Substantial Product Hazard List: Hand-Supported Hair Dryers, 37636-37641 [2011-15981]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
*
*
*
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.
China (People’s Republic of).
*
*
CSMC Technologies
Corporation.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: June 22, 2011.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[FR Doc. 2011–16156 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am]
Substantial Product Hazard List: HandSupported Hair Dryers
16 CFR Part 1120
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’)
authorizes the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (‘‘Commission,’’
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
‘‘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.
E:\FR\FM\28JNR1.SGM
28JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37637
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
E:\FR\FM\28JNR1.SGM
28JNR1
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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\28JNR1.SGM
28JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37639
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
E:\FR\FM\28JNR1.SGM
28JNR1
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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
K. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
O. Preemption
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.
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\28JNR1.SGM
28JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
§ 1120.3 Products deemed to be
substantial product hazards.
Safety Zone; Independence Day
Fireworks Celebration for the City of
Half Moon Bay, Half Moon Bay, CA
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; https://
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: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) [Reserved]
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0396]
RIN 1625–AA00
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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.
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective from
11 a.m. through 9:50 p.m. on July 4,
2011.
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2011–15981 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am]
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Dated: June 22, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
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 https://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
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:42 Jun 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37641
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
E:\FR\FM\28JNR1.SGM
28JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37636-37641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15981]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1120
Substantial Product Hazard List: Hand-Supported 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.
[[Page 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 hand-supported 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 hand-supported 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
[[Page 37638]]
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 hand-supported 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 wall-mounted 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 hand-supported
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 hand-supported 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
[[Page 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 hand-supported 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 Hand-Held
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 ``hand-supported.'' 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 ``hand-supported'' in the same context as the UL
standards will promote consistency and avoid confusion. We have
modified the definition in Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 ``hand-supported hair dryer'' instead of ``hand-held 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 (Sec. 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 hand-supported 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 hand-supported
hair dryers without integral immersion protection meet these criteria.
The characteristics of a hand-supported hair dryer with
integral immersion protection are readily observable. A hair dryer that
has such protection will have a large block-shaped 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
[[Page 37640]]
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).
Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
[[Page 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.
Sec. 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; https://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: https://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
