37636 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

to the VEU’s approved facilities. This 

has been done within the established 

regulatory framework of the VEU 

program. Further, this rule does not 

abridge the rights of the public or 

eliminate the public’s option to export 

under any of the forms of authorization 

set forth in the EAR. 

Publication of a proposed rule is 

unnecessary because the authorization 

granted in the rule is consistent with the 

authorizations granted to exporters for 

individual licenses (and amendments or 

revisions thereof), which do not 

undergo public review. Just as license 

applicants do, VEU authorization 

applicants provide the U.S. Government 

with confidential business information. 

This information is extensively 

reviewed according to the criteria for 

VEU authorizations, as set out in 15 CFR 

748.15(a)(2). Additionally, just as the 

interagency reviews license 

applications, the authorizations granted 

under the VEU program involve 

interagency deliberation and result from 

review of public and non-public 

sources, including licensing data, and 

the measurement of such information 

against the VEU authorization criteria. 

Given the thorough nature of the review, 

and in light of the parallels between the 

VEU application review process and the 

review of license applications, public 

comment on this authorization and 

subsequent amendments prior to 

publication is unnecessary. Moreover, 

because, as noted above, the criteria and 

process for authorizing and 

administering VEUs were developed 

with public comments; allowing 

additional public comment on this 

amendment to an individual VEU 

authorization, which was determined 

according to those criteria, is 

unnecessary. 

Section 553(d) of the APA generally 

provides that rules may not take effect 

earlier than thirty (30) days after they 

are published in the Federal Register. 

However, section 553(d)(1) of the APA 

provides that a substantive rule which 

grants or recognizes an exemption or 

relieves a restriction, may take effect 

earlier. Today’s final rule grants an 

exemption from licensing procedures 

and thus is effective immediately. 

No other law requires that a notice of 

proposed rulemaking and an 

opportunity for public comment be 

given for this final rule. Because a 

notice of proposed rulemaking and an 

opportunity for public comment are not 

required under the APA or by any other 

law, the analytical requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) are not applicable and no 

regulatory flexibility analysis has been 

prepared. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Exports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, part 748 of the EAR (15 

CFR parts 730–774) is amended as 

follows: 

PART 748—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 748 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 

3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 

FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice 

of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681 (August 16, 

2010). 

■ 2. Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 is 

amended by revising the ‘‘Eligible Items 

(by ECCN)’’ for ‘‘CSMC Technologies 

Corporation’’, for ‘‘China (People’s 

Republic of)’’ to read as follows: 

SUPPLEMENT NO. 7 TO PART 748—AUTHORIZATION VALIDATED END–USER (VEU); LIST OF VALIDATED END–USERS, 

RESPECTIVE ITEMS ELIGIBLE FOR EXPORT, REEXPORT AND TRANSFER, AND ELIGIBLE DESTINATIONS

Country Validated end-user Eligible items (by ECCN) Eligible destination 

China (People’s Republic of).

* * * * * * * 

CSMC Technologies 

Corporation.

1C350.c.3, 1C350.c.11, 2B230.a, 2B230.b, 

2B350.f, 2B350.g 2B350.h, 3B001.c.1.a, 

3B001.c.2.a, 3B001.e 3B001.h (except for 

multilayer masks with a phase shift layer 

designed to produce ‘‘space qualified’’ 

semiconductor devices), 3C002.a, and 

3C004.

CSMC Technologies Fab 1 Co., Ltd, 14 

Liangxi Road, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214061, 

China. 

CSMC Technologies Fab 2 Co., Ltd., Block 

86, 87, Wuxi National Hi-New Tech Industrial Development Zone, Wuxi, Jiangsu 

214061, China. 

Wuxi CR Semiconductor, Wafers and Chips 

Co., Ltd., 14 Liangxi Road, Wuxi, Jiangsu 

214061, China. 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: June 22, 2011. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16156 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1120 

Substantial Product Hazard List: HandSupported Hair Dryers 

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) 

authorizes the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘Commission,’’ 

‘‘CPSC,’’ or ‘‘we’’) 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. We are 

issuing a final rule to determine that any 

hand-supported hair dryer without 

integral immersion protection presents a 

substantial product hazard. 

DATES: The rule takes effect July 28, 

2011. The incorporation by reference of 

the publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of July 28, 2011. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 37637 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheela Kadambi, Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7561, 

skadambi@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) 

was enacted on August 14, 2008. Public 

Law 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 

14, 2008). The CPSIA amends statutes 

that the Commission administers, and 

adds certain new requirements. 

Section 223 of the CPSIA expands 

section 15 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) to add a new 

subsection (j). That subsection delegates 

authority to the Commission to specify 

by rule, for a consumer product or class 

of consumer products, characteristics 

whose presence or absence the 

Commission considers a substantial 

product hazard. To issue such a rule, 

the Commission must determine that 

those characteristics are readily 

observable and have been addressed by 

an applicable voluntary standard. The 

Commission must also find that the 

standard has been effective in reducing 

the risk of injury and that there has been 

substantial compliance with it. 15 

U.S.C. 2064(j). 

Underwriters Laboratories’ (‘‘UL’’) 

Standard for Safety for Household 

Electric Personal Grooming Appliances, 

UL 859, is a voluntary standard that 

specifies immersion protection 

requirements for certain household 

appliances, including hand-supported 

hair dryers. The current immersion 

protection provisions have been in 

effect since 1991. UL’s Standard for 

Safety for Commercial Electric Personal 

Grooming Appliances, UL 1727, 

specifies immersion protection 

requirements for grooming appliances, 

including hand-supported hair dryers, 

which are ‘‘intended for use by qualified 

personnel in commercial establishments 

such as beauty parlors, barber shops, or 

cosmetic studios.’’ Since 1994, UL 1727 

has required the same integral 

immersion protection as UL 859. Such 

‘‘commercial,’’ hand-supported hair 

dryers may be consumer products if 

they are available for sale to, or use by, 

consumers. 

Hand-supported hair dryers, most 

often used in bathrooms and near water, 

are subject to accidental immersion 

during their use. Section 15(a) of the 

CPSA defines ‘‘substantial product 

hazard’’ to include: A product defect 

that (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. 

15 U.S.C. 1064(a)(2). 

On November 25, 2002, the CPSC’s 

Director of the Office of Compliance 

sent a letter to manufacturers and 

importers of hand-supported hair 

dryers, stating that CPSC staff considers 

hair dryers available for sale to, or use 

by, consumers to present a substantial 

product hazard if they do not have 

immersion protection as required by UL 

859. The letter urged manufacturers and 

importers to ensure that their handsupported hair dryers provide 

immersion protection. The letter noted: 

‘‘[s]ome firms market hand held hair 

dryers that they contend are intended 

for professional use only, that is, for use 

by professionals in hair salons. 

However, CPSC staff also considers 

‘professional’ hair dryers that are 

available for sale to consumers and that 

fail to provide immersion protection to 

be defective and to present a substantial 

product hazard.’’ 

On May 17, 2010, we published a 

proposed rule (75 FR 27504) that would 

deem any hand-supported hair dryer 

without integral immersion protection, 

as specified in UL 859 or UL 1727, to 

be a substantial product hazard. (The 

proposal referred to ‘‘hand-held’’ hair 

dryers; however, as explained in section 

G.2 of this preamble, the final rule uses 

the term ‘‘hand-supported,’’ which is 

more consistent with the UL standards.) 

We received six comments in 

response to the proposed rule. We 

describe and respond to the comments 

in section G of this preamble. 

B. The Product 

A hand-supported hair dryer is a 

portable electrical appliance with a 

cord-and-plug connection. Typically, 

such hair dryers have a big, barrel-like 

body with a pistol grip handle. 

Frequently, they have two control 

switches or knobs: One turns the unit on 

and off and may allow the user to adjust 

the blower speed; the second adjusts the 

heat setting, often labeled ‘‘cool/low/ 

high.’’ Hand-supported hair dryers 

routinely contain open-coil heating 

elements that are, in essence, 

uninsulated, electrically energized 

wires, across which a fan blows air. 

These dryers are typically used in 

bathrooms near water sources, such as 

sinks, bathtubs, and lavatories. If the 

uninsulated heating element were to 

contact water, an alternative current 

flow path could easily be created, 

posing the risk of shock or electrocution 

to the user holding the dryer (or 

retrieving it after dropping it into a sink, 

bathtub, or lavatory). 

The power cords of hand-supported 

hair dryers with integral immersion 

protection on the market today have a 

large, block-shaped plug that 

incorporates a type of circuit 

interrupter— a Ground Fault Circuit 

Interrupter (‘‘GFCI’’), an Appliance 

Leakage Circuit Interrupter (‘‘ALCI’’), or 

an Immersion Detection Circuit 

Interrupter (‘‘IDCI’’). Usually, the plug 

also has buttons labeled ‘‘Test’’ and 

‘‘Reset.’’ If the hair dryer should become 

wet or immersed in water, enough to 

cause electrical current to flow beyond 

the normal circuitry, the circuit 

interrupter will sense the flow and, in 

a fraction of a second, disconnect the 

hair dryer from its power source, 

preventing serious injury or death to a 

consumer. 

An estimated 23 million units of 

hand-supported hair dryers are sold 

annually. CPSC staff does not know 

exactly how many companies supply 

hand-supported hair dryers. The 

preamble to the proposed rule stated the 

number of companies listed as 

complying with the UL standards as 

follows. Sixteen suppliers of handsupported hair dryers are listed in the 

UL Online Certifications Directory as 

being in compliance with UL 859. An 

additional 42 companies are listed in 

the Intertek ETL Listed Mark Product 

Directory as complying with the UL 859 

standard. Ten firms are listed to the UL 

1727 standard on UL’s Online 

Certifications Directory, and another 

four firms are listed in the Intertek ETL 

Listed Mark Product Directory as being 

in compliance with UL 1727. In 2007, 

the three largest suppliers listed 

accounted for approximately 92 percent 

of domestic sales of hand-supported 

hair dryers. 

C. The Risk of Injury 

The proposed rule summarized 

relevant incident data reported during 

the period from 1980 to 2007, involving 

hand-supported hair dryers. We repeat 

and update that information here. 

1. Incident Data in the Proposed Rule 

The preamble to the proposed rule 

reviewed the incident data available at 

that time. As noted in that preamble, a 

total of 43 electric shock injuries due to 

hair dryer immersion/water contact, 

were reported to CPSC staff from 1984 

through 2004. Of these electric shock 

injuries, the most incidents (33) 

occurred before 1990, compared to 7 

from 1991 through 1997, and 3 from 

1998 through 2004. Although these are 

small numbers of reports, they indicate 

that the number of reported injuries due 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37638 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

to electric shock from hair dryer 

immersion/water contact decreased after 

1990. 

During 1980 through 1986, before the 

introduction of the initial UL 

requirements for hair dryers, a total of 

110 electrocutions (15.7 annual average) 

were reported due to hair dryer 

immersion/water contact. In 1987, UL 

implemented a change to voluntary 

standard UL 859 to require immersion 

protection for hand-supported hair 

dryers if the dryer switch was in the 

‘‘off’’ position. During the period 1987 

through 1990, a total of 39 such 

electrocutions (9.75 annual average) 

were reported. In 1991, a revision to the 

UL standard requiring immersion 

protection in the ‘‘off’’ as well as the 

‘‘on’’ position took effect. From 1991 

through 1997, immediately following 

the time when the enhanced standard 

took effect, a total of 12 electrocutions 

(1.71 annual average) were reported. 

From 1998 through 2007, a period when 

most hair dryers made before 1991 were 

likely to be out of use, three 

electrocutions (0.3 annual average) were 

reported. 

2. Incident Data Update 

In preparation for the final rule, we 

reviewed data for the timeframe 

between 2006 and 2010. No new 

electrocutions associated with a hair 

dryer immersed in, or contacting water, 

have been reported since we published 

the proposed rule. There were reports of 

deaths associated with hair dryers, but 

these were not related to immersion in, 

or contact with, water. (Two reported 

deaths in 2008 were attributed to a fire 

started by a hairdryer igniting a couch; 

two reported deaths in 2010 were 

attributed to a fire started by a hairdryer 

igniting a mattress; and one reported 

death in 2010 was attributed to thermal 

injuries resulting from a running 

hairdryer). Data collection is ongoing for 

the years 2008 through 2010. 

D. Voluntary Standards 

Hand-supported hair dryers are 

included in UL 859, Standard for Safety 

for Household Electric Personal 

Grooming Appliances. In 1985, UL 

revised this standard to require 

protection against electrocution when a 

hair dryer is plugged into an electrical 

outlet, with its switch in the ‘‘off’’ 

position, and is immersed in water. The 

requirement took effect in October 1987. 

Between 1987 and 1990, the average 

number of reported deaths from hair 

dryer immersion/water contact dropped 

to approximately 10 deaths per year. 

In 1990, the National Electrical Code 

(‘‘NEC’’) (Article 422–24, 1990 edition) 

instituted requirements for protection 

against electrocutions from immersion 

of hair dryers when the switch is in 

either the ‘‘on’’ or the ‘‘off’’ position. 

In 1987, UL, in keeping with the NEC, 

revised its immersion protection 

standard to require that ‘‘a handsupported hair-drying appliance (such 

as a hair dryer, blower-styler, heated air 

comb, heated air hair curler, curling 

iron-hair dryer combination, wall-hung 

hair dryer or hand unit of a wallmounted hair dryer, or similar 

appliance) shall be constructed to 

reduce the risk of electric shock when 

the appliance is energized, with its 

power switch in either the ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ 

position, and immersed in water having 

an electrically conductive path to 

ground.’’ This revision, which took 

effect on January 1, 1991, expanded 

immersion protection to cover the 

appliance whether the switch was in the 

‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ position. 

As discussed in section C of this 

preamble, the reported incidents of 

death from immersion-related 

electrocutions involving handsupported hair dryers decreased 

significantly with implementation of 

immersion protection requirements in 

UL 859. The average number of reported 

hand-supported hair dryer 

electrocutions resulting in death is now 

less than one per year. 

UL 1727, Standard for Safety for 

Commercial Electric Personal Grooming 

Appliances, originally issued in 1986, 

was revised to include the same integral 

immersion protection as UL 859 after 

the full immersion protection 

requirements in UL 859 proved to be 

effective. The revised requirements in 

UL 1727 became effective on March 31, 

1994. 

E. Recalls 

As noted in section A of this 

preamble, in November 2002, the 

Director of the Office of Compliance 

sent a letter to importers and 

manufacturers of hand-supported hair 

dryers indicating CPSC staff’s 

expectation that such hair dryers should 

have immersion protection and that staff 

would consider hand-supported hair 

dryers to present a substantial product 

hazard if they did not include such 

protection. The preamble to the 

proposed rule noted that, between 

January 1, 1991, and the time when we 

developed the proposed rule, there had 

been 30 recalls of hand-supported hair 

dryers due to lack of an immersion 

protection device (75 FR at 27506). 

Since April 1, 2010, there have not 

been any recalls of hand-supported hair 

dryers without immersion protection. 

Shipments of hand-supported hair 

dryers without immersion protection 

have been seized at ports of entry and 

destroyed. 

F. Substantial Compliance 

There is no statutory definition of 

‘‘substantial compliance’’ in either the 

CPSIA or the CPSA. Legislative history 

of the CPSA provision that is related to 

issuance of consumer product safety 

standards indicates that substantial 

compliance should be measured by 

reference to the number of complying 

products, rather than the number of 

manufacturers of products complying 

with the standard. H.R. Rep. No. 208, 

97th Cong., 1st Sess. 871 (1981). 

Legislative history of this CPSA 

rulemaking provision also indicates that 

there is substantial compliance when 

the unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with a product will be 

eliminated or adequately reduced ‘‘in a 

timely fashion.’’ Id. The Commission 

has not taken the position that there is 

any particular percentage that 

constitutes substantial compliance. 

Rather than any bright line, the 

Commission has indicated in the 

rulemaking context that the 

determination needs to be made on a 

case-by-case basis. 

As noted in section B of this 

preamble, CPSC staff estimates that 

sales of hand-supported hair dryers are 

about 23 million units annually. As of 

the date of the publication of the 

proposed rule, there are 16 suppliers of 

hand-supported hair dryers listed in the 

UL Online Certifications Directory, and 

an additional 42 suppliers are listed in 

the Intertek ETL Listed Mark Product 

Directory as supplying hand-supported 

hair dryers that are compliant with UL 

859. Ten firms are listed to the UL 1727 

standard on UL’s Online Certifications 

Directory, and another four firms are 

listed in the Intertek ETL Listed Mark 

Product Directory as being in 

compliance with UL 1727. 

In 2007, the three largest suppliers 

listed accounted for approximately 92 

percent of the domestic sales of handsupported hair dryers. Additional 

retailers are also listed as supplying 

hand-supported hair dryers that are in 

compliance with the UL standards. 

Since the three largest suppliers (which 

are listed as producing hair dryers that 

comply with the UL standards) account 

for 92 percent of the domestic sales of 

hand-supported hair dryers, and 

additional companies are also listed as 

producing complying hand-supported 

hair dryers, we estimate that more than 

95 percent of hand-supported hair 

dryers for sale in this country comply 

with the UL standards. Therefore, the 

Commission determines that there is 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 37639 

substantial compliance with UL 859 and 

UL 1727. 

G. Comments on the Proposed Rule and 

CPSC’s Responses 

In the Federal Register of May 17, 

2010 (75 FR 27504), we published a 

proposed rule that would specify that 

any hand-supported hair dryer without 

integral immersion protection presents a 

substantial product hazard. We received 

six comments that raised three 

particular issues. In general, all six 

commenters supported the proposed 

rule, although some commenters asked 

a question or sought clarification. We 

summarize and respond to the issues 

raised by those comments here. 

1. Level of Compliance 

Comment: One commenter noted that, 

in the preamble to the proposed rule, we 

estimated that more than 95 percent of 

the hand-supported hair dryers sold in 

the United States comply with the 

applicable UL standards and that this 

constitutes substantial compliance. The 

commenter suggested that we consider 

100 percent compliance to the standards 

to be substantial compliance. 

Response: Our goal is for all handsupported hair dryers to have integral 

immersion protection. The statutory 

provision requires us to determine that 

there is substantial compliance with an 

applicable voluntary standard as one 

criterion for placing a product on the 

substantial product hazard list pursuant 

to section 15(j) of the CPSA. The 

Random House Dictionary of the 

English Language defines ‘‘substantial’’ 

as ‘‘of ample or considerable amount, 

quantity, size, etc.’’ Thus ‘‘substantial’’ 

refers to an amount less than ‘‘all’’ or 

‘‘total.’’ We believe that, in this context, 

substantial compliance can be 

something less than 100 percent 

compliance. 

2. Hand-Supported Instead of HandHeld 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

changing the term ‘‘hand-held’’ to 

‘‘hand-supported’’ to be more consistent 

with the wording of UL 859 and UL 

1727. The commenters noted that the 

UL standards have a definition for 

‘‘hand-held’’ that is used in a different 

context than that intended by the 

Commission. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters. UL 859 and UL 1727 use 

the terms ‘‘hand-held’’ and ‘‘handsupported.’’ Underwriters’ Laboratories 

uses the phrase ‘‘hand-held’’ to refer to 

appliances that are not fully supported 

by the hand, even though they are in 

contact with the hand. An upright 

vacuum cleaner is an example of this 

meaning of ‘‘hand-held.’’ The user’s 

hand is in contact with the appliance 

and guides the appliance during use; 

but the weight of the vacuum cleaner is 

supported by the floor. UL defines a 

‘‘hand-supported’’ device as ‘‘an 

appliance that is physically supported 

by the hand of the user during the 

performance of its intended functions.’’ 

Thus, the term ‘‘hand-supported’’ 

describes more accurately the situation 

with hair dryers. Using the term ‘‘handsupported’’ in the same context as the 

UL standards will promote consistency 

and avoid confusion. We have modified 

the definition in § 1120.2(b), as well as 

in related text and preamble discussion, 

to refer to ‘‘hand-supported hair 

dryers.’’ 

3. Not a Consumer Product Safety Rule 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we clarify the rule to state explicitly 

that it does not establish a consumer 

product safety rule and that no general 

conformity certificates are required 

under section 14(a) of the CPSA. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that this rule does not establish a 

consumer product safety rule, so 

manufacturers of hand-supported hair 

dryers do not have to test and certify 

their products for compliance with this 

rule. This point is clarified in section J 

of this preamble. 

H. Description of the Final Rule 

The final rule creates a new part 1120 

titled, ‘‘Substantial Product Hazard 

List,’’ and names as the first product 

group on the list any hand-supported 

hair dryer without integral immersion 

protection. 

1. Authority (§ 1120.1) 

Section 1120.1 restates the statutory 

criteria required for the Commission to 

determine that a consumer product, or 

class of consumer products, have 

characteristics whose existence or 

absence present a substantial product 

hazard under section 15(a)(2) of the 

CPSA. 

2. Definitions (§ 1120.2) 

Section 1120.2 defines the terms 

‘‘substantial product hazard’’ and 

‘‘hand-supported hair dryer.’’ The 

definition of ‘‘substantial product 

hazard’’ comes from section 15(a)(2) of 

the CPSA and means ‘‘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.’’ 

This definition is unchanged from the 

proposed rule. 

As explained in section G.2 of this 

preamble, the final rule refers to ‘‘handsupported hair dryer’’ instead of ‘‘handheld hair dryer.’’ The definition remains 

the same as in the proposed rule and 

states that a ‘‘hand-supported dryer’’ is 

‘‘an electrical appliance, intended to be 

held with one hand during use, which 

creates a flow of air over or through a 

self-contained heating element for the 

purpose of drying hair.’’ 

3. Products Deemed To Be Substantial 

Product Hazards (§ 1120.3) 

Section 1120.3 establishes a list of 

products, or class of products, that the 

Commission deems to be substantial 

product hazards under section 15(a)(2) 

of the CPSA. It states that handsupported hair dryers lacking integral 

immersion protection in compliance 

with the requirements of section 5 of the 

UL Standard for Safety for Household 

Electric Personal Grooming Appliances, 

UL 859 (10th Edition, approved August 

30, 2002, and revised through June 3, 

2010) or section 6 of the UL Standard 

for Safety for Commercial Electric 

Personal Grooming Appliances, UL 

1727 (4th Edition, approved March 25, 

1999, and revised through June 25, 

2010) are deemed substantial product 

hazards. The final rule incorporates by 

reference those sections of UL 859 and 

UL 1727 and states where one may 

obtain a copy of the UL standards. 

I. Commission Determination That 

Hand-Supported Hair Dryers Without 

Integral Immersion Protection Present a 

Substantial Product Hazard 

To place a product (or class of 

products) on the list of substantial 

product hazards pursuant to section 

15(j) of the CPSA, we must determine 

that: (1) The characteristics whose 

existence or absence present a 

substantial product hazard are readily 

observable; (2) those characteristics 

have been addressed by voluntary 

standards; (3) the relevant voluntary 

standards have been effective in 

reducing the risk of injury from the 

consumer product; and (4) there is 

substantial compliance with the 

voluntary standards. We find that handsupported hair dryers without integral 

immersion protection meet these 

criteria. 

• The characteristics of a handsupported hair dryer with integral 

immersion protection are readily 

observable. A hair dryer that has such 

protection will have a large blockshaped plug that contains some type of 

circuit interrupter. 

• Integral immersion protection has 

been addressed by UL 589 and UL 1727. 

Both of those standards require that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37640 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

hand-supported hair dryers have 

integral immersion protection. 

• These standards have been very 

effective in reducing deaths and electric 

shock injuries due to hair dryer 

immersion or contact with water. From 

1980 to 1986 (before the initial UL 

requirements took effect), a total of 110 

electrocutions (15.7 annual average) 

were reportedly due to hair dryer 

immersion/water contact. Only three 

electrocutions were reported between 

1998 and 2007, and we have no reports 

of electrocutions associated with a hair 

dryer immersed in, or contacting water, 

for the period from 2006 through 2010. 

• There is substantial compliance 

with the voluntary standards’ 

requirements. We estimate that more 

than 95 percent of hand-supported hair 

dryers for sale in the United States 

comply with the immersion protection 

provisions of the UL standards. 

J. Effect of Section 15(j) Rule 

Section 15(j) of the CPSA authorizes 

us to issue a rule specifying that a 

consumer product (or class of consumer 

products) has characteristics whose 

presence or absence creates a substantial 

product hazard. This rule, which falls 

under section 15 of the CPSA, is not a 

consumer product safety rule and does 

not create a consumer product safety 

standard. Thus, the rule does not trigger 

any testing or certification requirements 

under section 14(a) of the CPSA. 

Although the final rule does not 

establish a consumer product safety 

standard, placing a consumer product 

on this substantial product hazard list 

has certain consequences. A product 

that is or has a substantial product 

hazard is subject to the reporting 

requirements of section 15(b) of the 

CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). A 

manufacturer who fails to report a 

substantial product hazard to the 

Commission is subject to civil penalties 

under section 20 of the CPSA and 

possibly is subject to criminal penalties 

under section 21 of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 

2069, 2070. 

A product that is or contains a 

substantial product hazard is subject to 

corrective action under section 15(c) 

and (d) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), 

(d). Thus, the Commission can order the 

manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of 

the product to offer to repair or replace 

the product, or to refund the purchase 

price to the consumer. 

Finally, a product that is offered for 

import into the United States, and is or 

contains a substantial product hazard, 

must be refused admission into the 

United States under section 17(a) of the 

CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2066(a). 

K. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) generally requires that agencies 

review proposed and final rules for their 

potential economic impact on small 

entities, including small businesses. 5 

U.S.C. 601–612. In the preamble to the 

proposed rule (75 FR at 27506 through 

27507), we noted that the majority of 

hair dryers sold in the United States are 

already UL-listed, and because the 

majority of businesses (both large and 

small) are already in compliance with 

the voluntary standard, the rule is not 

expected to pose a significant burden to 

small business. Therefore, we certified 

that, in accordance with section 605 of 

the RFA, the rule, if promulgated, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We received no comments 

concerning the rule’s impact on small 

business, and we are not aware of any 

information that would change our 

certification. 

L. Environmental Considerations 

In the preamble to the proposed rule 

(75 FR at 27507), we stated that a rule 

that determines that hand-supported 

hair dryers without immersion 

protection in accordance with UL 859 or 

UL 1727 present a substantial product 

hazard is not expected to have an 

adverse impact on the environment and 

is considered to be a ‘‘categorical 

exclusion’’ for the purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(‘‘NEPA’’), according to the CPSC 

regulations that cover its 

‘‘environmental review’’ procedures (16 

CFR 1021.5(c)(1)). We did not receive 

any comments on the environmental 

impact of the rule. We affirm that this 

rule falls within a categorical exclusion 

for purposes of NEPA. 

M. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final rule does not impose any 

information collection requirements. 

Accordingly, the final rule is not subject 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

N. Effective Date 

The preamble to the proposed rule 

indicated that a final rule establishing 

that any hand-supported hair dryer 

without immersion protection, as 

specified in UL 859 or UL 1727, is a 

substantial product hazard, would take 

effect 30 days from its date of 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

received no comments regarding the 

effective date. Accordingly, the final 

rule will apply to hand-supported hair 

dryers imported or introduced into 

commerce on July 28, 2011. 

O. Preemption 

The final rule places hand-supported 

hair dryers without integral immersion 

protection on a list of products that 

present a substantial product hazard. 

The rule does not establish a consumer 

product safety standard. The 

preemption provisions in section 26(a) 

of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), apply 

when a consumer product safety 

standard is in effect. Therefore, section 

26(a) of the CPSA does not apply to this 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR 1120 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Consumer protection, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference. 

Therefore, the Commission amends 

Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding part 1120 to read 

as follows: 

PART 1120—SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCT 

HAZARD LIST 

Sec. 

1120.1 Authority. 

1120.2 Definitions. 

1120.3 Products deemed to be substantial 

product hazards. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2064(j). 

§ 1120.1 Authority. 

Under the authority of section 15(j) of 

the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA), the Commission determines 

that consumer products or classes of 

consumer products listed in § 1120.3 of 

this part have characteristics whose 

existence or absence present a 

substantial product hazard under 

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

Commission has determined that the 

listed products have characteristics that 

are readily observable and have been 

addressed by a voluntary standard, that 

the voluntary standard has been 

effective, and that there is substantial 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard. The listed products are subject 

to the reporting requirements of section 

15(b) of the CPSA and to the recall 

provisions of section 15(c) and (d) of the 

CPSA, and shall be refused entry into 

the United States under section 17(a)(4) 

of the CPSA. 

§ 1120.2 Definitions. 

The definitions in section 3 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 

2052) apply to this part 1120. 

(a) Substantial product hazard means 

a product defect which (because of the 

pattern of defect, the number of 

defective products distributed in 

commerce, the severity of the risk, or 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 37641 

otherwise) creates a substantial risk of 

injury to the public. 

(b) Hand-supported hair dryer means 

an electrical appliance, intended to be 

held with one hand during use, which 

creates a flow of air over or through a 

self-contained heating element for the 

purpose of drying hair. 

§ 1120.3 Products deemed to be 

substantial product hazards. 

The following products or class of 

products shall be deemed to be 

substantial product hazards under 

section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA: 

(a) Hand-supported hair dryers that 

do not provide integral immersion 

protection in compliance with the 

requirements of section 5 of 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 

Standard for Safety for Household 

Electric Personal Grooming Appliances, 

UL 859, 10th Edition, approved August 

30, 2002, and revised through June 3, 

2010, or section 6 of UL Standard for 

Safety for Commercial Electric Personal 

Grooming Appliances, UL 1727, 4th 

Edition, approved March 25, 1999, and 

revised through June 25, 2010. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approves these incorporations by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

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

obtain a copy from UL, Inc., 333 

Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062; 

telephone 888–853–3503; http:// 

www.comm-2000.com . You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

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

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Dated: June 22, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15981 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0396] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Independence Day 

Fireworks Celebration for the City of 

Half Moon Bay, Half Moon Bay, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the navigable waters of Half Moon Bay, 

off of Pillar Point Harbor beach, Half 

Moon Bay, CA in support of the 

Independence Day Fireworks 

Celebration for the City of Half Moon 

Bay. Unauthorized persons or vessels 

are prohibited from entering into, 

transiting through, or remaining in the 

safety zone without permission of the 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

11 a.m. through 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2011– 

0396 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–0396 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Liezl 

Nicholas at (415) 399–7442, or e-mail 

D11-PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because the 

event would occur before the 

rulemaking process would be 

completed. Because of the dangers 

posed by the pyrotechnics used in these 

fireworks displays, the safety zones are 

necessary to provide for the safety of 

event participants, spectators, spectator 

craft, and other vessels transiting the 

event area. For the safety concerns 

noted, it is in the public interest to have 

these regulations in effect during the 

event. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Any delay in the effective date 

of this rule would expose mariners to 

the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics 

used in the fireworks display. 

Background and Purpose 

American Legion Post 474 will 

sponsor the Independence Day 

Fireworks Celebration for the City of 

Half Moon Bay on July 4, 2011, on the 

navigable waters of Half Moon Bay, off 

of Pillar Point Harbor beach, Half Moon 

Bay, CA. The fireworks display is meant 

for entertainment purposes. This safety 

zone establishes a temporary restricted 

area on the waters surrounding the 

fireworks launch site during the 

fireworks display. This restricted area 

around the launch site is necessary to 

protect spectators, vessels, and other 

property from the hazards associated 

with the pyrotechnics over the water. 

The Coast Guard has granted the event 

sponsor a marine event permit for the 

fireworks display. 

Discussion of Rule 

From 11 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. on July 

4, 2011, the temporary safety zone will 

extend 100 feet while pyrotechnics are 

loaded and maintained at the Pillar 

Point Harbor beach at position 

37°30′03.02′′ N, 122°28′24.86′′ W (NAD 

83). The fireworks display will occur 

from 9:30 p.m. to 9:50 p.m., during 

which the safety zone will extend 600 

feet from position 37°30′03.02′′ N, 

122°28′24.86′′ W (NAD 83). At 9:50 

p.m., the safety zone shall terminate. 

The effect of the temporary safety 

zone will be to restrict navigation in the 

vicinity of the fireworks site while the 

fireworks are set up, and until the 

conclusion of the scheduled display. 

Except for persons or vessels authorized 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES