[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16481]


[[Page Unknown]]

[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