associated with meeting the 

requirements of the voluntary standard, 

rather than the minor additions 

associated with the Commission’s 

modification of the standard. 

4. Conclusion of Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

It is not expected that the standard 

will have a substantial effect on a large 

number of small firms. In some cases, 

small firms may not need to make any 

product modifications to achieve 

compliance. Even if modifications were 

necessary, and the cost of developing a 

compliant product proved to be a barrier 

for individual firms, the loss of infant 

walkers as a product category is 

expected to be minor and would likely 

be mitigated by increased sales of 

competing products, such as activity 

centers, or entirely different juvenile 

products. 

J. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide a categorical exclusion for the 

Commission’s rules from any 

requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement as they 

‘‘have little or no potential for affecting 

the human environment.’’ 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(1). This rule falls within the 

categorical exclusion. 

K. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that where a 

‘‘consumer product safety standard 

under [the CPSA]’’ is in effect and 

applies to a product, no State or 

political subdivision of a State may 

either establish or continue in effect a 

requirement dealing with the same risk 

of injury unless the State requirement is 

identical to the Federal standard. 

(Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides 

that States or political subdivisions of 

States may apply to the Commission for 

an exemption from this preemption 

under certain circumstances.) Section 

104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules 

to be issued under that section as 

‘‘consumer product safety rules,’’ thus 

implying that the preemptive effect of 

section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 35273 

Therefore, a rule issued under section 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when it becomes effective. 

L. Certification 

Section 14(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) imposes 

the requirement that products subject to 

a consumer product safety rule under 

the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation under any other 

act enforced by the Commission, must 

be certified as complying with all 

applicable CPSC requirements. 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must 

be based on a test of each product or on 

a reasonable testing program or, for 

children’s products, on tests on a 

sufficient number of samples by a third 

party conformity assessment body 

accredited by the Commission to test 

according to the applicable 

requirements. As discussed above in 

part K of this preamble, section 

104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to 

standards issued under that section, 

such as the rule for infant walkers 

established in this final rule, as 

‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’ By 

the same reasoning, such standards also 

would be subject to section 14 of the 

CPSA. Therefore, any such standard 

would be considered to be a consumer 

product safety rule to which products 

subject to the rule must be certified. 

Because infant walkers are children’s 

products, they must be tested by a third 

party conformity assessment body 

whose accreditation has been accepted 

by the Commission. The Commission is 

issuing a separate notice of 

requirements to explain how 

laboratories can become accredited as 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to test to the new safety standard. 

(Infant walkers also must comply with 

all other applicable CPSC requirements, 

such as the lead content requirements of 

section 101 of the CPSIA, potentially the 

phthalate content requirements in 

section 108 of the CPSIA if the walker 

incorporates a toy component, the 

tracking label requirement in section 

14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer 

registration form requirements in 

section 104 of the CPSIA.) 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR 1216 

Consumer protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Imports, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

and Toys. 

■ Therefore, the Commission amends 

Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding part 1216 to read 

as follows: 

PART 1216—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

INFANT WALKERS 

Sec. 

1216.1 Scope. 

1216.2 Requirements for infant walkers. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314, 

§ 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008). 

§ 1216.1 Scope. 

This part 1216 establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for infant 

walkers manufactured or imported on or 

after December 21, 2010. 

§ 1216.2 Requirements for infant walkers. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each infant walker 

shall comply with all applicable 

provisions of ASTM F 977–07, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Infant 

Walkers, approved April 1, 2007. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approves this incorporation by reference 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; telephone 

610–832–9585; http://www.astm.org. 

You may inspect a copy at the Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Comply with the ASTM F 977–07 

standard with the following additions or 

exclusions: 

(1) Instead of Figure 1 of ASTM F 

977–07, comply with the following: 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

35274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

(2) Instead of complying with section 

4.6 through 4.6.8 of ASTM F 977–07, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 4.6 The following guidelines shall 

apply to force gauges used for testing: 

(ii) 4.6.1 Equipment—Force gauge 

with a range of 0 to 25 lbf (110 N), 

tolerance of ± 0.25 lbf (1.1 N). A 

calibration interval shall be maintained 

for the force guage which will ensure 

that the accuracy does not drift beyond 

the stated tolerance. 

(iii) 4.6.2 Equipment—Force gauge 

with a range 0 to 100 lbf (500 N) 

tolerance of ± 1 lbf (4.44 N). A 

calibration shall be maintained for the 

force gauge which will ensure that the 

accuracy does not drift beyond the 

stated tolerance. 

(3) In addition to complying with 

section 6.3 of ASTM F 977–07, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 6.4 Parking Device (applicable to 

walkers equipped with parking 

brakes)—The walker shall have a 

maximum displacement of 1.97 inches 

(50 mm) for each test in each direction 

(forward, rearward, and sideward) when 

tested in accordance with 7.7. 

(ii) [Reserved] 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2ER21JN10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 35275 

(4) In addition to complying with 

section 7.6.1.2 of ASTM F 977–07, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 7.6.1.2 The dummy’s head shall 

remain unrestrained for all the step 

tests. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(5) Following section 7.6.2 of ASTM 

F 977–07, use the following table 

instead of Table 1 Summary of Step(s) 

Tests: 

(i) Table 1 Summary of Step(s) Tests 

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. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(6) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.3.1 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.6.3.1 Center the walker on the 

test platform facing forward so that 

Plane A is perpendicular to the front 

edge of the platform and the walker is 

distance d from the center of the most 

forward wheel(s) to the edge of the test 

platform, 

d

VV W W W

g W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

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 = Measured weight of CAMI dummy 

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. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(7) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.3.2 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 7.6.3.2 Place a CAMI infant dummy 

Mark II in the walker and position it as 

shown in Fig. 11 with the torso contacting 

the front of the occupant seating area and 

arms placed on the walker tray. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(8) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.3.3 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 7.6.3.3 While holding the walker 

stationary, attach an 8 lb (3.6 kg) weight to 

the front of the walker base at Plane A by 

means of a 7-strand military rope with 550 

lb tensile strength (e.g., paracord 550) and a 

stainless steel ball bearing pulley with an 

outside diameter of 1.25 in (32mm) and 

adjust the pulley so that the force is applied 

horizontally (0 ± 0.5° with respect to the table 

surface). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(9) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.3.6 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 7.6.3.6 Repeat 7.6.3.1–7.6.3.5 using the 

CAMI dummy with the weighted vest and 

with distance d, computed using the 

following equation: 

d

VV W W W

g W CAMI w/vest

f o CAMI w/vest walker drop weight

−

( ) − ∗ ++ ( ) 2 2

2 ( ) drop weight k CAMI w/vest − μ N

Where 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI w/vest = Measured weight of CAMI 

dummy and weighted vest 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

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

(ii) [Reserved] 

(10) In addition to complying with 

section 7.6.3.6 of ASTM F 977–07, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 7.6.3.7 Repeat tests in the 

following sequence: Section 7.6.3.4, 

section 7.6.3.5, and section 7.6.3.6 two 

additional times. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(11) Instead of complying with 7.6.4.1 

of ASTM F 977–07, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 7.6.4.1 Center the walker on the 

test platform facing sideways so that 

Plane B is perpendicular to the front 

edge of the platform and the walker is 

distance d from the center of the most 

sideward wheel(s) to the edge of the test 

platform, 

d

VV W W W

g W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

drop weight

= ( ) − ∗ ++ ( )

−

2 2

2 ( ) μk CAMI N


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2ER21JN10.003</MATH> ER21JN10.004</MATH> ER21JN10.005</MATH>
35276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Where 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 2 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI = Measured weight of CAMI dummy 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

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. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(12) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.4.3 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.6.4.3 While holding the walker 

stationary, attach an 8 lb (3.6 kg) weight 

to the side of the walker base at Plane 

B by means of a rope (as specified in 

7.6.3.3) and a pulley (as specified in 

7.6.3.3) and adjust the pulley so that the 

force is applied horizontally (0 ± 0.5ß 

with respect to the table surface). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(13) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.4.6 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.6.4.6 Repeat 7.6.4.1 through 

7.6.4.5 using the CAMI dummy with the 

weighted vest (see Fig. 12) and with 

distance d, computed using the 

following equation: 

d

VV W W W

g W CAMI w/vest

f o CAMI w/vest walker drop weight

= ( ) − ∗ ++ ( ) 2 2

2 ( ) drop weight k CAMI w/vest − μ N

Where 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 2 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI w/vest = Measured weight of CAMI 

dummy and weighted vest 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

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′′

(ii) [Reserved] 

(14) In addition to complying with 

section 7.6.4.6 of ASTM F 977–07, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 7.6.4.7 Repeat tests in the 

following sequence: section 7.6.4.4, 

section 7.6.4.5, and section 7.6.4.6 two 

additional times. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(15) Instead of complying with Figure 

10, use the following: 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2ER21JN10.006</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 35277 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

(16) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.5.1 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.6.5.1 Center the walker on the 

test platform facing rearward so that 

Plane A is perpendicular to the front 

edge of the platform and the walker is 

distance d from the center of the most 

rearward wheel(s) to the edge of the test 

platform, 

d

VV W W W

g W CAMI

f o CAMI walker drop weight

drop weight

= ( ) − ∗ ++ ( )

−

2 2

2 ( ) μk CAMI N


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2ER21JN10.007</GPH> ER21JN10.008</MATH>
35278 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Where 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI = Measured weight of CAMI dummy 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

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. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(17) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.5.3 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.6.5.3 While holding the walker 

stationary, attach an 8 lb (3.6 kg) weight 

to the rear of the walker base at Plane 

A by means of a rope (as specified in 

7.6.3.3) and a pulley (as specified in 

7.6.3.3) and adjust the pulley so that the 

force is applied horizontally (0 ± 0.5° 

with respect to the table surface). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(18) Instead of complying with section 

7.6.5.5 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.6.5.5 Repeat 7.6.5.1 through 

7.6.5.4 using the CAMI dummy with the 

weighted vest (see Fig. 12) and with 

distance d, computed using the 

following equation: 

d

VV W W W

g W CAMI w/vest

f o CAMI w/vest walker drop weight

= ( ) − ∗ ++ ( ) 2 2

2 ( ) drop weight k CAMI w/vest − μ N

Where 

Vf = Maximum velocity of walker at edge of 

platform = 4 ft/sec 

Vo = Initial velocity = 0 

WCAMI w/vest = Measured weight of CAMI 

dummy and weighted vest 

Wwalker = Weight of the walker 

Wdrop weight = Drop weight = 8 lb 

μk = Dynamic coefficient of friction = 0.05 

NCAMI w/vest = Normal force (for CAMI dummy 

fitted with weighted vest scenario) = 

Measured weight of CAMI dummy + 

measured weight of vest + walker weight 

g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2′′

(19) In addition to complying with 

section 7.6.5.5 of ASTM F 977–07, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 7.6.5.6 Repeat tests in the 

following sequence: section 7.6.5.3, and 

section 7.6.5.5 two additional times. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(20) In addition to complying with 

section 7.6 of ASTM F 977–07, comply 

with the following: 

(i) 7.7 Parking Device Test (see 6.4): 

(A) 7.7.1 Perform the parking device 

test using a Test Mass that is A rigid 

cylinder 6.30 in ± 0.04 in (160mm ± 1 

mm) in diameter, 11.02 in ± 0.04 in (280 

mm ± 1 mm) in height with a mass of 

16.9 lb (7.65 kg), with its center of 

gravity in the center of the cylinder. 

(B) 7.7.2 Adjust the walker seat to 

the highest position (if applicable). 

Place the Test Mass vertically in the 

walker seat. Set any manual speed 

control to the fastest position (if 

applicable). Establish a vertical plane A 

that passes through the center of the 

seating area and is parallel to the 

direction the child faces. Establish a 

vertical plane B that is perpendicular to 

plane A and passes through the center 

of the seating area. 

(C) 7.7.3 Perform the parking device 

test in the forward, sideward, and 

rearward directions. 

(D) 7.7.4 Forward facing test of 

parking devices. 

(E) 7.7.4.1 Position the walker 

including the Test Mass facing forward 

so that plane A is perpendicular to the 

front edge of the platform (see fig. 10) 

and passes through the center of the 

pulley. Engage all parking devices in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(F) 7.7.4.2 Within one minute of 

placing the walker with the Test Mass 

on the platform, attach an 8 lb weight 

gradually within 5 seconds to the 

walker frame base at plane A by means 

of a rope and a pulley per the test 

apparatus specifications in the step test 

procedure, adjusted so that the force is 

applied horizontally (rope angle shall be 

0 ± 0.5°). Remove the 8 lb weight after 

1 minute. Measure the displacement. 

(G) 7.7.5 Sideward facing test of 

parking devices. 

(H) 7.7.5.1 Position the walker 

including the Test Mass facing sideward 

so that plane B is perpendicular to the 

front edge of the platform and passes 

through the center of the pulley. Engage 

all parking devices in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s instructions. 

(I) 7.7.5.2 Within one minute of 

placing the walker with the Test Mass 

on the platform, attach an 8 lb weight 

gradually within 5 seconds to the 

walker frame base at plane B by means 

of a rope and a pulley per the test 

apparatus specifications in the step test 

procedure, adjusted so that the force is 

applied horizontally (rope angle shall be 

0 ± 0.5°). Remove the 8 lb weight after 

1 minute. Measure the displacement. 

(J) 7.7.5.3 If the walker is equipped 

with fixed direction rear wheels and the 

walker is displaced in a curved path, 

establish the location of the rope 

attachment as the reference point and 

measure the linear displacement of that 

reference point after performing the 

procedure as described in 7.7.5.1 and 

7.7.5.2. 

(K) 7.7.6 Rearward facing test of 

parking devices. 

(L) 7.7.6.1 Position the walker 

including the Test Mass facing rearward 

so that plane A is perpendicular to the 

front edge of the platform and passes 

through the center of the pulley. Engage 

all parking devices in accordance with 

the manufacturers’ instructions. 

(M) 7.7.6.2 Within one minute of 

placing the walker with the Test Mass 

on the platform, attach an 8 lb weight 

gradually within 5 seconds to the 

walker frame base at plane A by means 

of a rope and a pulley per the test 

apparatus specifications in the step test 

procedure, adjusted so that the force is 

applied horizontally (rope angle shall be 

0 ± 0.5°). Remove the 8 lb weight after 

1 minute. Measure the displacement. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(21) In addition to complying with 

section 8.2.3.2 of ASTM F 977–07, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 8.2.3.3 A warning statement shall 

address the following: 

WARNING: Parking brake use does not 

totally prevent walker movement. 

Always keep child in view when in the 

walker, even when using the parking 

brakes. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(22) Instead of complying with section 

8.2.4.2 of ASTM F 977–07, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 8.2.4.2 The stairs warning shall 

be stated exactly as follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2ER21JN10.009</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 35279 

(ii) [Reserved] 

Dated: June 9, 2010. 

Todd Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14323 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1500 

RIN 3041–AC77 

Revocation of Regulations Banning 

Certain Baby-Walkers 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) is revoking 

its existing regulations pertaining to 

baby-walkers because those regulations 

are being replaced by a new and more 

comprehensive safety standard 

applicable to baby-walkers. The new 

standard is being added by the 

Commission in a separate document 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: Effective December 21, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Manley, Division of Regulatory 

Enforcement, Office of Compliance, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, 301–504–7607, 

cmanley@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

1. The CPSC’s regulation for babywalkers. CPSC regulations at 16 CFR 

1500.18(a)(6) and 1500.86(a)(4) ban any 

‘‘baby-bouncer,’’ ‘‘walker-jumper,’’ ‘‘babywalker,’’ and ‘‘any other similar article’’ 

that does not meet specified safety 

criteria. These regulations were issued 

in 1971 by the Food and Drug 

Administration (‘‘FDA’’) under the 

Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(‘‘FHSA’’), 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278 

(available at http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

businfo/fhsa.pdf). 36 FR 21809 (Nov. 16, 

1971). On May 14, 1973, the functions 

under the FHSA were transferred to the 

then newly-created CPSC. 

Specifically, 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(6) 

bans baby-walkers, baby-bouncers, 

walker-jumpers and ‘‘any other similar 

article’’ that is intended to support very 

young children while ‘‘sitting walking, 

bouncing, jumping, and/or reclining,’’ 

and 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. The 

regulation describes the hazardous 

design features of such articles 

warranting the ban as including, but not 

being limited to, one or more of the 

following: 

• Areas about the point on each side 

of the article where the frame 

components are joined together to form 

an X-shape capable of producing a 

scissoring, shearing, or pinching effect; 

• Other areas where two or more 

parts are joined in such a manner as to 

permit rotational movement capable of 

exerting a scissoring, shearing, or 

pinching effect; 

• Exposed coil springs which may 

expand sufficiently to allow an infant’s 

finger, toe, or other body part to be 

inserted, in whole or in part, and 

injured by being caught between the 

coils of the spring or between the spring 

and another part of the article; 

• Holes in plates or tubes which also 

provide the possibility of insertion of a 

finger, toe, or other part of the anatomy 

that could then be injured by the 

movement of another part of the article; 

or 

• A design and construction that 

permits accidental collapse while in 

use. 

Exemptions to the ban are at 16 CFR 

1500.86(a)(4). These include any babywalker (or the other subject products) 

where: 

• The frames are designed and 

constructed in a manner to prevent 

injury from any scissoring, shearing, or 

pinching when the members of the 

frame or other components rotate about 

a common axis or fastening point or 

otherwise move relative to one another; 

and 

• Any coil springs which expand 

when the article is subjected to a force 

that will extend the spring to its 

maximum distance so that a space 

between successive coils is greater than 

one-eighth inch (0.125 inch) are covered 

or otherwise designed to prevent 

injuries; and 

• All holes larger than one-eighth 

inch (0.125 inch) in diameter, and slots, 

cracks, or hinged components in any 

portion of the article through which a 

child could insert, in whole or in part, 

a finger, toe, or any other part of the 

anatomy, are guarded or otherwise 

designed to prevent injuries; and 

• The articles are designed and 

constructed to prevent accidental 

collapse while in use; and 

• The articles are designed and 

constructed in a manner that eliminates 

from any portion of the article the 

possibility of presenting a mechanical 

hazard through pinching, bruising, 

lacerating, crushing, breaking, 

amputating, or otherwise injuring 

portions of the human body when in 

normal use or when subjected to 

reasonably foreseeable damage or abuse; 

and 

• Any article which is introduced 

into interstate commerce after the 

effective date of [the regulation] is 

labeled: 

—With a conspicuous statement of 

the name and address of the 

manufacturer, packer, distributor, or 

seller; and 

—With a code mark on the article 

itself and on the package containing the 

article or on the shipping container, in 

addition to the invoice(s) or shipping 

document(s), which code mark will 

permit future identification by the 

manufacturer of any given model (the 

manufacturer shall change the model 

number whenever the article undergoes 

a significant structural or design 

modification); 

and 

• The manufacturer or importer of the 

article shall make, keep, and maintain 

for 3 years records of sale, distribution, 

and results of inspections and tests 

conducted in accordance with this 

subparagraph and shall make such 

records available at all reasonable hours 

upon request by any officer or employee 

of the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission and shall permit such 

officer or employee to inspect and copy 

such records, to make such stock 

inventories as such person deems 

necessary, and to otherwise check the 

correctness of such records. 

The existing regulations do not 

include any requirements specifically 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2ER21JN10.010</GPH>