[Federal Register: July 8, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 130
Friday, July 8, 1994
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1307
Plastic Buckets; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request
for Comments and Information
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Based on information currently available to the Commission, it
has reason to believe that unreasonable risks of injury and death may
be associated with certain containers referred to in this notice as
``5-gallon plastic buckets.'' The Commission is aware of more than 250
instances in the last 10 years in which young children have fallen head
first into plastic buckets containing liquids and drowned or were
injured. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'')
initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the authority of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). One result of the proceeding could be
the promulgation of a rule mandating performance standards and/or
labeling requirements for these plastic buckets. If a performance
standard is found to be unfeasible, another result of the proceeding
could be a ban of plastic buckets having characteristics that create a
drowning risk for children. A third option could be an information and
education campaign. Further, some combination of these options could be
adopted.
The Commission solicits written comments from interested persons
concerning the risks of injury and death associated with buckets, the
regulatory alternatives discussed in this notice, other possible means
to address these risks, and the economic impacts of the various
regulatory alternatives. The Commission also invites interested persons
to submit an existing standard, or a statement of intent to modify or
develop a voluntary standard, to address the risks of injury and death
described in this notice.
DATES: Written comments and submissions in response to this notice must
be received by the Commission by September 6, 1994.
ADDRESS: Comments should be mailed, preferably in five (5) copies, to
the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, DC 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) 504-0800.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John D. Preston, Directorate for
Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington,
DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0494, ext. 1315.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
By publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission commences a rulemaking proceeding
for products known as 5-gallon plastic buckets.\1\ In July 1989, the
Commission first learned of a drowning hazard associated with certain
large buckets or bucket-like containers. The particular characteristics
of these products will be discussed below in section C of this notice,
but the products will be referred to generically as ``5-gallon plastic
buckets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Commission voted 3-0 to approve this notice and commence
the rulemaking. Separate statements of Chairman Ann Brown,
Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall, and Commissioner Jacqueline Jones-
Smith are available from the Commission's Office of the Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drownings have occurred with these products when small children
leaned over the buckets and fell in. These drownings can occur in even
just a few inches of liquid in the bottom of the buckets. Given the
shape and size of the buckets, and their stability when they contain
even a small amount of liquid, they may not tip over when a child leans
into them and falls in.
Five-gallon containers are used for bulk or commercial-sized
quantities of a wide variety of products, including food, paint, and
construction materials such as spackling compound. When emptied of
their original contents, these containers are sometimes reused as
buckets by consumers. Similar 5-gallon containers are also sold new in
stores as large-volume household buckets.
Young children's curiosity, combined with their crawling and
pulling up while learning to walk, can lead to drowning when buckets
are used around the house. The Commission believes that these drownings
typically happened when curious children crawled to a bucket containing
mop water or other liquids for household chores, pulled themselves up
and leaned forward to play in the water or retrieve an object. When
they toppled into the bucket, they were unable to free themselves, and
drowned.
The Commission issued a Safety Alert in July 1989 warning consumers
of the drowning hazard associated with these products. At that time,
the Commission knew of at least 67 drowning deaths in buckets during
1985-1987, mostly to young children 8 to 12 months old. In many of
these cases, 5-gallon plastic buckets or containers were being used for
mopping floors or for other household chores.
Also in 1989, the Commission contacted the major trade associations
representing manufacturers and fillers of buckets. As a result, the
trade associations formed the Coalition for Container Safety to work
with CPSC on the issue of child drownings. The coalition agreed to
undertake an information and education effort. A program was developed
that included a plan to inform consumers of the availability of free
self-adhesive warning labels for placement on buckets already in their
homes. Additionally, a video news release produced by the coalition was
reported to have reached 13 million viewers, resulting in phone calls
from 4,200 consumers and the distribution of 71,000 labels.
The Commission's staff also worked with ASTM subcommittee F15.31 on
voluntary standards for 5-gallon buckets. In 1993, ASTM approved an
emergency standard for labeling of buckets to address this drowning
hazard, and a final ASTM standard for labeling currently is being
balloted by the subcommittee.
Concurrent with the development of the emergency labeling standard
by ASTM subcommittee F15.31, a subcommittee task group worked to
develop a draft performance standard. At a July 8, 1992, task group
meeting, CPSC staff proposed a basic format for the performance
standard. The standard would describe several performance classes or
options, and a container that met the requirements of any one of them
would comply with the standard. This approach would allow each industry
to select the most appropriate performance class for its uses. CPSC
staff provided industry with several example performance classes at a
December 1, 1992, meeting. These classes included:
a. Stability. Buckets would meet performance criteria that would
ensure that the buckets were sufficiently unstable that if a child were
to fall into one of them, the bucket would tip over. The buckets would
have to tip over if subjected separately to specified horizontal and
vertical forces.
b. Restrictor. Buckets could contain a ``restrictor'' device that
prevents a child from falling into the bucket (e.g., a post projecting
upward from the bottom of the bucket).
c. Liquid retention. Buckets could be constructed so that they
cannot retain liquid. (They still could be used to ship solid materials
in a liner.)
In addition to the performance criteria proposed by the CPSC staff,
the subcommittee's draft performance standard could be satisfied in any
of the following ways:
a. Photodegradability. ASTM's draft standard would allow buckets
that degraded quickly from ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The
draft standard contains exposure time and test requirements for
assessing material degradation. However, these test requirements were
developed for thin films and not for products such as buckets.
Moreover, buckets kept indoors might not degrade quickly enough to
prevent substantial consumer use. Furthermore, at a meeting on May 2,
1994, the task group decided that this option was impracticable
because, if a degradable bucket were developed, it might degrade before
its original contents were used.
b. Cleanability. The draft standard would permit buckets with a
nonremovable residue. The subcommittee reasoned that a bucket with a
nonremovable residue would be unsuitable for consumer applications and
therefore would not present a drowning risk. The draft ASTM standard
provides a method and criteria for assessing cleanability of the
residue that a product would leave in a bucket.
c. Recycling. A ``recycling class'' also was added to ASTM's draft
standard. This would allow manufacturers to use 5-gallon buckets if
they had a closed system for recycling or retrieving buckets, so that
they would not come into consumers' hands.
The draft ASTM standard would cover plastic buckets of 4 to 6
gallon rated capacities. Industry members expressed concerns that any
changes in bucket design would have significant economic consequences.
In August 1993, CPSC staff provided the subcommittee with detailed
comments on the draft performance standard. These comments were
incorporated into a revised draft standard. However, the subcommittee
members' response to the first ballot vote on the draft performance
standard was overwhelmingly negative.
At a November 30, 1993, meeting, subcommittee members proposed that
the performance standard be modified to allow labeling as an
alternative to a performance solution. CPSC staff voiced strong
objections to this proposal, stating that labeling was meant to be an
interim measure. Representatives from Underwriters Laboratories
presented a proposal for validating buckets against the draft
performance standard. The testing would be run by ASTM's Institute for
Standards Research (ISR). The subcommittee members, however, were not
interested in funding the proposal.
Subsequently, the subcommittee chairman modified the draft
performance standard to address several of the negative ballots. The
standard was then redistributed for subcommittee balloting at the end
of February 1994. Once again, the ballot failed to receive the
necessary two-thirds affirmative vote.
At a March 17, 1994, meeting, subcommittee members stated that they
did not think that a performance standard was feasible and that they
would continue to vote against it. All the industry representatives
present were in agreement that the subcommittee should abandon a
performance standard and focus instead on information and education
efforts. Nevertheless, the subcommittee formed a new task group to
examine the negative ballots and see if some sort of a performance
standard could be drafted.
Because of the hazard of drowning associated with 5-gallon plastic
buckets, and the absence of any voluntary performance standard that
adequately addresses the drowning hazard, the Commission decided to
publish this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'').
Publication of this document commences a proceeding that ultimately
could require certain buckets to meet specified performance
requirements and/or bear labeling to warn consumers of the hazard
presented by these buckets. Alternatively, certain buckets could be
banned if no other option adequately addressed the risk.
B. Statutory Authority
This proceeding is conducted under provisions of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. A proceeding to
promulgate a regulation establishing performance or labeling
requirements as a consumer product safety standard is governed by the
requirements in sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058.
Where there is no feasible consumer product safety standard that would
adequately protect the public, the Commission may ban a product in
accordance with sections 8 and 9 of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058.
Before adopting either a standard or a ban, the Commission first
must issue an ANPR as provided in section 9(a) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C.
2058(a). If the Commission decides to continue the rulemaking
proceeding after considering responses to the ANPR, the Commission must
then publish the text of the proposed rule, along with a preliminary
regulatory analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA. 15
U.S.C. 2058(c). If the Commission then wishes to issue a final rule, it
must publish the text of the final rule and a final regulatory analysis
that includes the elements stated in section 9(f)(2) of the CPSA. 15
U.S.C. 2058(f)(2). And before issuing a final regulation, the
Commission must make certain statutory findings concerning voluntary
standards, the relationship of the costs and benefits of the rule, and
the burden imposed by the regulation. CPSC section 9(f)(3), 15 U.S.C.
2058(f)(3).
C. The Product
This ANPR covers only certain plastic buckets, which are described
in greater detail below. Open-head plastic buckets having a rated
capacity of 4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ gallons generally are 14 inches high and
10.25 to 11.25 inches in diameter. They are practically straight sided,
with a slight taper to facilitate nesting of empty buckets and release
of plastic buckets from the mold. Buckets are manufactured to conform
to government and international standards pertaining to performance
characteristics such as stability, strength, and impact resistance.
Plastic buckets are manufactured of high density polyethylene
(``HDPE'') using the injection molding process.
Five-gallon buckets are used as containers to package and transport
industrial, commercial, and consumer products, such as chemicals,
cleaning substances, foods, paints and construction materials.
According to a study by The Freedonia Group, Inc. (the ``Freedonia
study''),\2\ about 50 percent of the plastic buckets produced in 1992
were used to contain cleaning compounds, paints, and adhesives. Food
products accounted for approximately 40 percent; gypsum and other
industrial and consumer products accounted for the remainder. In
addition, empty buckets may be purchased new in retail stores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Industrial Bulk Packaging, The Freedonia Group, Inc., March
1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buckets can be plastic or steel and compete directly for market
share with other containers, such as multi-walled bags and the bag-in-
box. Industry data indicate that plastic bucket sales have outstripped
metal bucket sales over the past decade and will continue to do so.
Reasons cited for the shift to plastic are that plastic is less
expensive than metal, weighs 25-35 percent less, and is noncorrosive in
the presence of water-based products.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\U.S. Paint Industry Data Base, SRI International, September
1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers obtain 5-gallon plastic buckets through purchases of
consumer goods, such as paints and detergents, that are sold packaged
in such buckets, and by taking empty buckets from job sites. The
percentage of the annual 5-gallon plastic bucket production that enters
secondary use in homes as utility buckets is not known.
Some characteristics of buckets that possibly affect the risk of
children drowning in buckets are discussed below. Prior to issuing any
proposed rule to address the drowning risk with plastic buckets, the
Commission will determine how these risk characteristics should be used
to define the buckets subject to the rule.
One of these risk characteristics is the size of the bucket. The
Commission's Division of Human Factors analyzed data for children ages
8 to 14 months to determine the size ranges for potentially hazardous
buckets for this age range. Approximately 86 percent of the drowning
incidents with buckets involved children in this age range. Based on
anthropometric data and a rigid-body model, the Human Factors Division
determined that potentially hazardous buckets include those that are
12-21 inches in height and have a top opening diameter of greater than
7 inches. Other variables, such as the amount of liquid in the bucket,
the weight of the bucket, and the orientation of the child in the
bucket, can influence whether a bucket is potentially hazardous.
(Memorandum from G. Sweet, CPSC Division of Human Factors, ``Five-
Gallon Buckets,'' Aug. 2, 1993.)
Another possible risk characteristic of a bucket is the material of
which it is made. Of 128 incidents in which the material of the bucket
was known, only 1 was made of metal; the others were made of plastic.
Representatives of the metal bucket industry contend that metal buckets
are less suitable for secondary consumer use because they will rust
when exposed to water. Also, metal buckets tend to be used with
solvent-based materials that may be more difficult to clean from the
bucket so it can be used subsequently by the consumer.
In any event, the one incident that is known to have involved a
metal bucket does not indicate that metal buckets present an
unreasonable risk, particularly given the large number of these buckets
that have been distributed. Accordingly, the scope of this proceeding
extends only to plastic buckets. If information becomes available
indicating that metal buckets also may present an unreasonable risk,
the Commission can consider whether metal buckets should be regulated.
A third characteristic of a bucket that may affect the drowning
risk is its capacity. The rated capacities of most of the buckets known
to have been involved in drowning incidents range from 3\1/2\ to 6\1/2\
gallons. The draft ASTM performance standard for buckets, discussed
below, would cover buckets of 4-6 gallon capacity. Only three deaths
are known to have involved buckets with rated capacities outside the 4-
6 gallon range. It is not known how many manufacturers of 4-6 gallon
buckets would change to a size outside that range if a performance
standard for 4-6 gallon buckets were adopted.
D. The Bucket Industry
According to the Freedonia study, approximately 248 million metal
and plastic buckets of all sizes were shipped in 1992. Of these,
approximately 70 percent, or 173 million units, were plastic buckets.
More than 85 percent (150 million units) of the plastic buckets shipped
were open-head buckets, which are generally the 5-gallon capacity. It
is estimated that by 1997, 175 million open-head plastic buckets will
be produced annually.
The Freedonia study also reports that there are approximately 50
plants producing open-head buckets in the United States. In 1992, 5
companies accounted for approximately 50 percent of shipments of
plastic buckets. The estimated value of the 1992 shipments of open-head
plastic buckets was $355 million, or approximately $2.37 per unit. Net
exports of plastic buckets account for approximately three percent of
shipments.
The industry has become somewhat organized through the ASTM
subcommittee as a result of voluntary standards activities and the
Coalition for Container Safety. Many of the dominant manufacturers are
members of the Plastic Shipping Container Institute, representing
approximately 30 percent of firms. Another trade association in which
open-head bucket producers are members is the Society of the Plastics
Industry.
E. Risks of Injury and Death
Between January 1984 and March 15, 1994, the Commission received
reports of 228 deaths and 30 nonfatal incidents associated with
buckets. These numbers do not represent a complete count of all bucket-
related deaths and injuries, since reporting is still in progress for
some data sources. For 1990 and 1991 (the latest years for which all
data sources are complete), it is estimated that there were
approximately 40 drownings per year.
Victims ranged in age from 7 to 24 months, with a median age of 11
months; almost two-thirds (63%) of the children were male.
Table 1.--Victim Age for Investigated Bucket Incidents 1986-1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (months) Count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.............................................................. 1
8.............................................................. 6
9.............................................................. 16
10............................................................. 26
11............................................................. 33
12............................................................. 21
13............................................................. 17
14............................................................. 7
15............................................................. 9
16............................................................. 3
17............................................................. 3
18............................................................. 4
>18............................................................ 5
--------
Total.................................................... 151
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Directorate for
Epidemiology, In-Depth Investigation File
Race/ethnicity was reported in 136 of the 151 investigated cases.
Victims were Black (53), White (41), Hispanic (37), American Indian
(4), and Asian (1). Minority groups accounted for a higher proportion
(almost 70%) of bucket-related incidents.
Table 2.--Relative Risk of Bucket Incidents by Race/Ethnicity 1986-1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. live
Incidents births Relative
Race/ethnicity (percent) (percent) risk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian................................... <1 3.3 .3
Black................................... 39 16.8 2.3
Caucasian............................... 30 65.8 .4
Hispanic................................ 27 13.3 2.0
Native American......................... 3 1.0 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Directorate for
Epidemiology, In-Depth Investigation File
Spanish was reported to be the household language in 21 incidents,
and Navajo was the language in two cases. However, conclusive
information was not usually available on whether the caretakers
involved in these cases could also read and/or speak English. In one
family, the victim's mother, who was caring for him at the time, spoke
only Kurdish. Whether the caretaker can read English is relevant to the
potential effectiveness of labels and to the content of the label.
CPSC in-depth investigations generally do not collect socioeconomic
data, but police reports and other documents collected as part of the
investigations suggest that most victims were at the lower end of the
socioeconomic scale. Statements taken in the investigations indicate
that 5-gallon, industrial-type buckets are used by many low-income
families because of the buckets' durability, versatility, availability,
and low, if any, cost.
Generally, victims fell into buckets while leaning over them. There
were no witnesses to virtually any of the incidents. However, it
appears that, in many situations, unattended children were reaching for
an object inside the container, or may have leaned over the bucket to
look inside or play with the water, and fell in head first. In a few
situations, children fell into buckets from higher levels, such as a
patio bench or from a bed. The average height of liquid in the bucket
was about 6 inches. The smallest amount of water was reported to be 3
inches.
Most buckets were used originally for bulk packaging of industrial
and commercial products and were often brought home by neighbors or
family members to use for household tasks. In the majority of
incidents, the containers were used for cleaning purposes (mop buckets)
around homes and held water mixed with various cleaning agents. The
buckets were also used to hold drinking water for animals, for laundry
purposes, as diaper pails, for gardening projects, as toilet aids, and
to hold water for other household purposes. The incidents took place in
all rooms of the home, as well as in yards and on porches.
As noted above, there were an estimated 40 bucket drowning deaths
per year for 1990 and 1991. Also, there are approximately 8 million
children under the age of 2 years in the United States. Based on these
figures, the risk of death from drowning in a bucket is 5 per million
each year for children in this age group. This risk ratio is most
likely an underestimate. For example, the Commission knows of no
children under age 7 months involved in the incidents from 1986 to
1994. Also, not all children under the age of 2 years have 5-gallon
buckets in their homes.
F. Existing Standards
The Commission is aware of some existing standards that may be
relevant to this proceeding. These standards are described below.
1. ASTM standard ES 26-93 for labeling. In May 1992, at the request
of the Commission, ASTM formed subcommittee F15.31 to address the
hazards associated with 5-gallon buckets. The subcommittee's primary
goals were to develop a labeling standard and to determine the
feasibility of a performance standard. The subcommittee recognized that
a labeling standard could be developed and put into place in much less
time than a performance standard. Consequently, the subcommittee
initially focused its efforts on the development of an emergency
labeling standard.\4\ In July 1993, ASTM approved ES 26-93, ``Emergency
Standard Specification for Cautionary Labeling for Plastic Five-Gallon
Open-Head Containers (Buckets).'' A final ASTM labeling standard is
currently undergoing the subcommittee balloting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ASTM procedures allow for emergency standards, which will be
in effect for only 2 years, to be developed on an expedited basis.
During the 2-year life of the emergency standard, a final standard
is considered according to the usual ASTM procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission preliminarily believes that the ASTM labeling
standard alone will not adequately reduce the risk of child drownings
associated with buckets. Warning labels generally are not as effective
in reducing the risks of injury and death as appropriate design
changes, particularly where, as here, the population at risk--infants
and toddlers--cannot read. In addition, the Commission does not know
the degree of compliance with the ASTM standard that is likely to occur
in the buckets presenting the risks being addressed in this proceeding.
It appears that a performance standard and information and education
efforts will also be required to achieve a reasonable reduction in the
risk of child drownings associated with this product.
2. California labeling requirement. In September 1993, a California
law became effective that requires a warning label on 5-gallon buckets
that are intended for use, sale, or distribution within the state. As
noted above, the Commission believes that a labeling requirement alone
will not adequately reduce the risk of child drownings associated with
this product.
3. Handling and shipping standards. The Commission is aware of a
number of standards that establish criteria for packaging to ensure
that it will have sufficient strength and impact resistance to
withstand conditions encountered in handling and shipping. These
standards are not directly relevant to the development of a performance
standard for buckets to address the child-drowning hazard. However, any
new bucket designs needed to meet a performance standard may also have
to meet one or more of the standards listed below:
1. I258. National Motor Freight Classification Rules, National
Motor Freight Association, Inc., 2300 Mill Road, Alexandria, VA 22314.
2. ASTM Standard Specification Designation: D4504-85, Standard
Specification for Molded Polyethylene Open-Head-Pails for Industrial
Shipping.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Available from the ASTM, 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA
19103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ASTM Standard Specification Designation: D4919-89, Standard
Specification for Testing of Hazardous Materials Packaging.
4. Department of Transportation Hazardous Material Regulations, 16
CFR Part 178 (1993), Specifications for Packaging.
5. Uniform Freight Classification 6000-E, Section 7-1/4, Part 2
(Open Head Pails).
6. Environmental Stress Crack Resistance Test Procedure for Plastic
Pails, Plastic Shipping Container Institute, 4913 Main Street, Downers
Grove, IL 60515.
7. United Nations Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Chapter 9,
Section 9.6.19.2-9.8.2.
For the reasons given above, the Commission believes that none of
the existing standards would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of
child drownings associated with buckets.
G. Regulatory Alternatives Under Consideration
The Commission is considering alternatives to reduce the number of
injuries and deaths related to 5-gallon buckets. Available information
suggests that many of the families of the children involved in the
reported incidents were unaware of the potential drowning hazard
associated with secondary use of these containers and are less likely
to be reached by traditional information and education (I&E) programs.
Thus, labeling and performance standards, as well as new and aggressive
I&E campaigns designed to reach this vulnerable population, continue to
be warranted. It is also possible that a voluntary standard could be
developed that would adequately reduce the risk of child drownings
associated with this product. These alternatives are discussed below.
1. Performance standard. Based on the history of the ASTM
subcommittee's consideration of a performance standard, it appears
unlikely that ASTM will adopt an adequate performance standard for
buckets. In addition, it is unclear whether there would be substantial
industry compliance with any such standard. Accordingly, it is possible
that the Commission will issue a mandatory performance standard for
hazardous plastic buckets. A mandatory standard could include
provisions similar to some of those developed for the draft ASTM
performance standard, or additional or alternate requirements could be
developed.
Performance standards to reduce or eliminate the drowning hazard
may require product redesign. A redesigned 5-gallon plastic bucket may
entail costs to change the bucket molds and filling assembly lines, and
also may adversely affect transportation and handling efficiencies. If
these costs are prohibitive, fillers are likely to use alternate
packaging, such as smaller or larger buckets.
2. Labeling. Another alternative is labeling plastic buckets. ASTM
subcommittee F15.31 developed two labels to address the drowning hazard
with buckets. The present ASTM labels are as follows:
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
TP08JY94.002
TP08JY94.003
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
The Commission believes that the labels developed by ASTM could be
modified to more closely comply with recognized principles of safety
labeling. The Commission presently lacks data, however, to demonstrate
that such modifications to the ASTM labels would result in further
reductions in deaths or injuries. In any event, as described above, the
Commission is concerned that labeling alone will not adequately reduce
the risk of child drowning.
3. Voluntary standards. As discussed above, ASTM has Emergency
Standard ES 26-93 for labeling of 5-gallon buckets, and a permanent
ASTM labeling standard is being balloted. There are also other
voluntary standards applicable to these buckets, discussed above, but
these standards do not address the drowning hazard to children. The
Commission is not aware of any other voluntary standards in effect that
apply to the risk of children drowning that is associated with this
product.
4. A ban. The Commission may determine that a performance standard
that would adequately reduce the risk of children drowning in buckets
is not feasible. If this occurs and the requisite findings are made,
the Commission could declare plastic buckets that present this risk to
be banned hazardous products. This alternative would require the use of
either smaller or larger buckets, or other types of packaging, that do
not present the risk addressed in this proceeding.
G. Solicitation of Information and Comments
This ANPR is the first step of a proceeding which could result in a
mandatory performance or labeling standard for plastic buckets that
present an unreasonable risk of child drownings (probably buckets of
rated capacities of 3\1/2\ to 6\1/2\ gallons), or in a ban of these
products. All interested persons are invited to submit to the
Commission their comments on any aspect of the alternatives discussed
above. In particular, CPSC solicits the following additional
information: (1) How consumers obtain the buckets, (2) the size of the
exposed population, (3) a breakdown of production by bucket size and
intended use, (4) the costs of bucket injection molds, (5) the degree
to which industry and businesses depend upon the existing 5-gallon
plastic bucket size and shape (shipping, storage, etc.), (6) the likely
effects of elimination of the 5-gallon size, (7) the likelihood of
industry substitution of another container, such as another size
bucket, and how this would affect risk, (8) any markets with little or
no potential of primary or secondary consumer use of plastic buckets,
(9) the likelihood and nature of significant economic impact on small
entities, and (10) the costs of mandating a labeling requirement.
In addition, the Commission solicits comments on the likely effects
on drowning incidents and on the bucket market of possible design
changes to plastic buckets. For example, commenters might be able to
supply information about the reduction in drownings and the effect on
bucket uses that might result if all plastic buckets were over 18 or 21
inches in height or less than 10 or so inches in height. Information on
whether buckets with shapes other than round could be used would also
be helpful.
Also, in accordance with section 9(a) of the CPSA, the Commission
solicits:
(1) Written comments with respect to the risk of injury identified
by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being considered, and
other possible alternatives for addressing the risk.
(2) Any existing standard or portion of a standard which could be
issued as a proposed regulation.
(3) A statement of intention to modify or develop a voluntary
standard to address the risk of injury discussed in this notice, along
with a description of a plan (including a schedule) to do so.
Comments should be mailed, preferably in five (5) copies, to the
Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, DC 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-0800. All comments and
submissions should be received no later than September 6, 1994.
Dated: June 30, 1994.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The following documents contain information relevant to this
rulemaking proceeding and are available for inspection at the Office of
the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-
West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814:
1. I258. National Motor Freight Classification Rules, National
Motor Freight Association, Inc., 2300 Mill Road, Alexandria, VA 22314.
2. ASTM Standard Specification Designation: D4504-85, Standard
Specification for Molded Polyethylene Open-Head-Pails for Industrial
Shipping.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Available from the ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ASTM Standard Specification Designation: D4919-89, Standard
Specification for Testing of Hazardous Materials Packaging.
4. Department of Transportation Hazardous Material Regulations, 16
CFR Part 178 (1993), Specifications for Packaging.
5. Uniform Freight Classification 6000-E, Section 7-1/4, Part 2
(Open Head Pails).
6. Environmental Stress Crack Resistance Test Procedure for Plastic
Pails, Plastic Shipping Container Institute, 4913 Main Street, Downers
Grove, IL 60515.
7. United Nations Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Chapter 9,
Section 9.6.19.2-9.8.2.
8. Report: ``Polyethylene Shipping Containers: The Marketing of
Hazard,'' Public Interest Scientific Consulting Service, Inc., New
York, September 1985.
9. News from CPSC, ``Large Buckets Are Drowning Hazards for Young
Children,'' July 12, 1989.
10. COMSIS report on warning labels for 5-gallon buckets, August
22, 1989.
11. Materials from press conference with CPSC and the Coalition for
Container Safety, August 22, 1990. Includes: sample label, agenda,
remarks of CPSC Chairman Jacqueline Jones-Smith, remarks of Lewis R.
Freeman, news release, fact sheet, suburban newspaper news release, and
poster.
12. Log of 7/16/91 meeting with the Coalition for Container Safety.
13. Letter from Lewis R. Freeman, Jr., Vice President Government
Affairs, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. concerning labels,
November 1, 1991. Attached is an undated ``white paper'' of the
Technical Committee of the Plastic Shipping Container Institute,
``Plastic 5-Gallon Shipping Containers.''
14. Memorandum from Renae Rauchschwalbe, CPSC/CECA, to Eric
Peterson, CPSC Executive Director, commenting on SPI's 11/1/91 labeling
proposal, November 15, 1991.
15. Memorandum from Robert Hartwig, CPSC/EPHA, to George
Rutherford, CPSC/EP, ``Updated Analysis of Infant Bucket Drownings,''
November 25, 1991.
16. Memorandum from George Rutherford, CPSC, to the Commission,
``Current Listing of Infant Bucket Drownings,'' December 5, 1991.
17. Letter from Bert Simson, CPSC, to Drew Azzaro, ASTM, requesting
ASTM to call a meeting to discuss a voluntary standard for 5-gallon
buckets, February 10, 1992.
18. Safety Alert, ``Large Buckets are Drowning Hazards for Young
Children,'' April 1992.
19. Log of organizational meeting of ASTM F15.31, May 5, 1992.
20. Staff memorandum to the Commission, ``Injury and Human Factors
Analyses of Bucket Drownings,'' May 14, 1992.
21. Mann, N.C., Weller, S.C., and Rauchschwalbe, R., ``Bucket-
Related Drownings in the United States, 1984 Through 1990,''
Pediatrics, Vol. 89 No. 6, June 1992.
22. Staff memorandum to the Commission, ``Request for Participation
Level Voluntary Standard Project on Certain Buckets,'' June 19, 1992.
23. Staff memorandum to the Commission, ``Request for Participation
Level Voluntary Standard Project on Certain Buckets,'' July 7, 1992,
with ballot vote, July 29, 1992.
24. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, July 8, 1992.
25. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, August 15, 1992.
26. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, September 9, 1992.
27. Congressional Record, September 10, 1992, House Section, text
of amendment offered by Rep. Bilirakis to H.R. 4706 to require bucket
labels.
28. Log of meeting of ASTM 15.31 Performance Task Group, October
27, 1992.
29. ``Focus Group Study of Bucket Labels,'' RIVA Market Research,
Inc., November 1992.
30. Log of meeting of ASTM 15.31 Performance Task Group, December
1, 1992.
31. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, December 2, 1992.
32. Memorandum from J. Elder to the Commission, re Bucket Labels--
Contractor's Report and Human Factors Staff Recommendations, December
28, 1992.
33. Memorandum to the Commission from Donna-Bea Tillman, CPSC/HSHE,
``Updated listing of infant bucket drownings,'' January 27, 1993.
34. Log of meeting of ASTM 15.31 Performance Task Group, February
16, 1993.
35. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, February 17, 1993.
36. Log of meeting of ASTM 15.31 Performance Task Group, March 30,
1993.
37. Log of meeting of ASTM 15.31 Performance Task Group, May 4,
1993.
38. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, May 5, 1993.
39. Scheers, N.J. and Cassidy, S., ``Analysis of Investigated Cases
of Deaths and Hospitalizations Associated with Five Gallon-Type
Buckets: January, 1984 Through June 1, 1993,'' CPSC/EPHA, June 15,
1993.
40. American Society for Testing and Materials standard ES 26-93,
``Emergency Standard Specification for Cautionary Labeling for Plastic
Five-Gallon Open-Head Containers (Buckets),'' approved July 28, 1993;
published August 1993.
41. CPSC Safety Alert, August 1993.
42. Memorandum from G. Sweet, CPSC Division of Human Factors, to
Donna-Bea Tillman, CPSC/HSHE, ``Five-Gallon Buckets,'' Aug. 2, 1993.
43. Log of meeting of ASTM 15.31 Performance Task Group, September
8, 1993.
44. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, September 9, 1993.
45. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.34 (steel buckets), October 4, 1993.
46. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, November 30, 1993.
47. Letter from Eric Peterson, CPSC Executive Director, to John
Blair, Chairman ASTM F15.31, regarding labeling should be replaced by
performance requirements, December 27, 1993.
48. Letter from Frederick Huber, who is seeking a patent on a
bucket with a ring at the base that can be removed to decrease the
stability of the bucket, March 2, 1994.
49. Letter from Brock Landry to Donna-Bea Tillman, CPSC, concerning
a drowning in a steel industrial cooking vessel, March 14, 1994.
50. Log of meeting of ASTM F15.31, March 17, 1994.
51. Memorandum from Donna-Bea Tillman, CPSC, to John Preston, CPSC,
``ASTM activities on five-gallon buckets,'' March 24, 1994.
52. Interview with CPSC Chairman Ann Brown, Los Angeles Times, D3,
March 25, 1994.
53. Memorandum from Mary Donaldson, CPSC/ECSS, to John Preston,
CPSC, ``Economic Information for Options Briefing Package on Five-
Gallon Buckets,'' March 25, 1994.
54. Letter from John Preston, CPSC to John A. Blair, Chairman ASTM
F15.31, urging development of performance standard, March 29, 1994.
55. Memorandum from George Sushinsky, CPSC to John Preston, CPSC,
``The ASTM Draft Performance Standard for 5-Gallon Buckets,'' March 29,
1994.
56. Memorandum from S. Cassidy, CPSC/EPHA, to John Preston, CPSC,
``Update of Investigated Cases Associated with Five Gallon Buckets,''
March 29, 1994.
57. Letter from Wm. Roper, Ropak Corp., to CPSC Chairman Ann Brown,
concerning 3/25/94 interview and requesting meeting, March 30, 1994.
58. Letter from Wm. Roper, Ropak Corp., to John Preston, CPSC,
asking for cumulative reports of infant drownings by year, March 30,
1994.
59. Memorandum from S. Cassidy, CPSC/EPHA, to John Preston, CPSC,
``Risk of Death for Children under 2 Years of Age Associated with 5-
Gallon Buckets,'' April 1, 1994.
60. Memorandum from Kathy Kaplan, CPSC/EXPA, to John Preston, CPSC,
``Cost Estimate for Media Events and Consumer Information Program for
5-Gallon Buckets, April 1, 1994.
61. Letter from John Preston, CPSC to Mr. Frederick Huber,
responding to his 3/2/94 letter, April 5, 1994.
62. Fax/Letter from CPSC Chairman Ann Brown to Wm. Roper, Ropak
Corp., assuring that she is unbiased and inviting him to 4/15 meeting,
April 8, 1994.
63. Fax from Harleigh Ewell, CPSC, to John Blair, Chairman ASTM
F15.31, inviting interested parties to 4/15 meeting, April 8, 1994.
64. Letter from Wm. Roper, Ropak Corp., to John Preston, CPSC,
stating that performance standard is impractical, April 11, 1994.
65. CPSC staff briefing paper from John Preston to the Commission,
``Options for Addressing Drownings Associated with 5-Gallon Buckets,''
with Tabs A-I, April 18, 1994.
66. Letter from Brock R. Landry, attorney for the Coalition for
Safe Steel Containers, requesting that steel industrial containers not
be included in any rulemaking, April 18, 1994.
67. Log of meeting with bucket industry representatives and CPSC
Chairman Ann Brown, April 26, 1994.
68. Log of 5/2/94 meeting of ASTM Subcommittee F15.31 Performance
Task Group.
69. Letter from Wm. Roper, Ropak Corp., to CPSC Chairman Ann Brown,
concerning labels and the need for an educational program, May 5, 1994.
70. Letter from Brock Landry, attorney for the Safe Steel Container
Coalition, to CPSC Chairman Ann Brown concerning persons to attend 5/9
meeting and their position that steel containers should not be included
in the proposed ANPR, May 5, 1994.
71. Letter from Wm. Roper, Ropak Corp., to John Preston, CPSC,
concerning the ``Just a Few Seconds'' drowning prevention campaign, May
6, 1994.
72. Letter from Rep. Charles Wilson to CPSC Chairman Ann Brown, May
9, 1994.
73. Letter from CPSC Chairman Ann Brown to Rep. Charles Wilson, May
12, 1994.
74. Memorandum from CPSC Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall to CPSC
Chairman Ann Brown, ``In Depth Investigation (IDI) Reports--Bucket
Drownings,'' May 13, 1994.
75. Letter from John Blair, Chairman ASTM 15.31, to Wm. Roper,
Ropak Corp., ``Proposed Educational and Communications Program,
F15.31--Five Gallon Buckets,'' May 13, 1994.
76. Letter from R. J. Gardner to John Preston, CPSC, questioning
value of bucket project based on 5/12/94 article in the Utica Observer
Dispatch, May 15, 1994.
77. Letter from Wm. Roper, Ropak Corp., to CPSC Chairman Ann Brown
announcing that the 5 major producers will label products commencing 1/
1/95 and initiate an I&E program by 7/1/94, with attachments concerning
I&E program, May 16, 1994.
78. Memorandum from John Preston, CPSC, to the Commission,
``Response to Commission Questions Regarding 5-Gallon Buckets,'' May
17, 1994.
79. Tape recording of Commission decision meeting of May 19, 1994.
80. Statement of Chairman Ann Brown on 5-gallon buckets, May 19,
1994.
81. Statement of Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall on options on
mandatory Federal regulation of five gallon buckets, May 19, 1994.
82. Statement of Commissioner Jacqueline Jones-Smith on the
Issuance of an ANPR for 5-Gallon Plastic Containers, May 19, 1994.
83. News from CPSC, ``CPSC Votes to Begin Rulemaking on Plastic, 5-
Gallon Buckets,'' May 19, 1994.
84. Ballot vote sheet, ``Revised ANPR for 5-Gallon Buckets,'' May
24, 1994.
[FR Doc. 94-16481 Filed 7-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P