Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27497 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2010–0402/Airspace 

Docket No. 10–AGL–6.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ 

air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the office of the 

Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76137. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking 

202–267–9677, to request a copy of 

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution 

System, which describes the application 

procedure. 

The Proposal 

This action proposes to amend Title 

14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 71 by adding additional Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface for SIAPs at 

Perham Municipal Airport, Perham, 

MN. Controlled airspace is needed for 

the safety and management of IFR 

operations at the airport. 

Class E airspace areas are published 

in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 

7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and 

effective September 15, 2009, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document would be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart 

I, section 40103. Under that section, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations to assign the use of airspace 

necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft 

and the efficient use of airspace. This 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority as it would add additional 

controlled airspace at Perham 

Municipal Airport, Perham, MN. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, signed August 27, 2009, and 

effective September 15, 2009, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AGL MN E5 Perham, MN [Amended] 

Perham Municipal Airport, MN 

(Lat. 46°36′15′′ N., long. 95°36′16′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile 

radius of Perham Municipal Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 4, 2010. 

Roger M. Trevino, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11742 Filed 5–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4901–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1120 

[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0043] 

RIN 3041–AC79 

Determination That Children’s Upper 

Outerwear in Sizes 2T to 12 With Neck 

or Hood Drawstrings and Children’s 

Upper Outerwear in Sizes 2T to 16 With 

Certain Waist or Bottom Drawstrings 

Are a Substantial Product Hazard 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

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

is proposing a rule to specify that 

children’s upper outerwear garments in 

sizes 2T to 12 or the equivalent that 

have neck or hood drawstrings, and in 

sizes 2T to 16 or the equivalent that 

have waist or bottom drawstrings that 

do not meet specified criteria, have 

characteristics that constitute 

substantial product hazards. Items of 

children’s upper outerwear with these 

features have been involved in a number 

of deaths and serious injuries from 

entanglement of the drawstrings with 

items such as playground slides, cribs, 

and school buses. The proposed rule 

would enhance understanding in the 

industry about how the Commission 

views such garments and would 

facilitate the process of obtaining the 

appropriate corrective action when such 

garments are found in commerce. 

DATES: Submit comments by August 2, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0043, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions. Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

27498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

directly accepting comments submitted 

by electronic mail (e-mail). The 

Commission encourages you to submit 

electronic comments by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above.) 

• Written Submissions. Submit 

written submissions in the following 

ways: 

a. FAX: 301–504–0127. 

b. Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions): 

Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received, including any 

personal information provided, may be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Accordingly, we 

recommend that you not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive 

information that you do not want to be 

available to the public. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and insert the 

docket number, CPSC 2010–0043, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical information: Jonathan 

Midgett, Division of Human Factors, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7692, e-mail 

jmidgett@cpsc.gov. Legal information: 

Harleigh Ewell, Office of the General 

Counsel, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7683; e-mail hewell@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

1. The hazard. Drawstrings in 

children’s upper outerwear can present 

a hazard if they become entangled with 

other objects [Ref. 6]. (Documents 

supporting statements in this notice are 

identified by [Ref. #], where # is the 

number of the reference document as 

listed below in section O of this notice.) 

Drawstrings in the neck and hood areas 

of children’s upper outerwear present a 

strangulation hazard when the 

drawstring becomes caught in objects 

such as playground slides. Drawstrings 

in the waist or bottom areas of 

children’s upper outerwear can catch in 

the doors or other parts of a motor 

vehicle, thereby presenting a ‘‘dragging’’ 

hazard when the driver of the vehicle 

drives off without realizing that 

someone is attached to the vehicle. The 

injury data associated with drawstrings 

is discussed below in section D of this 

preamble. 

2. Previous industry actions to 

address the hazard. In 1994, at the 

urging of CPSC, a number of 

manufacturers and retailers agreed to 

modify or eliminate drawstrings from 

hoods and necks of children’s clothing 

[Ref. 1]. In 1997, the American Society 

for Testing and Materials (now ASTM 

International) addressed the hazards 

presented by drawstrings on upper 

outerwear by creating a voluntary 

consensus standard, ASTM F 1816–97, 

Standard Safety Specification for 

Drawstrings on Children’s Upper 

Outerwear, to prohibit drawstrings 

around the hood and neck area of 

children’s upper outerwear in sizes 2T 

to 12, and also to limit the length of 

drawstrings around the waist and 

bottom in sizes 2T to 16 to 3 inches 

outside the drawstring channel when 

the garment is expanded to its fullest 

width. For waist and bottom 

drawstrings in sizes 2T to 16, toggles, 

knots, and other attachments at the free 

ends of drawstrings were prohibited. 

Further, waist and bottom drawstrings 

in sizes 2T to 16 that are one continuous 

string were required to be bartacked, 

i.e., stitched through to prevent the 

drawstring from being pulled through 

its channel. The ASTM standard is 

copyrighted, but can be viewed as a 

read-only document, only during the 

comment period on this proposal, at 

http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm, by 

permission of ASTM. 

The Commission’s staff has estimated 

that the age range of children who 

would be likely to wear garments in 

sizes 2T to 12 is from 18 months to 10 

years [Ref. 4]. The age range of children 

who would be likely to wear garments 

in sizes 2T to 16 is 18 months to 14 

years. 

3. Previous actions by the Commission 

to address the hazard. On July 12, 1994, 

the Commission announced a 

cooperative effort with a number of 

manufacturers and retailers that agreed 

to eliminate or modify drawstrings on 

the hoods and necks of children’s 

clothing [Ref. 1]. 

In February 1996, the Commission 

issued guidelines [Ref. 8] for consumers, 

manufacturers, and retailers that 

incorporated the requirements that 

became ASTM F 1816–97. 

On May 12, 2006, the CPSC’s Office 

of Compliance posted a letter [Ref. 2], 

on CPSC’s website, to the 

manufacturers, importers, and retailers 

of children’s upper outerwear, citing the 

fatalities and urging them to comply 

with the industry standard, ASTM F 

1816–97. The letter explained that the 

CPSC staff considers children’s upper 

outerwear with drawstrings at the hood 

or neck area to be defective and to 

present a substantial risk of injury under 

section 15(c) of the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 

1274(c). Recalls of noncomplying 

products that were toys or other articles 

intended for use by children could be 

sought under that section. (At that time, 

section 30(d) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2079(d) 

(2007) provided that a risk that could be 

regulated under the FHSA could not be 

regulated under the CPSA unless the 

Commission, by rule, found that it was 

in the public interest to regulate the risk 

under the CPSA. Thus, at that time, a 

recall would be sought under the 

authority of section 15 of the FHSA, 

rather than the similar recall authority 

under section 15 of the CPSA, discussed 

below in section A.4 of this preamble. 

Section 30(d) of the CPSA was repealed 

by the CPSIA, so that now a recall of a 

consumer product that is a toy or other 

article intended for use by children can 

be sought either under the CPSA, 

without a finding by rule that it is in the 

public interest to do so, or under the 

FHSA.) 

The 2006 letter also indicated that the 

Commission would seek civil penalties 

if a manufacturer, importer, distributor, 

or retailer distributed noncomplying 

children’s upper outerwear in 

commerce and failed to report that fact 

to the Commission as required by 

section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2064(b) (discussed below in section A.4 

of this preamble). From 2006 through 

2009, the Commission’s staff 

participated in 78 recalls of 

noncomplying products with 

drawstrings and obtained a number of 

civil penalties based on the failure of 

firms to report the defective products to 

CPSC as required by section 15(b) of the 

CPSA [Ref. 4]. 

4. Section 15 of the CPSA. Section 15 

of the CPSA authorizes the CPSC to 

order corrective actions regarding 

substantial product hazards. Section 

15(a)(2) of the CPSA defines ‘‘substantial 

product hazard’’ as a product defect 

which (because of the pattern of defect, 

the number of defective products 

distributed in commerce, the severity of 

the risk, or otherwise) creates a 

substantial risk of injury to the public. 

The term ‘‘defect’’ is discussed in 16 CFR 

1115.4. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27499 

Section 15(b)(3) of the CPSA (15 

U.S.C. 2064(b)(3)) requires 

manufacturers, distributors, and 

retailers of a consumer product or other 

product over which the Commission has 

jurisdiction under any act enforced by 

the Commission (other than motor 

vehicle equipment as defined in 49 

U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)), and which is 

distributed in commerce, to 

immediately inform the Commission if 

they obtain information that reasonably 

supports the conclusion that the 

product contains a defect which could 

create a substantial product hazard 

under section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA. 

After giving interested persons an 

opportunity for a hearing, the 

Commission may require manufacturers, 

distributors, and retailers, if in the 

public interest, to: (1) give notice of the 

defect to various persons; (2) repair the 

product; or (3) refund the purchase 

price. 15 U.S.C. 2064(c) and (d). 

Section 15(j) of the CPSA authorizes 

the Commission to issue rules 

establishing that defined characteristics 

of a consumer product that present a 

risk of injury shall be deemed to be a 

substantial product hazard if: (1) The 

characteristics are readily observable; 

(2) the characteristics have been 

addressed by voluntary standards; (3) 

such standards have been effective in 

reducing the risk of injury; and (4) there 

is substantial compliance with such 

standards. These requirements are 

discussed separately in sections B 

through E of this preamble below. 

B. The Defined Characteristics 

As explained above in section A.4 of 

this preamble, the requirements of the 

ASTM F 1816–97 voluntary standard to 

reduce the risk of strangulation or being 

dragged by a vehicle due to neck, hood, 

waist, or bottom drawstrings define the 

characteristics that present the 

substantial product hazard associated 

with garments subject to that standard. 

C. The Characteristics Are Readily 

Observable 

In the case of drawstrings, all of the 

requirements of the ASTM voluntary 

standard can be evaluated with simple 

physical manipulations of the garment, 

simple measurements of portions of the 

garments, and unimpeded visual 

observation. The Commission concludes 

that the product characteristics defined 

by the voluntary standard are readily 

observable. (The preceding is not 

intended to be a definition of ‘‘readily 

observable,’’ and more complicated or 

difficult actions to determine the 

presence or absence of defined product 

characteristics also may be consistent 

with ‘‘readily observable.’’ The 

Commission intends to evaluate this 

issue on a case-by-case basis.) 

D. The Voluntary Standard Has Been 

Successful in Reducing the Risk of 

Injury 

1. Hood and neck drawstring 

incidents. The CPSC staff examined 

reports of fatalities and injuries for the 

age groups whose upper outerwear is 

subject to the voluntary standard [Ref. 

6]. CPSC staff is aware of 56 reports of 

neck and hood drawstring 

entanglements between January 1985 

and September 2009. Eighteen (32 

percent) of these entanglements were 

fatal. The majority of the entanglements 

involved a neck or hood drawstring 

becoming snagged on a slide. Also, in 

several incidents, a neck or hood 

drawstring became entangled on parts of 

a crib. Of the 38 nonfatal neck or hood 

drawstring incidents involving children 

in the age range of 18 months to 10 

years (the ages estimated to be 

associated with sizes 2T to 12), 30 

incidents resulted in an injury. In the 

remaining eight incidents, the neck or 

hood drawstring became snagged or 

entangled but no injury was reported. 

The year with the highest number of 

reported fatalities (three) was 1994. The 

3 years with the highest number of 

reported incidents (including both fatal 

and nonfatal incidents) were 1992 (11), 

1993 (9), and 1994 (9). Slides were 

associated with 10 of the fatalities, 26 of 

the injury incidents, and all 8 of the noinjury incidents (jackets or sweatshirts 

snagged by a hood or neck drawstring 

on playground slides prior to the child’s 

subsequent escape or rescue). 

The specification for drawstrings on 

children’s upper outerwear, ASTM F 

1816–97, was approved in June 1997 

and published in August 1998. CPSC 

staff is aware of 12 fatalities and 33 

nonfatal incidents during the 12 years 

(1985–1996) prior to the ASTM standard 

that involved children aged 18 months 

to 10 years of age where the neck or 

hood string of upper outerwear became 

entangled. On average, this resulted in 

one reported fatality and about three 

reported nonfatal incidents a year. In 

the 8 years for which reporting is 

complete(1999 through 2006) after 

ASTM F 1816–97 was published, CPSC 

staff received reports of two fatal and 

two nonfatal neck or hood drawstring 

incidents. (The years 1997 and 1998 are 

omitted from this comparison because 

that was the transition period during 

which the ASTM standard was 

developed and published.) On average, 

this is approximately one fatality every 

4 years and about one nonfatal 

entanglement every 4 years. For the 

years for which reporting is complete, 

the data show a reduction in the annual 

average number of reported fatalities 

after the ASTM standard of 75 percent. 

The corresponding reduction in the 

annual average number of reported nonfatal entrapments is 91 percent. It 

should be noted that CPSC staff 

continues to receive incident reports for 

the years 2007 through 2009. CPSC staff 

is aware of three fatalities and no nonfatal incidents since January 2007. 

When reporting for 2007–2009 is 

complete, the percent reduction in the 

annual average number of reported 

fatalities associated with neck/hood 

drawstrings will be at most 55 percent 

if no additional fatal incidents are 

reported. 

2. Waist and bottom drawstring 

incidents. Between January 1985 and 

September 2009, CPSC staff is aware of 

27 entanglement incidents associated 

with a waist or bottom drawstring on 

children’s upper outerwear [Ref. 6]. Of 

these 27 incidents, 8 (30 percent) were 

fatal, 11 (41 percent) resulted in 

injuries, and 8 (30 percent) involved 

snags or entanglements that did not 

result in an injury. All eight fatalities 

identified with waist and bottom 

drawstrings (seven involving a bus and 

one involving a slide) occurred in the 

years 1991 through 1996. From 1991 to 

1996, there were 19 waist and bottom 

drawstring incidents, of which 13 

involved buses (7 fatalities and 6 

nonfatal incidents). CPSC staff is not 

aware of any bus-related drawstring 

incidents after 1996. There were seven 

waist and bottom drawstring incidents 

from 1999 to the present (all nonfatal), 

two of which involved children caught 

on car doors. For years in which 

reporting is considered complete, the 

number of reported fatalities associated 

with waist and bottom drawstrings have 

fallen from the eight reported fatalities 

between 1985 and 1996 to zero since 

adoption of the ASTM voluntary 

standard in 1997. For the corresponding 

periods for which reporting is complete 

(1985 through 1996 and 1999 through 

2006), reported nonfatal injuries fell 

from 11 in 12 years to 6 in 8 years. 

These data suggest that after the ASTM 

standard was adopted, for waist and 

bottom drawstrings the annual average 

of reported fatalities fell by 100 percent 

and the annual average of reported 

nonfatal incidents fell by about 18 

percent. Reporting is ongoing for 2007– 

2009. CPCS staff is not aware of any 

reported fatalities for this time. Staff has 

one report of a non-fatal incident 

occurring between 2007–2009. These 

numbers may change in the future. 

3. Effectiveness of the voluntary 

standard. To the extent that reductions 

in deaths and injuries are due to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

27500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard, either by eliminating 

drawstrings altogether or by making 

them meet the requirements of the 

standard, the effectiveness of the 

voluntary standard is likely to be higher 

than the reductions in reported deaths 

and injuries indicate. This is because 

many items of upper outerwear 

manufactured before the industry 

widely adopted the ASTM standard, 

and that had drawstrings that did not 

comply with that standard, probably 

remained in use long after the standard 

was adopted. Based on the injury data, 

the Commission concludes that the 

ASTM voluntary standard has been 

effective in reducing the risk of injury 

from children’s upper outerwear with 

drawstrings. 

E. There Is Substantial Compliance 

With the Voluntary Standard 

In the context of the findings needed 

for a rule under section 15(j) of the 

CPSA to deem product characteristics 

regulated by a voluntary standard to be 

a substantial product hazard, 

‘‘substantial compliance’’ refers to the 

extent the industry manufacturing and 

distributing the product complies with 

the voluntary standard. The issue is 

what degree of compliance will be 

deemed ‘‘substantial’’ in a particular 

situation. Neither section 15(j) of the 

CPSA nor the legislative history of the 

CPSIA (which amended the CPSA to 

add paragraph (j) to section 15 of the 

CPSA) defines or explains what 

constitutes substantial compliance. 

The Commission notes, however, that 

the term ‘‘substantial compliance,’’ 

which is used in section 15(j) of the 

CPSA, also appears elsewhere in the 

CPSA, as well as in the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (‘‘FHSA’’) 

and the Flammable Fabrics Act (‘‘FFA’’), 

in the context of whether the 

Commission can issue a mandatory rule 

addressing a risk that also is addressed 

by a voluntary standard. Because the 

provisions in the FHSA and FFA 

relating to substantial compliance are 

basically identical to those in the CPSA, 

only the CPSA is referenced in the 

following discussion. 

Sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA prohibit 

the Commission from issuing a 

consumer product safety rule if there is 

a voluntary standard that passes a twopronged test: (1) If the voluntary 

standard were universally complied 

with, it would adequately reduce, or 

eliminate, the unreasonable risk of 

injury that would be addressed by the 

rule; and (2) there will be substantial 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard. Failure of a voluntary 

standard to meet either prong of this test 

allows the Commission to issue a 

mandatory standard. The use of the 

concept of ‘‘substantial compliance’’ as a 

finding that can determine whether a 

mandatory consumer product safety rule 

can be issued will be referred to in this 

preamble as the ‘‘rulemaking context.’’ 

The most comprehensive explanation 

of the Commission’s views on 

substantial compliance in the 

rulemaking context is in the findings the 

Commission made in issuing the Safety 

Standard for Bunk Beds, 16 CFR parts 

1213, 1500, and 1513. Those findings 

are codified in appendices to 16 CFR 

parts 1213 and 1513 and state, in 

relevant part, that the Commission does 

not believe that there is any single 

percentage of conforming products that 

can be used in all cases to define 

‘‘substantial compliance.’’ Instead, the 

percentage must be viewed in the 

context of the hazard the product 

presents, and the Commission must 

examine what constitutes substantial 

compliance with a voluntary standard 

in light of its obligation to safeguard the 

American consumer. 

The findings in the rulemaking for 

bunk beds discuss a number of factors 

that the Commission should consider in 

the rulemaking context in determining 

whether there is substantial compliance. 

Factors that may influence the 

Commission to conclude that a 

mandatory standard is needed and that 

there is not substantial compliance 

include that: 

• The risk is severe; 

• No intervening action is required to 

create the risk; 

• The risk targets a vulnerable 

population, such as children; 

• The product has a long life and thus 

might be passed on to other children; 

and 

• The product can be made relatively 

easily by very small companies. 

See, e.g., Appendix to 16 CFR part 1213. 

In the context of a rule under section 

15(j) of the CPSA, the same factors 

would argue that the Commission 

should find substantial compliance, in 

order that the public be protected by the 

issuance of the rule. 

Table 1 (below) shows information 

about the CPSC recalls for the years 

2006 through 2009. The number of cases 

related to recalls of children’s upper 

outerwear garments with drawstrings 

numbered 78 for that period, involving 

about 2 million units. 

The number of recalls in 2008 and 

2009 was more than the number of 

recalls in 2006 and 2007; however, the 

annual average number of outerwear 

garments recalled in 2006 and 2007 

(about 650,000) was about 75 percent 

greater than the annual average number 

recalled in 2008 and 2009 (about 

377,000). 

TABLE 1—CPSC OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE RECALLS DRAWSTRINGS ON CHILDREN’S UPPER OUTERWEAR 2006–2009 

Year Number of recall 

cases 

Number of 

units of upper 

outerwear 

recalled 

2006 ................................................................................................................................................................. 17 676,597 

2007 ................................................................................................................................................................. 14 626,172 

2008 ................................................................................................................................................................. 24 227,868 

2009 ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 526,193 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................... 78 2,056,830 

Source: Communication from CPSC 

Office of Compliance, March 18, 2010. 

Using population data, garment sizing 

information, and assumptions about 

purchase and use, one can calculate the 

number of units recalled as a proportion 

of sales. This calculation provides a 

rough estimate of the extent of 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard. 

As explained earlier in section A.2 of 

this preamble, the voluntary standard 

applies to sizes 2T to 12 for neck and 

hood drawstrings and sizes 2T to 16 for 

drawstrings at the waist and bottom of 

upper outerwear. Information available 

to CPSC’s staff indicates that a child’s 

age generally matches the child’s 

clothing size or is a year or two below 

the clothing size [Ref. 4]. For example, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27501 

a child 12 years old might wear a size 

12 garment or a size 14. Similarly, for 

smaller sizes, children who are as young 

as 18 months can be wearing size 2T 

clothing. Thus, the ages of children 

wearing size 2T to 12 (the sizes covered 

by the voluntary standard for upper 

outerwear with hood or neck 

drawstrings) would be 18 months to 10 

years. The ages of children typically 

wearing size 2T to 16 (the sizes covered 

by the voluntary standard for upper 

outerwear with waist or bottom 

drawstrings) would be 18 months to 14 

years. 

For each of the years 2006 through 

2009, the population of children ages 18 

months to 10 years was about 38 million 

and the population of children ages 18 

months to 14 years was approximately 

55 million [Refs. 3, 4]. 

No numerical data about recent 

annual sales of children’s upper 

outerwear is available. A press release 

concerning a 1994 cooperative 

agreement between CPSC and 

manufacturers and retailers of children’s 

clothing suggests that annual sales of 

garments with hood and neck 

drawstrings was 20 million, although no 

source for that information is provided 

[Ref. 1]. However, because one way to 

comply with the voluntary standard is 

to eliminate drawstrings entirely, the 

garments to which the voluntary 

standard applies include all children’s 

upper outerwear in the specified sizes, 

not just those with drawstrings. 

Given children’s growth patterns, it 

may be that, on average, at least one 

new piece of upper outerwear is 

purchased each year for each child. If 

so, then sales of children’s upper 

outerwear could total the population of 

children who wear children’s sizes 2T 

to 16, or at least 55 million. 

Given these assumptions, and 

assuming that all violative items of 

children’s upper outerwear were 

recalled in the years 2006 through 2009, 

it would appear that the percentage of 

children’s upper outerwear garments 

sold in those years that complied with 

the drawstring requirements of ASTM F 

1816–97 was in the high-90-percent 

range. While the number of recalled 

units in the years 2006 through 2009 

totaled about 2 million units, the 

number of units sold during those 4 

years, under the assumptions above, 

totaled 220 million. Thus, for the period 

2006 through 2009, the units recalled by 

CPSC would account for about 1 percent 

of all units sold. In other words, given 

the assumptions noted, there was about 

99 percent compliance with the 

voluntary standard. Even if these 

assumptions are not entirely accurate, 

the Commission concludes that the 

compliance with ASTM F 1816–97 is 

very high and constitutes substantial 

compliance as that term is used in 

section 15(j) of the CPSA. 

F. Size and Age Determination Issues 

Children’s upper outerwear that is 

labeled with a size in the 2T to 16 

numerical size range clearly would be a 

garment subject to the ASTM F 1816–97 

standard. In many cases, however, the 

garment’s label may lack a numerical 

size, instead using a ‘‘small (S), medium 

(M), or large (L)’’ sizing system. It is 

fairly obvious when clothing is small 

enough for younger children and 

therefore would be included in the sizes 

specified in the ASTM standard. In 

contrast, it is not always apparent which 

non-numerical sizes correspond to the 

sizes at the upper end of the ranges in 

the standard, that is, size 12 and size 16, 

because styles and sizing systems vary. 

To determine which of these 

designations would be equivalent to 

sizes 2T to 16, the Commission’s staff 

searched internet sites to locate clothing 

size charts in which firms link 

children’s non-numerical sizes with 

numerical sizes [Ref. 7]. All of the charts 

that were located, 31 of which were for 

girls’ apparel and 29 for boys’ apparel, 

were included in the review. For each 

firm, letter sizes were recorded for boys’ 

and girls’ sizes 10 through 18 to explore 

the overlap in letter sizes one size below 

and one above the 12 and 16 endpoints 

in the standard. The number of firms 

adopting each size equivalence is 

presented below. 

TABLE 2—NUMBER OF FIRMS BY NUMBER AND LETTER SIZE EQUIVALENCY

Girls Boys 

S M L XL XXL S M L XL XXL 

10 ......................................................................................... 1 23 7 .......... .......... 1 21 7 .......... ..........

12 ......................................................................................... .......... 17 14 .......... .......... .......... 17 11 1 ..........

14 ......................................................................................... .......... .......... 21 10 .......... .......... 1 19 8 1 

16 ......................................................................................... .......... .......... 9 17 1 .......... .......... 15 9 ..........

18 ......................................................................................... .......... .......... .......... 9 1 .......... .......... 1 16 2 

As can be seen in the table, firms vary 

in how they define those sizes. For 

example, although most firms equate 

children’s size 10 with Medium, some 

equate size 10 with Small (S) and some 

with Large (L). 

To increase the likelihood that as 

many products as possible that are 

subject to the ASTM standard will be 

included in the applicable size 

definition while minimizing the 

overlapping inclusion of products that 

are not subject to the ASTM standard, 

the Commission proposes that nonnumerical equivalencies for sizes 12 and 

16 be based on the size equivalency that 

is (1) used by a substantial percent of 

children’s apparel firms and (2) does not 

exclude a substantial percent of firms at 

a higher size equivalency. 

For example, for girls’ size 12 apparel, 

55 percent of the size equivalencies 

shown in the chart above equate size 12 

to size Medium. However, if Medium 

and smaller is selected as equivalent to 

size 12 and smaller, then another 45 

percent of size equivalencies (in the 

Large category) are excluded. Therefore, 

to ensure that products covered by the 

standard are included, it appears to be 

more appropriate to select Large as the 

upper limit size equivalency for size 12 

girls’ upper outerwear. For boys size 12, 

59 percent of the size equivalencies 

equate size 12 to Medium, but if that 

size equivalency is selected, then 

another 38 percent of size equivalencies 

(in the Large category) are excluded. 

Thus, it appears more appropriate to 

select Large as the upper limit size 

equivalency for size 12 boys’ upper 

outerwear. While there is another data 

point showing size 12 equivalent to XL, 

it would constitute only 3 percent of 

equivalencies, and therefore it would be 

possible that products not covered by 

the standard would be included. Thus, 

it does not appear reasonable to include 

that size. Using this approach and based 

on the table above, the Commission 

proposes that boys’ and girls’ size Large 

(L) should be defined as size 12 and that 

boys’ and girls’ sizes Extra-Large (XL) be 

defined as equivalent to size 16. 

The proposed rule also would declare 

that the number and letter sizemstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

27502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

equivalency system used by a particular 

firm can, at the Commission’s option, be 

used to determine the equivalency of 

that firm’s sizes to the numerical 

system. 

In cases where garment labels give a 

range of sizes, if the range includes any 

size that is subject to ASTM F 1816–97, 

the garment will be considered subject, 

even if other sizes in the stated range, 

taken alone, would not be subject. For 

example, a coat sized 12–14 remains 

subject to the prohibition of hood and 

neck area drawstrings, even though the 

ASTM standard prohibits head and neck 

drawstrings only in garments up to size 

12. On the other hand, a size 13–15 coat 

would not be considered to be within 

the scope of the ASTM standard’s 

prohibition of neck and hood 

drawstrings, but it would be subject to 

the ASTM standard’s requirements for 

waist or bottom strings. 

To address garments for which the 

lettered sizing system sizes given above 

are insufficient to determine whether an 

item of upper outerwear is equivalent to 

sizes 2T to 16, the Commission’s staff 

considered the possibility of 

determining garment equivalency on the 

basis of anthropometric data or a market 

survey of the actual size of garments 

marked 2T to 16. It was determined that 

such efforts were not feasible due to the 

vagaries of fashion and the varied 

purposes served by outerwear (e.g., how 

many layers of clothing will be worn 

under the garment). The Commission 

invites comments on how to determine 

the equivalency of unlabeled or 

ambiguously labeled garments to sizes 

2T to 16. 

In cases where the equivalency of a 

garment’s size to the relevant size in the 

2T to 16 system is not readily apparent, 

the Commission’s staff will assemble 

evidence on that issue. The Commission 

concludes that, once equivalency has 

been established, the existence of any 

final rule under section 15(j) of the 

CPSA applicable to the product will 

obviate any need for the staff to present 

additional evidence to establish that the 

product contains a defect that presents 

a substantial risk of injury to the public. 

G. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, the Commission is publishing 

a proposed rule to establish a new part 

1120, titled, ‘‘Substantial Product 

Hazard List’’ which would codify the 

Commission’s determinations that 

certain consumer products or classes of 

consumer products have characteristics 

whose existence or absence presents a 

substantial product hazard. Products 

that are determined in rules issued 

under section 15(j) of the CPSA to 

present a substantial product hazard, 

such as the rule proposed in this notice 

for drawstrings, would be listed in a 

new § 1120.3. 

This proposed rule for drawstrings 

would create a new § 1120.3(b)(1) to 

specify that items of children’s upper 

outerwear that are subject to ASTM F 

1816–97, but that do not comply with it, 

are substantial product hazards under 

section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA. The 

proposal also would create a new 

§ 1120.2(c) to define a ‘‘drawstring’’ as ‘‘a 

non-retractable cord, ribbon, or tape of 

any material to pull together parts of 

outerwear to provide for closure.’’ 

To facilitate determining which 

garments that are sized under a sizing 

system other than the numerical system 

(2T to 16) would be equivalent to sizes 

2T to 16, proposed § 1120.3(b)(2)(i) 

would provide that garments in girls’ 

size Large (L) and boys’ size Large (L) 

are equivalent to size 12 and proposed 

§ 1120.3(b)(2)(ii) specifies that garments 

in girls’ size Extra-Large (XL) and boys’ 

size Extra-Large (XL) are equivalent to 

size 16. 

Proposed § 1120.3(b)(2)(iii) would 

provide that if a garment is labeled for 

a range of sizes, the garment would be 

considered subject to ASTM F 1816–97 

if any size within the range is subject to 

ASTM F 1816–97. Proposed 

§ 1120.3(b)(2)(iv) would provide that, in 

order to fall within the scope of 

§ 1120.3(b)(2)(i) through (iii), a garment 

need not state anywhere on it, or on its 

tags, labels, package, or any other 

materials accompanying it, the term 

‘‘girls’’ or the term ‘‘boys’’ or whether the 

garment is intended for girls or boys. In 

addition, proposed § 1120.3(b)(2)(v) 

would provide that a size may be 

considered equivalent to the 2T to 16 

range if a manufacturer, importer, 

distributor, or retailer has stated that it 

is equivalent. Last, proposed 

§ 1120.3(b)(vi) would state that the 

Commission may use any other 

evidence that would tend to show that 

an item of children’s upper outerwear is 

a size that is equivalent to sizes 2T to 

16. 

H. Certification 

The Commission has received 

inquiries about whether a product that 

is subject to a rule under section 15(j) 

of the CPSA will have to be tested and 

certified as required by section 14(a) of 

the CPSA. The answer to that question 

is ‘‘no.’’ Section 14(a) of the CPSA 

requires that products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA or a similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation under any other act enforced 

by the Commission must be certified as 

complying with all applicable CPSCenforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a). Such certification must be 

based on a test of each product or on a 

reasonable testing program or, for 

children’s products (those designed or 

intended primarily for children 12 years 

of age or younger), on tests by a thirdparty conformity assessment body (also 

known as a ‘‘third-party laboratory’’) 

recognized by the Commission. Under 

section 14(a) of the CPSA, the only type 

of rule under the CPSA that can trigger 

the requirement for testing and 

certification is a ‘‘consumer product 

safety rule.’’ Section 3(a)(6) of the CPSA 

defines a ‘‘consumer product safety rule’’ 

as ‘‘a consumer products safety standard 

described in section 7(a) [of the CPSA] 

or a rule under [section 8 of the CPSA] 

declaring a consumer product a banned 

hazardous product.’’ A rule under 

section 15(j) of the CPSA does not fit 

into either category, so products subject 

to a rule under section 15(j) of the CPSA 

are not, for that reason, subject to the 

testing and certification requirements of 

section 14(a) of the CPSA. The 

Commission is aware that section 

11(g)(1)(A) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2060(g)(1)(A), relating to judicial 

review, refers to a rule issued under 

section 15(j) of the CPSA as a ‘‘consumer 

product safety rule.’’ However, this 

provision is limited to judicial review 

situations and, therefore, does not 

equate rules under section 15(j) of the 

CPSA with consumer product safety 

rules. (Although a rule under section 

15(j) of the CPSA does not trigger the 

requirement for testing and certification, 

products subject to a rule under section 

15(j) of the CPSA may need to be tested 

and certified if they are subject to other 

CPSC requirements, such as 

flammability requirements, the lead 

content requirements in section 101 of 

the CPSIA, or the phthalate content 

requirements of section 108 of the 

CPSIA.) 

The Commission understands that 

retailers may be demanding certification 

tests to all CPSC requirements 

applicable to children’s products. The 

discussion above makes it clear that 

certification to the proposed rule is not 

required by federal law or this 

regulation. While certification is not 

required by law, retailers still have a 

responsibility to report to the CPSC 

under section 15(b) with regard to this 

rule. The Commission believes that 

because the retailer has an independent 

reporting obligation to the Commission, 

it should not be permitted to seek 

indemnity for a penalty assessed 

because of its own failure to report. The 

Commission would consider an 

agreement to indemnify a retailer for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27503 

any civil penalties assessed for a failure 

to report to be void as against public 

policy. The Commission seeks comment 

on this position. 

I. Preemption 

The Commission has received 

inquiries about whether a rule under 

section 15(j) of the CPSA would have 

the effect of preempting State laws or 

regulations that are not identical to the 

requirements of the voluntary standard. 

Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2075(a), if a ‘‘consumer product 

safety standard under [the CPSA]’’ is in 

effect and applies to a product, no State 

or political subdivision of a State may 

either establish or continue in effect a 

requirement dealing with the same risk 

of injury unless the State requirement is 

identical to the Federal standard. 

(Section 26(c) of the CPSA provides that 

States or political subdivisions of States 

may apply to the Commission for an 

exemption from this preemption under 

certain circumstances.) As discussed in 

the preceding section H of this 

preamble, a rule under section 15(j) of 

the CPSA is not a ‘‘consumer product 

safety standard.’’ Accordingly, the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA does not apply to a rule under 

section 15(j) of the CPSA. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any information collection 

requirements. Accordingly, this rule is 

not subject to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

K. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s environmental 

review regulation at 16 CFR part 1021 

has established categories of actions that 

normally have little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment and 

therefore do not require either an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. The 

proposed rule is within the scope of the 

Commission’s regulation, at 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(1), that provides a categorical 

exclusion for rules to provide design or 

performance requirements for products. 

Thus, no environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement for this 

rule is required. 

L. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to 

consider the impact of proposed rules 

on small entities, including small 

businesses. For the reasons given 

immediately below, the Commission 

concludes that the proposed rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Aggregate information about the 

market for children’s outerwear is not 

readily available; these types of 

garments are not reported separately by 

the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Nearly all manufacturers of these 

garments would be considered small 

businesses under the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) guidelines 

applicable to such enterprises (fewer 

than 500 employees). According to SBA 

data for 2006, of 9,343 U.S. firms that 

manufactured ‘‘cut and sew’’ apparel, 

9,286, or 99.4 percent, had fewer than 

500 employees, and more than 80 

percent had fewer than 20 employees. 

Firms that manufacture children’s 

outerwear would be a subset of the cut 

and sew manufacturing category, but 

these statistics would support the 

assumption that nearly all are small 

businesses. SBA firm-size data for 

clothing retailers also show that nearly 

all of these firms would be considered 

to be small businesses. 

The Commission’s staff estimates that 

a very high percentage of small 

businesses that manufacture or sell 

children’s upper outerwear already sell 

only garments that comply with ASTM 

F 1816–97. Therefore, these firms would 

not be adversely affected if children’s 

upper outerwear garments with 

drawstrings are added to the list of 

products that present a substantial 

product hazard. Also, the Commission’s 

Office of Compliance and Field 

Operations already considers children’s 

upper outerwear with hood or neck area 

drawstrings that are subject to, but do 

not comply with, ASTM F 1816–97 to 

be a substantial product hazard and 

would seek recalls of such products 

regardless of whether they were added, 

by rule, to the list of substantial product 

hazards under Section 15(j) of the 

CPSA. Finally, conformance to ASTM F 

1816–97 is achieved for many garments 

distributed in commerce by simply 

eliminating drawstrings from the 

manufacturing process with minimal or 

no increase in resulting production 

costs. 

M. Effective Date 

The Commission proposes that any 

final rule based on this proposal become 

effective 30 days after its date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

After that date, all items of children’s 

upper outerwear that are subject to, but 

do not comply with, the ASTM F 1816– 

97 will be deemed to be substantial 

product hazards regardless of the date 

they were manufactured or imported. 

N. Request for Comments 

The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit their comments to the 

Commission on any aspect of the 

proposed rule. Comments should be 

submitted as provided in the 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

O. References 

1. Press Release: ‘‘CPSC Works With 

Industry To Remove Drawstring 

Hazard,’’ News from CPSC, July 12, 

1994. 

2. Letter from John Gibson Mullan, 

Director, CPSC’s Office of Compliance, 

to Manufacturers, Importers and 

Retailers of Children’s Upper 

Outerwear, May 19, 1996. 

3. Population estimates based on data 

from the Bureau of the Census, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, http:// 

www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/ 

NC-EST2008/NC-EST2008-01.xls and 

from the National Center for Health 

Statistics, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/ 

nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_09.pdf. 

4. CPSC staff memorandum, ‘‘Extent of 

Compliance with ASTM F 1816–97: 

Standard Safety Specification for 

Drawstrings on Children’s Upper 

Outerwear,’’ from Elizabeth W. Leland, 

Economist, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, to Jonathan D. Midgett, Ph.D., 

Engineering Psychologist, Division of 

Human Factors, April 14, 2010. 

5. CPSC staff memorandum, 

‘‘Inclusion of Drawstrings on Children’s 

Outerwear on the List of Substantial 

Product Hazards: Small Business 

Considerations,’’ from Charles L. Smith, 

Economist, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, to Jonathan D. Midgett, Ph.D., 

Engineering Psychologist, Division of 

Human Factors, Leader, Children’s 

Program Area Team, January 26, 2010. 

6. CPSC staff memorandum, 

‘‘Reported Frequencies of Fatal and 

Nonfatal Incidents Related to 

Drawstrings on Children’s Upper 

Outerwear Between 1985 and 2009,’’ 

from John Topping, Mathematical 

Statistician, Division of Hazard 

Analysis, to Jonathan Midgett, 

Children’s Hazard Team Coordinator, 

January 25, 2010. 

7. CPSC staff memorandum, 

‘‘Recommendation to Deem Children’s 

Upper Outerwear with Drawstrings a 

Substantial Product Hazard,’’ from 

Jonathan D. Midgett, Ph.D., Children’s 

Hazards Team Coordinator and Robert J. 

Howell, Assistant Executive Director, 

Office of Hazard Identification and 

Reduction, to the Commission, April 20, 

2010. 

8. CPSC Guidelines for Drawstrings on 

Children’s Upper Outerwear, September 

1999. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

27504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1120 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Clothing, Consumer 

protection, Infants and children, 

Imports, Incorporation by reference. 

For the reasons stated above, and 

under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 2064(j), 

5 U.S.C. 553, and section 3 of Public 

Law 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 

14, 2008), the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR 

part 1120, as proposed to be added 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, as follows: 

PART 1120—SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCT 

HAZARD LIST 

1. The authority citation for part 1120 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2064(j); Sec. 3, Pub. 

L. 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016. 

2. In § 1120.2, add paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1120.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Drawstring means a non-retractable 

cord, ribbon, or tape of any material to 

pull together parts of outerwear to 

provide for closure. 

3. In § 1120.3, add paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1120.3 Substantial product hazard list. 

* * * * * 

(b) (1) Children’s upper outerwear in 

sizes 2T to 16 or the equivalent, and 

having one or more drawstrings, that is 

subject to, but not in conformance with, 

the requirements of ASTM F 1816–97, 

Standard Safety Specification for 

Drawstrings on Children’s Upper 

Outerwear. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

obtain a copy from ASTM International, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 

USA, telephone: 610–832–9585; http:// 

www2.astm.org/. You may inspect a 

copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301– 

504–7923, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(2) At its option, the Commission may 

use one or more of the following 

methods to determine what sizes of 

children’s upper outerwear are 

equivalent to sizes 2T to 16: 

(i) Garments in girls’ size Large (L) 

and boys’ size Large (L) are equivalent 

to girls’ or boys’ size 12, respectively. 

Garments in girls’ and boys’ sizes 

smaller than Large (L), including ExtraSmall (XS), Small (S), and Medium (M), 

are equivalent to sizes smaller than size 

12. The fact that an item of children’s 

upper outerwear with a hood and neck 

drawstring is labeled as being larger 

than Large (L) does not necessarily 

mean that the item is not equivalent to 

a size in the range of 2T to 12. 

(ii) Garments in girls’ size Extra-Large 

(XL) and boys’ size Extra-Large (XL) are 

equivalent to size 16. The fact that an 

item of children’s upper outerwear with 

a waist or bottom drawstring is labeled 

as being larger than Extra-Large (XL) 

does not necessarily mean that the item 

is not equivalent to a size in the range 

of 2T to 16. 

(iii) In cases where garment labels 

give a range of sizes, if the range 

includes any size that is subject to a 

requirement in ASTM F 1816–97, the 

garment will be considered subject, 

even if other sizes in the stated range, 

taken alone, would not be subject to the 

requirement. For example, a coat sized 

12 through 14 remains subject to the 

prohibition of hood and neck area 

drawstrings, even though this 

requirement of the ASTM standard only 

applies to garments up to size 12. A size 

13 through 15 coat would not be 

considered within the scope of the 

ASTM standard’s prohibition of neck 

and hood drawstrings, but would be 

subject to the requirements for waist or 

bottom drawstrings. 

(iv) To fall within the scope of 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (2)(iii) of 

this section, a garment need not state 

anywhere on it, or on its tags, labels, 

package, or any other materials 

accompanying it, the term ‘‘girls,’’ the 

term ‘‘boys,’’ or whether the garment is 

designed or intended for girls or boys. 

(v) The Commission may determine 

equivalency to be as stated in a 

manufacturer’s (including importer’s), 

distributor’s, or retailer’s statements of 

what sizes are equivalent to sizes 2T to 

16. A firm’s statement of what sizes are 

equivalent to sizes 2T to 16 may not be 

used to show that the size of a garment 

is not equivalent to a size in the range 

of 2T to 16. 

(vi) The Commission may use any 

other evidence that would tend to show 

that an item of children’s upper 

outerwear is a size that is equivalent to 

sizes 2T to 16. 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

Todd Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11622 Filed 5–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1120 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0042] 

Substantial Product Hazard List: HandHeld Hair Dryers 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), 

authorizes the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) to specify, by rule, for 

any consumer product or class of 

consumer products, characteristics 

whose existence or absence shall be 

deemed a substantial product hazard 

under certain circumstances. In this 

document, the Commission is proposing 

a rule to determine that any hand-held 

hair dryer without integral immersion 

protection presents a substantial 

product hazard. 

DATE: Written comments in response to 

this notice must be received by August 

2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0042, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS