Plastic Buckets; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments and Information

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................................... 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