47634 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY for the Flammability of Children’s nightgowns and pajamas, by small open- COMMISSION Sleepwear: Sizes 7 through 14 (16 CFR flame sources. The standard for part 1616). The amendments issued sleepwear in sizes 0 through 6X became 16 CFR Parts 1615 and 1616 below exempt sleepwear garments sized effective in 1972 and is now codified at for children nine months of age and 16 CFR part 1615. Standard for the Flammability of younger and ‘‘tight-fitting’’ sleepwear In 1973, authority to issue Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 Through garments sized for children older than flammability standards under 6X; Standard for the Flammability of nine months to children’s size 14 from provisions of the FFA was transferred Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 Through all requirements of the children’s from the Department of Commerce to 14 sleepwear flammability standards. The the Consumer Product Safety term ‘‘tight-fitting garment’’ is defined Commission by section 30(b) of the AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety by specifying maximum dimensions for Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) Commission. the chest, waist, seat, upper arm, thigh, (15 U.S.C. 2079(b)). In 1974, the ACTION: Final amendments. wrist, and ankle of the garment for each Commission issued a flammability standard for children’s sleepwear in SUMMARY: The Commission issues final size from 9–12 months through sizes 7 through 14. That standard amendments of the flammability children’s size 14. The amendments issued below are became effective in 1975 and is now standards for children’s sleepwear in codified at 16 CFR part 1616. sizes 0 through 6X and sizes 7 through similar to proposed amendments published in the Federal Register of The safety requirements of the two 14. The amendments issued below standards are nearly identical. They revise the definition of ‘‘children’s October 25, 1994 (59 FR 53616). The final amendments differ from the prescribe a test which requires that sleepwear’’ in the standard for sizes 0 specimens of fabrics, seams, and trim of through 6X to exclude from the proposal by: • Increasing the size of infant children’s sleepwear garments must requirements of that standard: garments garments exempted from the current self-extinguish after exposure to a small sized for infants nine months of age or standard for sizes 0 through 6X; open flame. Both standards require younger; and tight-fitting sleepwear • Changing some of the maximum manufacturers of children’s sleepwear garments. The amendments also revise dimensions specified for tight-fitting subject to their provisions to test the definition of ‘‘children’s sleepwear’’ garments in children’s sizes 6X through prototypes of sleepwear garments with in the standard for sizes 7 through 14 to 14; and acceptable results before beginning exclude tight-fitting sleepwear • Eliminating the requirement for a production. Both standards also require 1 garments. The amendments define the permanent label on tight-fitting manufacturers to sample and test term ‘‘tight-fitting garment’’ in terms of sleepwear garments to advise the garments from regular production. maximum dimensions at specified purchaser that those garments are not Failure to comply with the sampling locations on garments in sizes for flame-resistant. and testing requirements of the children older than 9 months through The differences between the proposed standards is a violation of section 3 of children’s size 14. and final amendment are discussed in the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1192). The standards The Commission issues these detail under the heading G. Comments do not require or prohibit the use of any amendments because it finds that the on the Proposed Amendments. particular type of fabric or garment existing children’s sleepwear standards The amendments issued below design as long as the manufacturer are not limited to those sleepwear become effective on January 1, 1997. successfully completes the prescribed garments which present an The Commission’s finding that this prototype and production testing. unreasonable risk of burn deaths and effective date is in the public interest C. Garments Subject to the Sleepwear injuries. The Commission concludes and the reasons for that finding are set Standards that the amendments will afford forth under the heading H. Effective consumers a wider selection of Date. Elsewhere in this issue of the Both standards define the term sleepwear garments for children without Federal Register, the Commission has ‘‘children’s sleepwear’’ to mean ‘‘any diminishing the protection provided by published a notice to continue through product of wearing apparel’’ in the sizes the children’s sleepwear standards. March 9, 1998 a stay of enforcement for covered by the standard ‘‘such as DATES: The amendments will become close-fitting garments which are labeled nightgowns, pajamas, or similar or effective on January 1, 1997. and promoted as underwear. related items, such as robes, intended to be worn primarily for sleeping or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. Background Patricia Fairall, Division of Regulatory activities related to sleeping.’’ As Management, Office of Compliance, The Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) (15 originally issued and as amended Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S.C. 1191 et seq.) authorizes the below, both standards exclude diapers Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) issuance of flammability standards for and underwear from their coverage. See 504–0400, extension 1369. products of wearing apparel made from 16 CFR 1615.1(a) and 1616.2(a). fabric to protect the public from Under this definition, the coverage of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: unreasonable risks of the occurrence of the sleepwear standards is not limited to A. Provisions of Final Amendments fire leading to death, injury, or children’s pajamas, nightgowns, and significant property damage. robes, but also includes other garments By publication of this notice of final In 1971, the Secretary of Commerce ‘‘intended primarily for sleeping or rulemaking, the Commission amends issued a flammability standard for activities related to sleeping.’’ 16 CFR the Standard for the Flammability of children’s sleepwear in sizes 0 through 1615.1(a), 1616.2(a) During the time that Children’s Sleepwear: Sizes 0 through 6X under the authority of section 4 of the standards have been in effect, the 6X (16 CFR part 1615) and the Standard the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1193). The standard Commission staff has responded to a was issued to protect young children large number of inquiries from 1 The Commission voted 2–1 to issue these amendments of the children’s sleepwear from death and serious burn injuries manufacturers and importers of flammability standards, Chairman Ann Brown which had been associated with ignition children’s garments about whether dissenting. of sleepwear garments, such as particular products are ‘‘children’s Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47635 sleepwear’’ subject to the standards; or amended standard is needed to protect risk of death, injury, or significant ‘‘underwear,’’ which is specifically the public against the unreasonable risk property damage. excluded from the standards; or of the occurrence of fire leading to E. Publication of ANPR ‘‘daywear,’’ ‘‘playwear,’’ or other death, injury, or significant property categories of non-sleepwear garments, damage. The Commission began this each of which is outside the scope of the Section 4(g) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. proceeding by publication of an ANPR standards. 1193(g)) requires publication in the in the Federal Register of January 13, To provide guidance to the children’s Federal Register of an advance notice of 1993 (58 FR 4111).(4) The ANPR garment industry on the scope of the proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to begin a identified the products under sleepwear standards, in 1984 the proceeding for the issuance or consideration as children’s sleepwear Commission issued policy statements amendment of a flammability standard. garments in sizes 0 through 14, and the which discuss the factors the The ANPR must describe the product risk of injury as death or personal injury Commission will consider when and the risk of injury under from fires resulting from ignition of determining whether a garment is consideration; summarize the regulatory children’s sleepwear by small open- intended to be worn primarily for alternatives being considered; provide flame sources. The ANPR also described the sleeping or related activities.(1) 2 These information about existing standards regulatory alternatives being considered policy statements are codified at 16 CFR which may be relevant; invite interested by the Commission. Briefly 1615.64 and 1616.65. Additionally, the parties to submit an existing standard to summarized, the alternatives were: staff developed a pamphlet describing the Commission for publication as the and illustrating various styles of (1) Amend the children’s sleepwear proposed standard or a statement of standards to exempt tight-fitting sleepwear and non-sleepwear garments. intention to develop or modify a This pamphlet was revised from time to sleepwear garments and sleepwear voluntary standard to address the risk of garments in infant sizes. Children’s time, most recently in 1989.(2) injury under consideration; and solicit During the past several years, many sleepwear garments exempted from the written comments on the risk of injury requirements of the sleepwear standard consumers have expressed a desire to and regulatory alternatives under obtain children’s garments made from would be subject to the provisions of the consideration. Standard for the Flammability of 100 percent untreated cotton fabric for If the Commission decides to continue use as sleepwear. Although the Clothing Textiles (16 CFR Part 1610). the proceeding after consideration of That standard prohibits the standards do not prohibit any specific comments and submissions received in type of fabric in the production of manufacture, importation, or sale of response to the ANPR, section 4(i) of the garments which are ‘‘dangerously children’s sleepwear, 100 per cent FFA (15 U.S.C. 1193(i)) requires cotton fabric cannot pass the flammable because of rapid and intense publication in the Federal Register of a burning,’’ but does not require garments flammability tests in the standards notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR). unless treated with a flame retardant. to self-extinguish when exposed to a The NPR must set forth the text of the small open-flame ignition source. The Commission also received proposed standard or amendment and a information indicating that many (2) Issue an enforcement policy preliminary regulatory analysis statement to announce that the parents were dressing their children in containing a discussion of the underwear, large T-shirts, or other Commission will not apply the anticipated benefits and costs of the requirements of the children’s garments made of 100 percent untreated proposed rule and other regulatory cotton rather than traditional sleepwear sleepwear standards to tight-fitting alternatives considered by the sleepwear garments and garments in manufactured to comply with the Commission. Section 4(d) of the FFA sleepwear flammability standards. infant sizes if those garments met the (15 U.S. C. 1193(d)) specifies that the requirements of the clothing textiles These actions by manufacturers and NPR must provide interested persons consumers resulted in an increasing flammability standard. the opportunity to submit written The ANPR also contained information number of children sleeping in garments comments and to request a public about other flammability standards for which did not comply with the hearing for oral presentation of data and children’s sleepwear; solicited children’s sleepwear standards. In view opinions concerning the proposal. information about relevant voluntary of this trend, the Commission decided To issue a final standard or standards and statements of intention to in 1991 to re-examine the scope of the amendment, section 4(j) of the FFA (15 develop or modify a voluntary standard; children’s sleepwear standards and to U.S.C. 1193(j)) requires the Commission and invited interested persons to submit consider amending the definitions of the to publish a notice of final rulemaking written comments on the ANPR. term ‘‘children’s sleepwear’’ in the two setting forth the text of the final rule and On the same date the Commission standards. The Commission began this the Commission’s final regulatory published the ANPR, the Commission rulemaking proceeding in 1993. analysis of costs, benefits, and announced that it would not enforce the D. Statutory Provisions regulatory alternatives. Additionally, children’s sleepwear standards in cases section 4(b) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. Section 4 of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1193) involving garments currently being used 1193(b)) requires the notice of final authorizes the Commission to issue or as sleepwear if those garments are skin- rulemaking to contain findings that the amend a flammability standard for a tight or nearly skin-tight, relatively free standard or amendment is needed to product of wearing apparel if the of ornamentation, made from fabrics protect the public from the Commission finds that a new or such as rib knit, interlock knit, or waffle unreasonable risk of death, injury, or knit, and labeled as ‘‘underwear.’’ 58 FR 2 Numbers in parentheses identify reference significant property damage from fires 4078(5) documents in the List of Relevant Documents at the associated with the product under In response to the ANPR, the end of this notice. Requests for inspection of any consideration; is reasonable, Commission received more than 2,100 of these documents should be made at the technologically practicable, and written comments from individuals, Commission’s Public Reading Room, 4330 East- West Highway, room 419, Bethesda Maryland appropriate; and is limited to those firms, and organizations. (More than a 20814, or by calling the Office of the Secretary at fabrics or products which have been third of the comments were identical (301) 504–0800. determined to present an unreasonable form letters with space for the 47636 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations commenter’s name.) Comments were propose amending the children’s plastic film (16 CFR parts 1610 and received from all 50 states, the District sleepwear standards. 1611). of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. The Commission published a notice The proposed amendments defined Virgin Islands, and from United States to propose amending the children’s the term ‘‘tight-fitting garment’’ by citizens living abroad.(3), (6), (7) Almost sleepwear standards by exempting specifying maximum dimensions for the all of these comments favored infant garments and tight-fitting following parts of the garment: Chest, modification of the standards to exempt garments from their requirements on waist, seat, upper arm, thigh, wrist, and some or all children’s sleepwear October 25, 1994. (59 FR 53616)(20) ankle. The proposed amendments also garments from their requirements. Section 4 of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1193) required that an exempted tight-fitting In addition to the information authorizes the agency to issue or amend garment must be labeled to indicate its provided by commenters, the mandatory requirements for the size. The maximum dimensions Commission also considered flammability of wearing apparel only specified by the proposed amendments information developed or obtained by when such requirements are ‘‘needed to for tight-fitting garments in sizes for the Commission staff. That information adequately protect the public against children six to 24 months old were included injury data(10); information unreasonable risk of the occurrence of selected by considering body sizes of about flammability characteristics of fire leading to death, injury, or children approximately six months old various fabrics and garments(8), (11); significant property damage.’’ set forth in a proposed revision of and a review of children’s sleepwear (Emphasis added.) Section 4 of the FFA ASTM standard D 4910. (12) The flammability standards issued by also requires that in order to issue or proposed maximum dimensions for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the amend a standard, the Commission tight-fitting garments in sizes 2 through United Kingdom.(9), (11) must find, among other things, that the 6X were based on dimensions specified From its review of burn injury data, standard or amendment is ‘‘limited’’ to in a draft ASTM standard tentatively the Commission estimates that on include only those garments which have designated ‘‘Standard Table of Body average, about 1,150 children younger been determined to present an Measurements for Pre-School Children than 15 years of age were treated each ‘‘unreasonable risk’’ of burn deaths or Sizes 2—6X/7.’’(12) Maximum year in hospital emergency rooms for injuries, or significant property damage. dimensions specified by the proposed burn injuries associated with clothing Consequently, the Commission amendments for tight-fitting garments in during the period from 1980 through concluded that if the children’s sizes 7 through 14 were based on a report of an anthropometric study of 1993. Of that total, the Commission sleepwear standards currently apply to children ranging in age from infancy to estimates that each year, about 90 burn garments which do not present an the age of 18 years, conducted in 1977 injuries to children were associated unreasonable risk of fire leading to by the University of Michigan. (12) with sleepwear, about 860 were death, injury, or significant property To be eligible for the exemption from associated with day wear, and about 200 damage, the scope of the standards the requirements of the children’s were associated with other types of could be narrowed to remove those sleepwear standards, the proposal clothing or unspecified types of garments from the coverage of the specified that a tight-fitting garment be clothing.(10) standards. That notice proposed to amend the labeled to indicate its size. The On average, each year about four children’s sleepwear flammability proposed amendments also required children younger than fifteen years of standards by exempting: that when offered for sale to consumers, age died from fires associated with (1) Garments intended for children six exempted garments in sizes for 6-to-9 clothing of all types.(10) months of age and younger from the months and larger must be clearly and Available information also shows that standard for sizes 0 through 6X; and conspicuously labeled with a statement most thermal burn injuries associated (2) ‘‘Tight-fitting’’ sleepwear garments to advise consumers that the garment is with sleepwear involved females, from the standard for sizes 0 through 6X not flame-resistant and should be tight- whereas most burn injuries associated and the standard for sizes 7 through 14. fitting for the safety of the child. with day wear involved males. Thermal The proposed exemption for infant Finally, the proposed amendments burn injuries from nightwear were garments was stated in terms of required that sleepwear garments usually associated with nightgowns or maximum dimensions for the chest and exempted from the flammability pajamas that probably were not tight- length of the garment. The maximum requirements as ‘‘tight-fitting’’ garments fitting.(10) dimensions specified were selected by must comply with applicable provisions In 1978, the Commission staff considering body sizes of children of the flammability standards for reviewed information about deaths and approximately six months old, as set clothing textiles and vinyl plastic film injuries associated with sleepwear to forth in ASTM standard D 4910–89, (16 CFR parts 1610 and 1611). children younger than one year of age. ‘‘Standard Tables of Body In a separate notice also published on Ten cases involved injuries associated Measurements for Infants, Ages 0 to 18 October 25, 1994 (59 FR 53584), the with sleepwear. However, nine of these months,’’ published by ASTM (formerly Commission extended until further cases involved whole-house the American Society for Testing and notice the stay of enforcement of the conflagrations, and the other involved a Materials). (12) children’s sleepwear standards home-made garment.(11) Thus, none of The proposed amendments also published in 1993 for cases involving these cases involved risks of injury required that an exempted infant skin-tight or nearly skin-tight garments which the sleepwear standards were garment must be labeled to indicate that similar in design and manufacture to intended to address. the garment is intended for use by a underwear, provided those garments child six months of age or younger. F. Proposed Amendments were labeled and marketed as In addition, the proposed underwear. (21) After consideration of comments amendments stated that garments in received in response to the ANPR, sizes for infants six months of age or G. Comments on the Proposed information compiled by the staff, and younger must meet the applicable Amendments information presented at an oral briefing requirements of the flammability In response to the proposal to amend by the staff, the Commission decided to standards for clothing textiles and vinyl the sleepwear standards, the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47637

Commission received 39 written reported by NEISS, the Commission age and younger are not likely to come comments. Some commenters submitted estimates that during that time period, within range of small open-flame more than one comment.(22)–(61) on average, about 90 children younger ignition sources when an adult is not Commenters included individual than 15 years of age were treated in present. (12) consumers, students, a physician, a hospital emergency rooms each year for A comment from the Children’s retired Federal employee, manufacturers burns associated with children’s Sleepwear Coalition (a group of and importers of children’s sleepwear sleepwear. (70) children’s sleepwear manufacturers and and other children’s garments, an The estimated number of burn suppliers) objects to the proposal to association of manufacturers of injuries associated with children’s exempt sleepwear garments for infants children’s sleepwear, the American sleepwear in the years following six months of age and younger. This Burn Association, the Coalition for issuance of the sleepwear standards has comment states that infants are unable American Trauma Care, Fire Prevention been relatively low. This indicates that to defend themselves from risks of burn Canada, the International Association of the sleepwear standards have been injury, and could be exposed to ignition Fire Chiefs, the National Cotton Council relatively successful. Therefore, the sources by adults. Such exposure could of America, and the Learn Not to Burn Commission does not believe that occur if adults smoke in their presence, Foundation of the National Fire available injury information supports or place them near a kitchen range or Protection Association. revocation of the children’s sleepwear other open flame source. (30) Comments Additionally, on April 25, 1995, standards in their entirety. from two individual manufacturers of members of the Commission staff A comment from one consumer children’s sleepwear object to the conducted a public meeting with questions whether use of children’s proposed exemption for similar reasons. manufacturers and importers of sleepwear manufactured from man- (45), (54) children’s sleepwear and other made fabrics to comply with the Comments from two manufacturers of sleepwear standards may increase the children’s garments, consumers, and children’s sleepwear, an importer of risk of sudden-infant-death syndrome other interested persons to discuss the children’s garments, and the National (SIDS). (22) The Commission has proposed amendments.(81) Cotton Council urge the Commission to The following is a summary of the reviewed medical publications expand the scope of the exemption to principal issues raised by the written concerning SIDS and has found no include garments for children one year comments and at the public meeting, references which implicate a specific of age and younger. (25), (28), (33), (47) and the Commission’s resolution of type of fabric or clothing as a In support of this position, the those issues. contributing factor to SIDS. (73) comments cite the absence of injuries 1. Revocation of the Standards 2. Exemption for Infant Garments associated with sleepwear to children A comment from one manufacturer of The proposed amendments contained younger than one year of age. children’s garments expresses the view provisions to exempt garments for Comments from two manufacturers that available injury information does infants six months of age and younger and one importer of children’s garments not establish that any children’s from the requirements of the sleepwear state that the proposed amendment to sleepwear garments present an standard for sizes 0 through 6X. The exempt infant sleepwear garments was unreasonable risk of burn deaths or proposed amendments limited the not consistent with industry practices injuries to children. This comment exemption for infant garments to those for the sizing of infant clothing. (23), urges the Commission to revoke the not exceeding specified dimensions for (35), (53) Two of these comments state standards in their entirety. (25) the chest and overall length of the that the maximum dimensions based on When the Department of Commerce garment. Those dimensions were body measurements of children six issued the flammability standard for selected using information about the months of age would have the effect of sizes 0 through 6X, it considered injury body size of children approximately six exempting some, but not all, infant data collected by the National Bureau of months old. garments. Garments in sizes 0 to three Standards (now the National Institute of Before proposing that exemption, the months (or infants ‘‘small’’ size) and Standards and Technology) through the Commission reviewed information three to six months (or infants Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and about burn deaths and injuries to ‘‘medium’’ size) would be exempted by Testing System (FFACTS). From 1967 children one year of age and younger the proposal, but not garments in sizes through January 1973, FFACTS obtained associated with sleepwear. That six to nine months (or infants ‘‘large’’ information about 434 cases involving information included a study completed size). These comments recommend that burn injuries associated with sleepwear, in 1978 of 66 burn injuries to children the exemption apply to garments 101 of which involved children younger younger than one year old associated intended for infants nine months of age than six years of age. Although FFACTS with clothing. In ten cases, the clothing and younger, thereby exempting all incidents do not constitute a probability involved was specifically identified as sleepwear garments in infant sizes. (35), sample, they document instances in sleepwear. Nine of those cases involved (53) which children were injured in fires whole-house fires; the other involved a A comment from one manufacturer of involving sleepwear before issuance of home-made garment. The Commission children’s garments observed that the standard for sizes 0 through 6X. (70) concluded that none of these cases infants grow rapidly. This comment Unlike FFACTS, the National involved risks of injury which the states that a garment having the Electronic Injury Surveillance System sleepwear standard was intended to maximum dimensions for exemption as (NEISS) gathers information about address. (11) an ‘‘infant garment’’ in the proposed injuries by using a probability sample. The Commission also considered amendment would fit a six-month-old For that reason, NEISS data can be information about children’s physical child for only a short period of time. reliably projected into national and mental development. That This comment states that most parents estimates of injuries associated with information shows that most children purchase children’s garments with the products. From burn injuries to children are not capable of moving themselves expectation that their children will be associated with children’s sleepwear until they are about seven months old. able to wear them for a reasonable during the years 1980 through 1994 For that reason, children six months of period of time. (23) 47638 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

At the Commission’s public meeting Measurements for Infants, Sizes 0 to 24 student research group (27), the Learn on April 25, 1995, several months,’’ published by ASTM (formerly Not to Burn Foundation of the National manufacturers of children’s garments the American Society for Testing and Fire Protection Association (32), (78), stated that parents typically buy Materials). No maximum dimension is the International Association of Fire garments one size larger than the age of specified for the chest of an infant Fighters (36), Fire Prevention Canada their children.(81) garment exempted by the final (37), and the Coalition for American After consideration of all of these amendments because the safety of infant Trauma Care (60) assert that the current comments, the Commission concludes garments is not dependent on a tight fit. low rate of children’s deaths associated that the proposed exemption of ‘‘infant Exempted garments must comply with ignition of clothing is evidence garments’’ should be included in the with the flammability standards for that the children’s sleepwear standards final amendments, with some clothing textiles and vinyl plastic film have been effective. These comments modification. The amendment of the (16 CFR parts 1610 and 1611), and bear express concern that exempting tight- standard for sizes 0 through 6X issued a label stating the size of the garment in fitting sleepwear garments and thereby below defines the term ‘‘infant garment’’ terms of months of age. If the label is not allowing them to be made from fabrics as one which is ‘‘sized for a child nine visible when the garment is offered for which are not flame-retardant will months of age or younger.’’ sale, the size of the garment, in months, expose children to an increased risk of The Commission proposed to exempt must appear legibly on the package. burn deaths and injuries. garments for children six-months of age Before proposing the amendments, and younger because information about 3. Exemption for Tight-Fitting Garments the Commission considered available child development indicates that until Comments from the National Cotton data which show a measurable they reach the age of seven months, Council (33), (40), (48), five firms which reduction in burn deaths associated most infants are not capable of moving manufacture or import children’s with all types of clothing, including by themselves.(12) Consequently, sleepwear or other children’s garments children’s sleepwear, during the past 20 infants six months of age and younger (28), (31), (34), (35), (42), (53), and a years. (10), (11). Additionally, are at minimal risk of exposing their student research group (29) generally information about burn injuries clothing to an ignition source. And, support issuance of final amendments to associated with all types of children’s available injury information reveals an exempt tight-fitting children’s sleepwear clothing from 1980 through 1994 shows absence of burn injuries associated with garments from the requirements of the that children’s sleepwear has been sleepwear to children younger than one sleepwear flammability standards. associated with a relatively small year of age which might have been (Some of these comments recommend proportion of those injuries. From its prevented or reduced by the sleepwear changes to specific provisions of the evaluation of this injury information, standard.(10), (11) proposal, which are discussed below.) the Commission concludes that the The Commission recognizes that Comments supporting an exemption children’s sleepwear standards have many parents and other adults purchase for tight-fitting garments made from contributed to the relatively low level of infant garments one or two sizes larger fabrics which are not flame-resistant reported burn injuries associated with than the age of the intended wearer, due state that those garments provide sleepwear. However, existing injury in part to the rapid rate at which infants protection to children from information does not support the grow. By revising the definition of unreasonable risks of burn injuries for assertion that amendment of the ‘‘infant garment’’ to include garments the following reasons: standards to exempt tight-fitting sized for children nine months of age (1) Incident data do not show burn garments made from fabrics which do and younger, the amendment issued injuries associated with tight-fitting not pass the flammability test in the below exempts garments in sizes sleepwear; children’s sleepwear standards will frequently purchased for children (2) If exposed to an ignition source, expose children to a greater risk of burn approximately six months of age and tight-fitting garments are not easily injuries. younger. Exemption of garments sized ignited because the body absorbs some Flammability standards for children’s for infants nine months of age and of the heat from the ignition source; sleepwear issued by Canada and three younger also makes allowance for those (3) If these garments are ignited, the other countries exempt tight-fitting infants who are slightly larger than the wearer becomes aware of ignition garments. In 1993, the government of average six-month old, and assures that almost immediately; and Canada advised the Commission that a a garment purchased for a six-month old (4) If ignited, these garments burn proposed five-year study of burn will fit the infant for a reasonable length slowly because oxygen to support injuries to assess the effectiveness of the of time. Additionally, this modification combustion is available on only one Canadian sleepwear standard was of the proposed amendment makes the side of the garment. discontinued before the end of the five- size of exempted ‘‘infant garments’’ Comments supporting issuance of year period because of a lack of reported more compatible with the range of sizes final amendments for tight-fitting burn cases.(63) used by manufacturers of infant garments also observe that flammability When the Commission began this garments. standards for children’s sleepwear in proceeding in 1993, it also announced The amendments issued below effect in Canada, Australia, and New that it would not enforce the children’s specify that the maximum length for a Zealand exempt tight-fitting sleepwear standards in cases involving one-piece infant garment shall not pajamas.(33), (40), (48) garments which are skin-tight or nearly exceed 64.8 centimeters (25.75 inches). In addition, a study cited in the skin-tight and are similar in fabric and The maximum dimension for the length proposal shows that no burn deaths design to underwear.(5) That stay was of either piece of a two-piece infant associated with children’s sleepwear continued at the time the Commission garment is 40 centimeters (15.75 have been reported in Canada since published the proposed amendments of inches). These dimensions were 1987.(33), (63) the standards.(21) The garments covered selected by considering body sizes of Comments from the Children’s by the stay of enforcement have children approximately nine months old Sleepwear Coalition (30), (58), five somewhat larger dimensions than the set forth in ASTM standard D 4910–95 individual manufacturers of children’s ‘‘tight-fitting’’ garments defined in the ‘‘Standard Tables of Body sleepwear (45), (46), (54)–(56), (59), a proposed amendments. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47639

On the basis of injuries reported to the body,’’ such as children’s polo pajamas, laundering.(25), (28), (31) One of these National Electronic Injury Surveillance rather than define the exempted comments states that if the maximum System (NEISS), the Commission garments by maximum dimensions dimensions do not include an allowance estimates that about 2,520 children were intended to result in a ‘‘skin-tight’’ for shrinkage, manufacturers may be treated in hospital emergency rooms for fit.(25) An importer suggests that the required to wash garments before burn injuries associated with clothing maximum dimensions specified for offering them for sale or to use other during the years 1993 and 1994. During chest, seat, and thigh in all sizes should means to control shrinkage. This the years 1991 and 1992, the be increased by one or two inches.(35) comment states that those measures Commission estimates that Before proposing amendments to would be ‘‘expensive,’’ but does not approximately 2,760 children were exempt tight-fitting garments, the provide quantitative information about treated in hospital emergency rooms for Commission reviewed technical the extent of the additional costs.(28) At burn injuries associated with literature indicating that tight-fitting the public meeting on April 25, 1995, clothing.(62) Thus, burn injuries garments are less likely to contact an one importer recommended that the associated with the general category of ignition source, and if ignited to burn Commission allow an additional 10 per children’s clothing have not increased less rapidly, than loose-fitting cent to the maximum dimensions for since the Commission issued the stay of clothing.(8) The Commission also shrinkage.(81) enforcement. considered burn injury data indicating The maximum dimensions for ‘‘tight- During the years 1993 and 1994, the that injuries associated with close-fitting fitting garments’’ in the amendments Commission received no reports of any garments are generally less severe than issued below have not been increased to burn injury to a child younger than 15 those associated with loose-fitting allow for shrinkage after laundering or years of age associated with a garment garments.(11) to provide a margin of tolerance for which was identified as one covered by Research on the flammability of manufacturing variation. Garment the stay of enforcement. (62) wearing apparel indicates that fit and shrinkage depends on the type of fiber Additionally, a Canadian study of 174 fiber are both important factors affecting or fiber-blend, method of construction, burn injuries cases associated with a garment’s flammability. The existing and finishing process used in the clothing involving children nine years provisions of the children’s sleepwear production of the fabric, and the of age or younger found that closeness standards address the risk of burn injury laundering conditions to which the of fit and the presence or absence of an by specifying a test for flame-resistance. garment is exposed after wearing. adult at the time of injury were Garments made from fabrics which pass Increasing the maximum dimensions to significantly associated with the the flammability test of the children’s allow for shrinkage could reduce the severity of the burn injury. Fiber content sleepwear standards do not present an likelihood that garments will be tight- was not included as a variable in this unreasonable risk of injury, regardless of fitting when worn by children.(72) study. Burns tended to be more severe their fit. Similarly, tight-fitting garments Garments made from knit fabrics have in cases associated with loose-fitting exempted by the amendments issued the ability to stretch and adapt to the clothing and the absence of an adult.(11) below do not present an unreasonable shape of the body. For this reason, they Accordingly, the Commission risk of burn injury, even if they are are suitable, although not necessarily concludes that amending the standards made from fabrics which do not pass the required, for production of ‘‘tight-fitting to exempt tight-fitting sleepwear flammability test of the children’s garments’’ exempted from the children’s garments made from fabrics which are sleepwear standards. sleepwear standards by the amendments not flame-resistant will not create an Section 4(b) of the FFA requires that issued below.(72) Additionally, as unreasonable risk of burn injuries to an amendment of a flammability indicated by one comment, various children.(8), (10), (11), (62), (65) standard must be ‘‘stated in objective means are available to manufacturers to terms.’’ The term ‘‘tight-fitting garment’’ control shrinkage, although they may 4. Definition of ‘‘Tight-Fitting Garment’’ in the amendments issued below is result in higher production costs.(28) The proposed amendments defined defined by maximum dimensions at the term ‘‘tight-fitting garment’’ as one specified locations on the garment for 5. Labeling which did not exceed specified each size. Although these dimensions The proposed amendments included dimensions in the chest, seat, upper include adjustments to provide a in the definition of ‘‘tight-fitting arm, thigh, wrist, and ankle for each size continuous increase in dimensions from garment’’ a requirement that when ranging from 6-to-9 months through the smallest to largest sizes, the displayed for sale to consumers, the children’s size 14. dimensions and points of measurement garment must be clearly and A comment from one manufacturer of are substantially similar to those in the conspicuously labeled with the children’s garments observes that the notice of proposed rulemaking. statement: ‘‘Garment is not flame- maximum dimensions specified for size The final amendments also include resistant. For child’s safety, garment 6 in the proposal were larger than the language in the definition of ‘‘tight- should be tight fitting. Loose-fitting maximum dimensions specified for size fitting garment’’ to assure that the clothing is more likely to contact an 7.(28) The Commission agrees that the garment will conform closely to the ignition source and burn.’’ maximum dimensions for size 7 should contour of the body. Provisions of Comments from a manufacturer and be larger than the maximum dimensions §§ 1615.1(o)(3) through (7) and an importer of children’s garments for size 6. In the amendments issued 1616.2(m)(3) through (7) require that the stated that the proposed labeling below, maximum dimensions increase torso of such garments must fit closely statement was too lengthy.(25), (35) At continuously from the smallest to the from chest to waist and from waist to the Commission’s public meeting on largest sizes of garments. seat; that the sleeves must taper from April 25, 1995, manufacturers also Other comments express the view that upper arm to wrist; and that the legs expressed the view that the proposed the maximum dimensions specified in must taper from thigh to ankle. labeling statement was too negative.(81) the proposal for all sizes are too small. Comments from three manufacturers A comment from the National Cotton One manufacturer states that the of children’s garments recommend Council states that children’s garments amendments should exempt garments adjustment of the maximum dimensions currently bear labels stating size, which fit ‘‘reasonably close to the to allow for fabric shrinkage after information about the manufacturer, 47640 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations fiber content, country of origin, and care separation of children’s nonsleepwear amendments issued below shall become instructions. This comment states that garments such as underwear, daywear, effective on January 1, 1997. The the addition of the language specified by and playwear from sleepwear garments Commission finds for good cause that a the proposed amendments would manufactured to comply with the short delay in the effective date, less require an unsuitably large label for standards and tight-fitting sleepwear than the one year specified by the FFA, tight-fitting sleepwear garments.(33) garments exempted from those is in the public interest because it The same comment suggests that an standards by the amendments issued balances the need of some firms for a educational effort to provide safety below. Separation of non-sleepwear period of transition in which to make information to consumers about tight- garments from children’s sleepwear is those adjustments necessary to market fitting sleepwear by use of hang tags on necessary to assure that consumers will the sleepwear garments exempted by the garments and signs at retail stores not inadvertently purchase a loose- amendments with the interest of other would be a less expensive way to fitting, non-sleepwear garment which is firms in marketing those products as convey safety information about tight- not flame-resistant when shopping for soon as possible. fitting sleepwear garments to children’s sleepwear. The Commission is aware that many consumers. At the public meeting in H. Effective Date of the firms favoring a delayed effective April 1995 and in a subsequent written date are producers or importers of comment, the National Cotton Council Section 4(b) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. children’s sleepwear manufactured to stated that it would work cooperatively 1293(b)) provides that an amendment of comply with the sleepwear flammability with the Commission to develop an a flammability standard shall become standards. The Commission recognizes effective twelve months after information and education campaign to the important role which complying publication of the notice of final inform consumers that garment design sleepwear plays in preventing burn rulemaking unless the Commission is an important factor in burn injuries injuries. The regulations governing the makes a finding for good cause that an associated with children’s sleepwear, flammability of material used to make earlier or later effective date is in the and that snug-fitting sleepwear that fits children’s sleepwear garments other public interest and publishes the close to the body is a safer choice than than garments covered by these loose-fitting garments.(48), (81) reasons for that finding. On May 23, 1996, members of the amendments will continue to apply to Individual manufacturers of children’s garments such as robes and nightgowns. garments have also indicated their Commission staff met with representatives of manufacturers, However, a delay in the effective date of willingness to participate in such an the amendments issued below beyond effort. importers, and retailers of children’s January 1, 1997, postpones the The amendments issued below do not garments, the National Cotton Council, availability of tight-fitting cotton and include the proposed labeling statement and other interested parties to discuss for tight-fitting sleepwear garments technical issues related to the cotton-blend sleepwear garments, and exempted from the flammability Commission’s decision to amend the prolongs the period during which requirements of the children’s children’s sleepwear standards. At this consumers seeking untreated cotton sleepwear standards. The Commission meeting, representatives of the National sleepwear for their children may concludes that a well-designed and Cotton Council and some manufacturers purchase alternative garments which broadly disseminated information and claimed that the amendments should pose greater flammability risks. For education campaign, developed with become effective upon publication. these reasons, the Commission guidance from the Commission, will be They observed that the amendments do concludes that an effective date of a better means to inform consumers not impose any additional requirements January 1, 1997, is appropriate to: (1) about appropriate selection and use of on firms, but instead exempt certain Provide a transition period for the tight-fitting garments exempted from garments from the requirements of the manufacturers and importers of the sleepwear standards by the children’s sleepwear standards that do complying sleepwear garments who amendments issued below. Such a not present an unreasonable risk of burn wish to sell garments permitted by these campaign can help consumers injury. These proponents of an amendments; and (2) allow all understand why sleepwear garments immediate effective date asserted that companies to take advantage of the which are not flame-resistant are being many firms are able to begin marketing amendments within a reasonable period offered for sale and the importance of a the newly exempted sleepwear garments of time. tight fit for those garments; that other within a short time after issuance of the The Commission has also extended children’s sleepwear garments which final amendments. the stay of enforcement of the sleepwear are not tight-fitting but are Representatives of several importers standards for 18 months for close-fitting manufactured to comply with the claimed that their businesses would garments labeled and promoted as sleepwear standards remain available need several months or more after underwear. The Commission has taken for purchase; and that loose-fitting publication of the final amendments to this action to minimize costs to garments which are not flame-resistant draft specifications, place orders, and manufacturers, distributors, and (such as those made from untreated receive merchandise from overseas retailers of children’s sleepwear and cotton and cotton blends) should not be suppliers. Similarly, representatives of other garments which may result from used for children’s sleepwear. some domestic manufacturers stated adjustments of inventories of both The Commission expects that point- that they would need time to devise sleepwear and non-sleepwear garments of-sale materials directed to consumers, specifications for fabrics, place orders which are subject to the stay of including hang-tags on garments, with fabric suppliers, and receive enforcement.(67) labeling statements on packaging, and fabrics to be used in production of the I. Final Regulatory Analysis and store signs, will be an important sleepwear garments that will be Required Findings component of the sleepwear industry’s exempted from the requirements of the information and education effort. The sleepwear standards. Section 4(j) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. Commission also expects that another After considering all information 1193(j)) requires that a notice of final part of this effort will be directed at concerning an appropriate effective rulemaking must include a final retailers to emphasize the necessity for date, the Commission concludes that the regulatory analysis containing: Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47641

• A discussion of potential benefits benefit from a wider choice of fabrics increased burn injuries is extremely and costs of the final rule, including and the elimination of requirements for low.(63) And if consumers dress their those which cannot be quantified, and sampling, testing, and recordkeeping children for sleeping in the tight-fitting an identification of those persons likely under the sleepwear standards. The garments exempted by the amendments to receive its benefits and bear its costs; Commission is not able to predict the instead of loose-fitting T-shirts and • A description of any alternatives to extent to which manufacturers will elect other loose-fitting garments which are the final rule which were considered by to produce sleepwear garments not flame-resistant and do not comply the Commission together with a exempted by the amendments issued with the children’s sleepwear standards, summary description of their potential below. For that reason, the benefits to risks of burn injuries to children are benefits and costs and a brief manufacturers from increased choice of expected to decrease.(67) explanation of why these alternatives fabric and elimination of sampling, 3. Alternatives to the Amendments were not chosen; and testing, and recordkeeping costs cannot • A summary of significant issues be quantified.(67) a. Make no change to the standards. raised by comments on the preliminary The existing children’s sleepwear analysis, and the Commission’s 2. Potential Costs of the Amendments flammability standards have contributed assessment of those issues. Potential costs of the amendments to the relatively low level of burn • Additionally, section 4(j) requires include those related to temporary injuries to children associated with that the final rule must include the disruptions in the production process as clothing.(10) Additionally, information Commission’s findings that: manufacturers make changes needed to is available to demonstrate that a • The benefits expected from the rule produce garments exempted by the number of burn injuries to children bear a reasonable relationship to its amendments. According to industry younger than six years of age were costs; sources, those changes could include associated with sleepwear before the • It imposes the least burdensome recalibration of cutting and sewing flammability standard for sizes 0 requirement which prevents or machines. Some costs may be associated through 6X became effective.(70) If the adequately reduces the risk of injury for with modification of packaging, but they Commission made no change to the which it is promulgated. are expected to be negligible. To standards, the level of protection against minimize disruptions in the production risks of burn injuries to children 1. Potential Benefits of the Amendments process, the Commission has extended a associated with children’s sleepwear The amendments issued below will stay of enforcement for close-fitting would not be altered. provide consumers a wider choice of garments labeled and promoted for sale However, if the Commission does not children’s sleepwear. Specifically, the as underwear for 18 months to allow amend the standards, consumers will be amendments will allow garments manufacturers, distributors, and unable to purchase children’s sleepwear intended for children younger than nine retailers to dispose of existing garments made from untreated cotton months of age and tight-fitting garments inventories of those garments.(67) and cotton blends. Some consumers in sizes as large as children’s size 14 to Because the Commission cannot have expressed a strong desire to be made from untreated cotton and predict the extent to which purchase such garments for their cotton blends, which may not currently manufacturers will elect to produce the children to wear while sleeping.(6), (29), be used in the production of children’s sleepwear garments exempted from the (34), (42), (66), (67) In addition, if the sleepwear. Although a dollar value requirements of the children’s Commission does not make changes to cannot be placed on this benefit, the sleepwear standards, the Commission is the standards, problems related to their Commission is aware that large numbers unable to quantify the costs to enforcement in cases where garments of consumers have expressed a desire manufacturers which may result.(67) resemble children’s sleepwear but are for children’s sleepwear made from However, the amendments do not marketed and sold as underwear or cotton rather than the man-made fibers require manufacturers to produce the playwear are expected to continue.(68) used to produce most sleepwear exempted garments. Consequently, the This has been a problem in the past garments manufactured to comply with Commission anticipates that only those which the changes to the standard are the children’s sleepwear flammability firms which find it profitable to produce expected to alleviate. And, to satisfy standards.(6), (29), (34), (42), (66), (67) the exempted garments will incur the their desire for cotton sleepwear for The amendments will permit costs required to begin making them. their children, more people may turn to consumers to dress their children for The amendments issued below permit looser-fitting substitutes which are not sleeping in the tight-fitting sleepwear the manufacture of certain children’s flame-resistant and present a greater risk garments exempted from the sleepwear garments which will not pass of burn injury. requirements of the standards instead of the flammability test in the children’s b. Continue the stay of enforcement loose-fitting underwear, playwear, or sleepwear standards. Consequently, the without amending the standards. On daywear garments. This, in turn, could potential costs of the amendments January 13, 1993, the Commission reduce the risks of burn injuries and include the possibility of increased announced that it would not enforce the deaths to children because tight-fitting societal costs resulting from any burn children’s sleepwear standards in cases sleepwear garments present a lower fire injuries which may be associated with involving close fitting garments which risk to children than loose garments the exempted garments.(67) However, are similar in design and construction to which are not flame-resistant and do not during the three-year period in which underwear, relatively free of comply with the children’s sleepwear the stay of enforcement for close-fitting ornamentation, and are labeled and standards. The extent to which such a garments has been in effect, the marketed as underwear. The substitution will occur is not known, Commission has received no reports of Commission continued this stay of and therefore any resulting benefit is not burn injuries associated with ignition of enforcement when it published the quantifiable.(67) those garments.(62) Additionally, notice of proposed rulemaking on Manufacturers who elect to produce Canada’s experience with sleepwear October 25, 1994. During the period that the garments in infant sizes and tight- standards which contain provisions this stay of enforcement has been in fitting garments exempted from the similar to those in the amendments effect, the Commission has not observed children’s sleepwear standards will issued below indicates the risk of any burn injuries to children associated 47642 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations with the garments covered by the stay standards. The Commission does not comment, since the stay of enforcement of enforcement.(62) expect consumers to cease purchasing of the children’s sleepwear standards However, the tight-fitting garments these styles of sleepwear. was issued in 1993, sales of traditional exempted by the amendments issued b. Potential costs. A comment from sleepwear manufactured to comply with below fit more closely than the garments the American Burn Association states the standards has remained relatively subject to the stay of enforcement. that the Commission’s preliminary constant. During the same period of Additionally, those tight-fitting regulatory analysis underestimated the time, sales of children’s underwear garments can be marketed as children’s number of burn injuries which may garments increased from 476 million sleepwear. Consequently, the result from the proposed amendments units in 1992 to 502.4 million units in Commission anticipates the exempted and consequently the costs to society for 1994. One trade publication attributes tight-fitting garments would provide treatment of those injuries. This this gain in sales of children’s better protection against risks of burn comment observes that in the notice underwear to the use of some of these injuries than the garments covered by proposing the amendments, the garments for sleeping.(66) Underwear the stay of enforcement.(67) Commission estimated that each year and playwear garments subject to the about 1,150 children were treated in 4. Issues Raised by Comments on the stay of enforcement are sold by high- hospital emergency rooms for burn Preliminary Regulatory Analysis volume retailers and discounters at injuries associated with clothing of all lower prices than sleepwear which a. Potential benefits. A comment from types. The comment asserts that the true complies with the children’s sleepwear a manufacturer of children’s garments number of emergency room visits may flammability standards.(87) asserts that issuance of final be as high as 4,000 a year, citing a study Consequently, these garments have been amendments to exempt garments in published in the May-June 1995 issue of available to both higher- and lower- infant sizes and close-fitting garments the Journal of Burn Care and income consumers. Again, during the from the children’s sleepwear standards Rehabilitation.(38) time the stay has been in effect, the may result in a decrease, rather than an The Commission observes that the Commission has received no reports of increase in consumers’ choice of study cited by this comment reviewed burn injuries associated with the sleepwear garments. This comment cases involving children referred to garments identified as subject to the states that retailers devote a limited burn centers for burn injuries of all stay.(62) amount of shelf space to children’s types, and was not limited to burns c. Regulatory alternatives. A comment sleepwear. If consumers demonstrate a associated with ignition of clothing or from a retired Federal employee states significant preference for cotton sleepwear. Accordingly, the estimates of that as an alternative to the exemption sleepwear garments exempted from the children’s burn injuries treated in of infant garments from the standards, requirements of the standards, this emergency rooms made in this comment the Commission should consider comment claims that retailers will stock are not comparable to those made by the elimination of requirements for testing fewer garments manufactured to comply Commission in the notice of proposed seam and trim, but continue to require with the sleepwear standards, and may rulemaking.(10) Additionally, the study the fabric used in those garments to eventually stop selling those cited in this comment does not contain meet the flammability requirements of garments.(59) any information from which to predict the standard for sizes 0 through 6X. The As stated above, in 1993 the the likely effect of the proposed comment states that such a change Commission published a stay of amendments on the number of would have a negligible effect on enforcement of the sleepwear standards children’s burn injuries associated with safety.(26) in cases involving skin-tight or nearly sleepwear. The suggestion in this comment skin-tight garments which are similar in A comment from The Learn Not to would relieve manufacturers of design to the tight-fitting garments Burn Foundation of the National Fire garments in infant sizes from some, but exempted by the amendments issued Protection Association asserts that not all, of the requirements of the below. Available marketing data shows increased burn injuries to children are standard for sizes 0 through 6X. that during 1992, the last year before the likely to result if the Commission issues However, if fabric used in those stay, sales of traditional children’s final amendments of the children’s garments remained subject to the sleepwear manufactured to comply with sleepwear standards.(32) That comment flammability requirements of that the flammability standards were sets forth the following rationale: At standard, untreated cotton and cotton approximately 123.6 million units. present, children’s cotton garments blends could not be used. During 1994, the second year of the stay suitable for use as sleepwear are As noted above, one of the principal of enforcement, sales of traditional ‘‘sufficiently expensive’’ that they are benefits of the amendments issued children’s sleepwear were 123.5 million purchased primarily by consumers with below is to provide consumers with a units.(66) higher incomes. Higher-income greater choice of sleepwear garments by The Commission concludes that consumers are more likely to have permitting the use of those fabrics for available information about sales of behaviors that offset the increased risk production of certain types of children’s children’s sleepwear does not support of burn injury presented by sleepwear sleepwear. The Commission concludes the assertion that the amendments garments which do not comply with the that the alternative suggested by this issued below will result in reduced flammability standards. The proposed comment would significantly reduce the choice to consumers. Additionally, amendments will reduce the cost of the potential benefits of the amendments many parents and children may prefer exempted sleepwear garments, thereby issued below, without a corresponding the comfort of looser-fitting garments making them available to lower-income reduction in their potential costs.(10) made from flame-resistant fabrics over consumers. According to this comment, For these reasons, the Commission the tight-fitting garments made from ‘‘low income correlates negatively with affirms the conclusion of its preliminary cotton or cotton blends. Certain styles of all measures of fire risk.’’ and final regulatory analysis that the sleepwear, such as nightgowns, robes, However, recent marketing and injury amendments are not likely to increase and traditional pajamas will still be information does not support the societal costs resulting from burn required to be made from fabrics which expectations expressed in this comment. injuries to children associated with pass the tests of the sleepwear As noted in the response to an earlier sleepwear. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47643

5. Findings and practicable; and limited to those M. Impact on Small Businesses After considering all information fabrics, related materials, or products of In accordance with section 605(b) of concerning benefits and costs of the wearing apparel or interior furnishing the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. amendments, including comments on which have been determined to present 605(b)), the Commission hereby certifies the preliminary regulatory analysis, the an unreasonable risk of fire leading to that the amendments to the children’s Commission finds the benefits of the death, personal injury, or significant sleepwear standards issued below will amendments issued below bear a property damage. not have a significant economic impact After considering all of the reasonable relationship to their costs. on a substantial number of small information received during this Although these benefits are not entities, including small businesses. rulemaking proceeding, the Commission quantifiable, they include increased At this time, about 65 firms finds that to the extent that the Standard manufacture or import traditional choice to consumers in children’s for the Flammability of Children’s children’s sleepwear garments, i.e., sleepwear garments. To the extent that Sleepwear: Sizes 0 Through 6X (16 CFR nightgowns, pajamas, and robes.(66). consumers choose the tight-fitting part 1615) and the Standard for the The number of firms in the children’s sleepwear garments permitted by the Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear: sleepwear industry has not changed amendments rather than loose-fitting Sizes 7 Through 14 (16 CFR part 1616) substantially in the past several garments which are not flame-resistant, are applicable to garments intended for risks of burn injuries to children may be children nine months of age or younger years.(15) About 45 of these firms have reduced. or to the tight-fitting garments described fewer than 500 employees and are The costs of the amendments include in the amendments issued below, those considered to be small businesses.(83) some disruption to the children’s standards are not: (i) Reasonably None of the firms which are small sleepwear industry, and the possibility necessary to protect the public from businesses market children’s sleepwear of increased societal costs of treating risks of fire leading to death, personal exclusively. In addition to traditional burn injuries associated with the injury, or significant property damage; children’s sleepwear, these firms also garments exempted by the amendments. or (ii) limited to the garments which manufacture or import other types of By establishing an effective date of present that unreasonable risk. After garments such as infantwear, children’s January 1, 1997, and extending the stay considering the same information, the underwear and playwear, and in some of enforcement for certain close-fitting Commission also finds that the cases, adult underwear and lingerie.(83) children’s underwear and playwear, the amendments issued below are For many years, the market for Commission has minimized costs reasonable, technologically practicable, traditional children’s sleepwear has associated with disruption of the and appropriate. been relatively small but constant. In children’s sleepwear industry. For the 1970, the year before promulgation of reasons set forth in the discussion of K. Future Activities the first children’s sleepwear standard, potential costs of the amendments and The Commission will continue to sales of all new children’s sleepwear comments on the preliminary regulatory monitor closely and thoroughly garments amounted to about 1.4 analysis, the Commission concludes information from all available sources garments per child younger than 14 that the potential costs of the concerning burn injuries to children years of age.(83) From 1992 through amendment, although unquantifiable, from sleepwear and other garments. If at 1994, sales volume has been about 124 are minimal. any time, the Commission detects an million units, about two garments per The Commission also finds that the increase in burn deaths or injuries to child each year.(84) This sales amendments issued below impose the children associated with any of the information reflects a strong preference least burdensome requirements which garments exempted by these for traditional sleepwear by some adequately reduce the risks of burn amendments, it will take any consumers. injuries to children associated with appropriate action, including initiation However, if one assumes that most sleepwear. The Commission has of rulemaking to broaden the scope of children use several garments each year considered the possibilities of the children’s sleepwear flammability for sleeping, a logical inference is that withdrawing the proposed amendment, standards. children are using many garments other with or without extending the stay of The Commission will also monitor the than traditional nightgowns and enforcement for certain close-fitting information and education campaign pajamas for sleeping. children’s underwear and playwear. For undertaken by manufacturers of The amendments issued below the reasons set forth above in the children’s sleepwear and other garments exempt sleepwear garments sized for discussion of regulatory alternatives, the to assure that it accurately and children nine months of age and Commission finds that none of the effectively informs consumers about the younger and certain tight-fitting alternatives considered will provide the children’s sleepwear flammability sleepwear garments from the increased choice to consumers at as low standards, garments manufactured to requirements of the children’s a level of risk as the amendments issued comply with those standards, and the sleepwear standards. The tight-fitting below. garments exempted from those sleepwear garments exempted by the amendments are similar in fit and J. Other Statutory Findings standards by the amendments issued below. appearance to long underwear. Section 4(b) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. A decision to produce or import the 1193(b)) states that each flammability L. Stay of Enforcement exempted garments would entail standard or amendment shall be based The stay of enforcement which was minimal costs for any current on findings that the standard or issued on January 13, 1993, and manufacturer or importer of children’s amendment is: Reasonably needed to continued on October 25, 1994, will end sleepwear, regardless of size, for several protect the public against an on March 9, 1998. A separate notice reasons. First, these firms have an unreasonable risk of the occurrence of published elsewhere in this issue of the existing customer base for the sleepwear fire leading to death or personal injury, Federal Register provides additional and other garments which they or significant property damage; details about the stay of enforcement currently distribute. Second, in the reasonable, technologically appropriate, and its termination date. children’s sleepwear industry, design 47644 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations and fabric choices are under continuous inventories unsalable, or require including size 6X, such as nightgowns, reassessment; consumer demand and destruction of existing goods. The pajamas, or similar or related items, production costs are important Commission has no information such as robes, intended to be worn considerations when deciding on the indicating any special circumstances in primarily for sleeping or activities design and fabric to be used. Usually, which these amendments may affect the related to sleeping, except: only minor capital costs are involved in human environment. For that reason, (1) Diapers and underwear; making changes to design or material neither an environmental assessment (2) ‘‘Infant garments,’’ as defined by used to produce these garments.(83) nor an environmental impact statement section 1615.1(c), below; and Firms which decide to produce or is required.(67) import garments exempted from the (3) ‘‘Tight-fitting garments,’’ as sleepwear standards by the amendments List of Subjects in 16 CFR Parts 1615 defined by section 1615.1(o), below. issued below will be able to use and 1616 * * * * * untreated fabrics made from cotton and Clothing, Consumer protection, (c) Infant garment means a garment cotton blends which cannot pass the Flammable materials, Infants and which: children, Labeling, Records, Textiles, flammability test of the standards. (1) Is sized for a child nine months of Warranties. Additionally, they will avoid costs of age or younger; testing and recordkeeping imposed by Conclusion the standards. (2) If a one-piece garment, does not However, no firm is required to Therefore, pursuant to the authority of exceed 64.8 centimeters (25.75 inches) produce or import exempted garments. section 30(b) of the Consumer Product in length; if a two-piece garment, has no Firms which decide that demand for the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2079(b)) and piece exceeding 40 centimeters (15.75 garments exempted by the amendments section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act inches) in length; does not justify the costs of producing (15 U.S.C. 1193), the Commission (3) Complies with all applicable or importing them will not be required hereby amends title 16 of the Code of requirements of the Standard for the to make any changes to their current Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Flammability Clothing Textiles (16 CFR practices.(67) Subchapter D, parts 1615 and 1616 to Part 1610) and the Standard for the For these reasons, the Commission read as follows: Flammability Vinyl Plastic Film (16 concludes that the final amendments CFR part 1611); and PART 1615ÐSTANDARD FOR THE will not likely have a significant FLAMMABILITY OF CHILDREN'S (4) Bears a label stating the size of the economic impact on a substantial SLEEPWEAR: SIZES 0 THROUGH 6X garment, expressed in terms of months number of small entities, including of age. For example, ‘‘0 to 3 mos.’’ or ‘‘9 small businesses.(83) 1. The authority for part 1615 mos.’’ If the label is not visible to the N. Environmental Considerations continues to read as follows: consumer when the garment is offered for sale at retail, the same information The amendments issued below fall Authority: Sec. 4, 67 Stat. 112, as amended, 81 Stat. 569–570; 15 U.S.C. 1193. must appear legibly on the package of within the categories of Commission 2. In § 1615.1, Paragraphs (c) through the garment. actions described at 16 CFR 1021.5(c) (m) are redesignated paragraphs (d) that have little or no potential for * * * * * through (n), respectively. (o) Tight-fitting garment means a affecting the human environment. The 3. Section 1615.1 is amended by garment which: amendments are not expected to have a revising paragraph (a) and adding new significant effect on production paragraphs (c) and (o) to read as follows: (1) In each of the sizes listed below processes or on the types or amounts of does not exceed the maximum materials used for construction or § 1615.1 Definitions. dimension specified below for the chest, packaging of children’s sleepwear. The (a) Children’s Sleepwear means any waist, seat, upper arm, thigh, wrist, or amendments will not render existing product of wearing apparel up to and ankle:

Upper Chest Waist Seat arm Thigh Wrist Ankle

Size 9±12 mos

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 48.3 48.3 48.3 14.3 26.7 10.5 13 (inches) ...... (19) (19) (19) (55¤8) (101¤2) (41¤8) (51¤8)

Size 12±18 mos

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 49.5 49.5 50.8 14.9 28.3 10.5 13.1 (inches) ...... (191¤2) (191¤2) (20) (57¤8) (111¤8) (41¤8) (51¤8)

Size 18±24 mos

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 52.1 50.8 53.3 15.6 29.5 11 13.6 (inches) ...... (201¤2) (20) (21) (61¤8) (115¤8) (41¤4) (53¤8) Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47645

Upper Chest Waist Seat arm Thigh Wrist Ankle

Size 2

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 52.1 50.8 53.3 15.6 29.8 11.4 14 (inches) ...... (201¤2) (20) (21) (61¤8) (113¤4) (41¤2) (51¤2)

Size 3

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 53.3 52.1 56 16.2 31.4 11.7 14.9 (inches) ...... (21) (201¤2) (22) (63¤8) (123¤8) (45¤8) (57¤8)

Size 4

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 56 53.3 58.4 16.8 33.0 12.1 15.9 (inches) ...... (22) (21) (23) (65¤8) (13) (43¤4) (61¤4)

Size 5

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 58.4 54.6 61.0 17.5 34.6 12.4 16.8 (inches) ...... (23) (211¤2) (24) (67¤8) (135¤8) (47¤8) (65¤8)

Size 6

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 61.0 55.9 63.5 18.1 36.2 12.7 17.8 (inches) ...... (24) (22) (25) (71¤8) (141¤4) (5) (7)

Size 6X

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 62.9 57.2 65.4 18.7 37.8 13.0 18.7 (inches) ...... (243¤4) (221¤2) (253¤4) (73¤8) (147¤8) (51¤8) (73¤8)

NOTE: Maximum dimensions are calculated by placing the garment on a horizontal, flat surface with the outer surface of the garment exposed, measuring the distances between the points specified below; and multiplying that value by two: ChestÐmeasure distance from arm pit to arm pit. WaistÐon one-piece garment, measure at the narrowest location between arm pits and crotch. On two-piece garment, measure width at the bottom of the upper piece, and the top of the lower piece. SeatÐon one-piece garment, measure at widest location between waist and crotch. On two-piece garment, take this measurement on lower piece only. Upper armÐmeasure at a line perpendicular to the sleeve. Extending from the outer edge of the sleeve to the arm pit. ThighÐmeasure at a line perpendicular to the leg extending from the outer edge of the leg to the crotch. WristÐmeasure the width of the end of the sleeve, if intended to extend to the wrist. AnkleÐmeasure the width of the end of the leg, if intended to extend to the ankle.

(2) Has no item of fabric, waist and which diminishes gradually dimension for the seat at any point ornamentation or trim, such as lace, from the chest to the waist; and has a between the seat and the top of the appliques, or ribbon, which extends width which does not exceed the lower piece and which diminishes more than 6 millimeters (1⁄4 inch) from maximum dimension for the seat at any gradually from the seat to the top of that the point of attachment to the outer point between the seat and the waist piece; surface of the garment; and which diminishes gradually from (8) Complies with all applicable (3) Has sleeves which do not exceed the seat to the waist; requirements of the Standard for the the maximum dimension for the upper (6) In the case of a two-piece garment Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 arm at any point between the upper arm has an upper piece with a width which and the wrist, and which diminish in does not exceed the maximum CFR part 1610) and the Standard for the width gradually from the upper arm to dimension for the chest at any point Flammability of Vinyl Plastic Film (16 the wrist; between the chest and the bottom of that CFR part 1611); and (4) Has legs which do not exceed the piece and which diminishes gradually (9) Bears a label stating the size of the maximum dimension for the thigh at from the chest to the bottom of that garment in terms of age in months, or by any point between the thigh and the piece; in the case of an upper piece with child’s size; for example: ‘‘Size 9 to 12 ankle, and which diminish in width fastenings, has the lowest fastening mos.’’ or ‘‘Size 2.’’ If the label is not gradually from the thigh to the ankle; within 15 centimeters (6 inches) of the visible to the consumer when the (5) In the case of a one-piece garment, bottom of that piece; garment is offered for sale at retail, the has a width which does not exceed the (7) In the case of a two-piece garment, same information must appear legibly maximum dimension for the chest at has a lower piece with a width which on the package of the garment. any point between the chest and the does not exceed the maximum 47646 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PART 1616ÐSTANDARD FOR THE § 1616.2 Definitions. (1) Diapers and underwear; and FLAMMABILITY OF CHILDREN'S In addition to the definitions given in (2) ‘‘Tight-fitting garments’’ as defined SLEEPWEAR: SIZES 7 THROUGH 14 section 2 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, by section 1616.2(m), below. as amended (sec. 2, 81 Stat. 586; 15 * * * * * 1. The authority for part 1616 U.S.C. 1191), the following definitions continues to read as follows: apply for the purposes of this Standard: (m) Tight-fitting garment means a (a) Children’s sleepwear means any garment which: Authority: Sec. 4, 67 Stat. 112, as product of wearing apparel size 7 amended, 81 Stat. 569–570; 15 U.S.C. 1193. (1) in each of the sizes listed below through 14, such as nightgowns, does not exceed the maximum 2. Section 1616.2 is amended by pajamas, or similar or related items, dimension specified below for the chest, revising paragraph (a) and adding a new such as robes, intended to be worn waist, seat, upper arm, thigh, wrist, or paragraph (m), to read as follows: primarily for sleeping or activities related to sleeping, except: ankle:

Upper Chest Waist Seat arm Thigh Wrist Ankle

Size 7 Boys 1

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 63.5 58.4 66 18.7 37.2 13.0 18.7 (inches) ...... (25) (23) (26) (73¤8) (145¤8) (51¤8) (73¤8)

Size 7 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 63.5 58.4 67.3 18.7 38.7 13.0 18.7 (inches) ...... (25) (23) (261¤2) (73¤8) (151¤4) (51¤8) (73¤8)

Size 8 Boys 1

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 66 59.7 67.3 19.4 38.4 13.3 19.1 (inches) ...... (26) (231¤2) (261¤2) (75¤8) (151¤8) (51¤4) (71¤2)

Size 8 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 66 59.7 71.1 19.4 41.3 13.3 19.1 (inches) ...... (26) (231¤2) (28) (75¤8) (161¤4) (51¤4) (71¤2)

Size 9 Boys 1

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 68.6 61.0 69.2 20 39.7 13.7 19.4 (inches) ...... (27) (24) (271¤4) (77¤8) (155¤8) (53¤8) (75¤8)

Size 9 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 68.6 61.0 73.7 20 42.6 13.7 19.4 (inches) ...... (27) (24) (29) (77¤8) (163¤4) (53¤8) (75¤8)

Size 10 1 Boys

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 71.1 62.2 71.1 20.6 41.0 14 19.7 (inches) ...... (28) (241¤2) (28) (81¤8) (161¤8) (51¤2) (73¤4)

Size 10 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 71.1 62.2 76.2 20.6 43.8 14 19.7 (inches) ...... (28) (241¤2) (30) (81¤8) (171¤4) (51¤2) (73¤4)

Size 11 1 Boys

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 73.7 63.5 73.7 21 42.2 14.3 20 (inches) ...... (29) (25) (29) (81¤4) (165¤8) (55¤8) (77¤8) Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47647

Upper Chest Waist Seat arm Thigh Wrist Ankle

Size 11 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 73.7 63.5 78.7 21 45.1 14.3 20 (inches) ...... (29) (25) (31) (81¤4) (173¤4) (55¤8) (77¤8)

Size 12 Boys 1

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 76.2 64.8 76.2 21.6 43.5 14.6 20.3 (inches) ...... (30) (251¤2) (30) (81¤2) (171¤8) (53¤4) (8)

Size 12 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 76.2 64.8 81.3 21.6 46.7 14.6 20.3 (inches) ...... (30) (251¤2) (32) (81¤2) (181¤2) (53¤4) (8)

Size 13 Boys

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 78.7 66 78.7 22.2 44.8 14.9 20.6 (inches) ...... (31) (26) (31) (83¤4) (175¤8) (57¤8) (81¤8)

Size 13 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 78.7 66 83.8 22.2 47.6 14.9 20.6 (inches) ...... (31) (26) (33) (83¤4) (183¤4) (57¤8) (81¤8)

Size 14 Boys 1

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 81.3 67.3 81.3 22.9 46 15.2 21 (inches) ...... (32) (261¤2) (32) (9) (181¤8) (6) (81¤4)

Size 14 Girls

Maximum dimension: Centimeters ...... 81.3 67.3 86.4 22.9 49.5 15.2 21 (inches) ...... (32) (261¤2) (34) (9) (191¤2) (6) (81¤4) 1 Garments not explicitly labeled and promoted for wear by girls must not exceed these maximum dimensions. NOTE: Maximum dimensions are calculated by placing the garment on a horizontal, flat surface, with the outer surface of the garment exposed; measuring the distances at the points specified below; and multiplying that value by two: ChestÐmeasure distance from arm pit to arm pit. WaistÐon one-piece garment, measure at narrowest location between arm pits and crotch; on two-piece garment, measure width at the bot- tom of the upper piece, and at the top of the lower piece. SeatÐon one-piece garment, measure at widest location between waist and crotch. On two-piece garment, take this measurement on the lower piece only. Upper armÐmeasure at a line perpendicular to the sleeve extending from the outer edge of the sleeve to the arm pit. ThighÐmeasure at a line perpendicular to the leg extending from the outer edge of the leg to the crotch. WristÐmeasure the width of the end of the sleeve, if intended to extend to the wrist. AnkleÐmeasure the width of the end of the leg, if intended to extend to the ankle.

(2) Has no item of fabric, any point between the thigh and the (6) In the case of a two-piece garment, ornamentation or trim, such as lace, ankle, and which diminish gradually in has an upper piece with a width which appliques, or ribbon, which extends width between the thigh and the ankle; does not exceed the maximum distance 1 more than 6 millimeters ( ⁄4 inch) from (5) In the case of a one-piece garment, for the chest at any point between the the point of attachment to the outer has a width which does not exceed the chest and the bottom of that piece and surface of the garment; maximum dimension for the chest at which diminishes gradually from the (3) Has sleeves which do not exceed any point between the chest and the chest to the bottom of that piece; in the the maximum dimension for the upper waist and which diminishes gradually case of an upper piece with fastenings, arm at any point between the upper arm from the chest to the waist; and has a has the lowest fastening within 15 and the wrist and which diminish in width which does not exceed the centimeters (6 inches) of the bottom of width gradually from the upper arm to maximum dimension for the seat at any that piece; the wrist; point between the seat and the waist (7) In the case of a two-piece garment, (4) Has legs which do not exceed the and which diminishes gradually from has a lower piece with a width which maximum dimension for the thigh at the seat to the waist; does not exceed the maximum 47648 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations dimension for the seat at any point ‘‘Recent Conversation Between Staff of 26. Comment on proposed amendments between the seat and the top of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada and from John F. Krasny; 2 pages; January 4, lower piece and which diminishes Commission Staff’’; 4 pages; July 17, 1992. 1995. gradually from the seat to the top of that 10. Memorandum from Dr. Terry L. 27. Comment on proposed amendments Kissinger, EPHA, to Terrance R. Karels, from student research group, Florida piece; ECPA, entitled ‘‘Injury Data Related to the International University; 2 pages; January 4, (8) Complies with all applicable Children’s Sleepwear Standards’’; 13 pages; 1995. requirements of the Standard for the February 8, 1994. 28. Comment on proposed amendments Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 11. Memorandum from Dr. Terry L. from Steven E. Loftin, the William Carter CFR part 1610) and the Standard for the Kissinger, EPHA, to Terrance R. Karels, Company; 2 pages; January 5, 1995. Flammability of Vinyl Plastic Film (16 ECPA, entitled ‘‘Results of Review of 29. Comment on proposed amendments CFR part 1611); and Available Literature,’’ and attachments; 21 from student research group; 2 pages; January (9) Bears a label stating the size of the pages; April 1, 1994. 6, 1995. 12. Memorandum from George Sweet, garment; for example ‘‘Size 7.’’ If the 30. Comment on proposed amendments EPHF, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled from Gerald L. Colliers, the Children’s label is not visible to the consumer ‘‘Human Factors Issues Regarding Sleepwear Coalition; 6 pages; January 8, when the garment is offered for sale at Sleepwear,’’ and attachment; 8 pages; March 1995. retail, the garment size must appear 8, 1994. 31. Comment on proposed amendments legibly on the package of the garment. 13. Memorandum from George Sweet, from Mary-beth Boughton, Oneita Industries; Effective date: These amendments EPHF, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled 2 pages; January 9, 1995. shall become effective on January 1, ‘‘Garments Intended for Infants’’; 4 pages; 32. Comment on proposed amendments 1997, and shall be applicable to July 8, 1994. from James McMullen, Learn Not to Burn 14. ‘‘Preliminary Regulatory and Foundation, National Fire Protection garments which are introduced into Regulatory Flexibility Analyses for the commerce on or after that date. Association; 2 pages; January 13, 1995. Proposed Amendments to the Children’s 33. Comment on proposed amendments Dated: August 29, 1996. Flammability Standards,’’ by Anthony C. from Phillip J. Wakelyn, Ph.D., National Todd A. Stevenson, Homan, Directorate for Economic Analysis; 7 Cotton Council of America; 7 pages; January pages; June, 1994. 9, 1995. Deputy Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 15. ‘‘Market Sketch—Children’s Commission. 34. Comment on proposed amendments Sleepwear,’’ by Anthony C. Homan, from John Wigodsky, Fruit of the Loom; 1 List of Relevant Documents Directorate for Economic Analysis; 14 pages; page; January 5, 1995. March, 1992. 1. Federal Register notice ‘‘Flammability 35. Comment on proposed amendments 16. Memorandum from Eva S. Lehman, Standards for Children’s Sleepwear; from Julie Goldscheider, Impact Imports HSPS, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled Statements of Enforcement Policy’’ published International, Inc.; 3 pages; January 9, 1995. ‘‘Toxicological Evaluation of Fabrics Used in by the Consumer Product Safety 36. Comment on proposed amendments Children’s Sleepwear’’; 3 pages; June 7, 1994. Commission; 4 pages; March 20, 1984 (49 FR from Alfred K. Whitehead, International 10249). 17. Memorandum from Patricia Fairall, CERM, to Terrance Karels, ECPA, entitled Association of Fire Fighters; 1 page; July 31, 2. Supplemental CPSC Staff Guide to the 1995. Enforcement Policy Statements of the ‘‘Compliance History—Enforcement of Children’s Sleepwear’’; 6 pages; April 20, 37. Comment on proposed amendments Flammability Standard for Children’s from Frank Albert, Fire Prevention Canada; 2 Sleepwear—Garment Diagrams and 1994. 18. Memorandum from James F. Hoebel, pages; August 1, 1995. Assessments, published by the Division of 38. Comment on proposed amendments Regulatory Management, Consumer Product Acting Director, ESME, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled ‘‘Amendments to Children’s from Andrew M. Munster, M.D., American Safety Commission; 27 pages; 1989. Burn Association; 2 pages; August 29, 1995. 3. Memorandum from Terrance R. Karels, Sleepwear Standards’’; 3 pages; July 7, 1994. 39. Comment on proposed amendments ECPA, to the Commission, entitled 19. Memorandum from Dr. Terry L. from Ramsey J. Choucair, M.D., Shriners ‘‘Children’s Sleepwear Project’’; 12 pages; Kissinger, EPHA, to Terrance R. Karels, Hospitals for Crippled Children, Burns July 19, 1994. ECPA, entitled ‘‘Proposed Amendment to Institute; 2 pages; August 30, 1995. 4. Federal Register notice ‘‘Standards for Children’s Sleepwear Standards’’; 7 pages; the Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear: July 15, 1994. 40. Comment on proposed amendments Sizes 0 Through 6X and 7 Through 14; 20. Federal Register notice ‘‘Standard for from Phillip J. Wakelyn, Ph.D., National Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,’’ the Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear: Cotton Council of America; 2 pages; published by the Consumer Product Safety Sizes 0 Through 6X; Standard for the September 8, 1995. Commission; 4 pages; January 13, 1993 (58 Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear: Sizes 41. Comment on proposed amendments FR 4111). 7 Through 14; Proposed amendments’’ from Anthony R. O’Neill, National Fire 5. Federal Register notice ‘‘Standards for published by the Consumer Product Safety Protection Association, with enclosures; 7 the Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear: Commission; 11 pages; October 25, 1994 (59 pages; October 23, 1995. Sizes 0 Through 6X and 7 Through 14; Stay FR 53616). 42. Comment on proposed amendments of Enforcement,’’ published by the Consumer 21. Federal Register notice ‘‘Continuation from Carl Schlosser, Salant Children’s Product Safety Commission; 1 page; January of Stay of Enforcement of Standards for the Apparel Group; 1 page; October 10, 1995. 13, 1993 (58 FR 4078). Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear, Sizes 43. Comment on proposed amendments 6. Tabular summaries of comments and 0 Through 6X and 7 Through 14’’ published from Mary Jane Murray; 1 page; undated. staff responses to comments to the Advance by the Consumer Product Safety 44. Comment on proposed amendments Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 50 pages; Commission; 1 page; October 25, 1994 (59 FR from Tim Ackerman, T & G Associates, Inc., July 19, 1994. 53584). with enclosure; 3 pages; October 25, 1995. 7. ‘‘Statement by The Children’s Sleepwear 22. Comment on proposed amendments 45. Comment on proposed amendments Coalition In Response to the Consumer from Aline Farr; 1 page; September 14, 1994. from John McCarthy, Kid Duds, with Product Safety Commission’s Advance 23. Comment on proposed amendments enclosure; 3 pages; October 30, 1995. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’’; 10 pages; from Leonard Schwab, the Schwab Company; 46. Comment on proposed amendments March 25, 1993. 7 pages; November 29, 1994. from Leigh Ann Schwarzkopf, Kid Duds, 8. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, 24. Comment on proposed amendments with enclosure; 8 pages; January 5, 1996. ESME, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled from Kay M. Villa, American Textile 47. Comment on proposed amendments ‘‘Technical Rationale Supporting Tight- Manufacturers Institute; 1 page; December from Phillip J. Wakelyn, Ph.D., National Fitting Children’s Sleepwear Garments’’; 11 22, 1994. Cotton Council of America; 2 pages; October pages; March 14, 1994. 25. Comment on proposed amendments 30, 1995. 9. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, from Carl Schlosser, Salant Children’s 48. Comment on proposed Amendments ESME, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled Apparel Group; 5 pages; December 28, 1994. from Phillip. J. Wakelyn, Ph.D., National Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 175 / Monday, September 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 47649

Cotton Council of America, with enclosures; Commission and staff of Consumer and Krasny to James Hoebel’’; 5 pages; August 3, 5 pages; December 18, 1995. Corporate Affairs Canada on June 18, 1992, 1995. 49. Comment on proposed Amendments concerning the Canadian standards for the 76. Memorandum from George Sweet, from Phillip. J. Wakelyn, Ph.D., National flammability of children’s sleepwear; 3 ESHA, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled Cotton Council of America, with enclosure; pages. ‘‘Issues involved in amendment the 3 pages; December 21, 1995. 65. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, sleepwear flammability regulation: Sizing 50. Comment on proposed amendments ESME, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled and Labeling’’; 3 pages; September 20, 1995. from Leonard S. Bernstein, Candlesticks, Inc.; ‘‘Tight Fitting Children’s Sleepwear’’; 5 77. Memorandum from Karen G. Krushaar, 2 pages; October 31, 1995. pages; July 14, 1995. OIPA, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled 51. Comment on proposed amendments 66. Memorandum from Terrance R. Karels, ‘‘Children’s Sleepwear Informational from Leonard S. Bernstein, Candlesticks, Inc., Project Manager, to Warren J. Prunella, Campaign’’; 2 pages; July 11, 1995. with enclosure; 3 pages; December 14, 1995. Associate Executive Director for Economic 78. Position statement of the National Fire 52. Comment on proposed amendments Analysis, entitled ‘‘Sleepwear Market Protection Association and the Learn Not to from Leonard S. Bernstein, Candlesticks, Inc.; Update’’; 2 pages; October 6, 1995. Burn Foundation in Opposition to the 1 page; January 10, 1996. 67. Final Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Amendment of the Children’s 53. Comment on proposed amendments amendments of the children’s sleepwear Sleepwear Standards; 5 pages; July 1995. from Mary-beth Boughton, Oneita Industries; standards by Terrance R. Karels; 8 pages; July 79. Letter from John F. Krasny to J. F. 2 pages; November 6, 1995. 1995. Hoebel concerning paper by Vickers, Krasny, 54. Comment on proposed amendments 68. Memorandum from David Schmeltzer, and Tovey entitled ‘‘Some Apparel Fire from G. L. Collier, I–C Manufacturing Assistant Executive Director for Compliance, Hazard Parameters’’; 2 pages; July 17, 1995. Company, with enclosure; 5 pages; December to Terrance Karels, Project Manager, entitled 80. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, 30, 1995. 55. Comment on proposed amendments ‘‘Sleepwear Briefing Package’’; 4 pages; ESME, concerning telephone conversation from Hy Grubman, InnerWorld; 1 page; August 24, 1995. with John Krasny on September 20, 1995; 2 December 28, 1995. 69. Memorandum from Patricia Fairall, pages. 56. Comment on proposed amendments Compliance Officer, to Terrance Karels, 81. Log of public meeting conducted on from Jack Brownstein, Waterbury Garment Project Manager, entitled ‘‘Compliance April 25, 1995, concerning proposed Corporation, with enclosure; 2 pages; January Discussion of the Proposed Amendments to amendments of the children’s sleepwear 3, 1996. the Children’s Sleepwear Standards’’; 2 flammability standards; 4 pages. 57. Comment on proposed amendments pages; June 26, 1995. 82. Memorandum from James F. Hoebel, from Craig V. Mayer, P.E.; 2 pages; January 70. Memorandum from Terry L. Kissinger, Chief Engineer for Fire Hazards, to Terrance 5, 1996. Ph.D., EHHA, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, R. Karels, Project Manager, entitled 58. Comment on proposed amendments entitled ‘‘Response to Public Comments ‘‘Children’s Sleepwear’’; 3 pages; October 10, from Gerald L. Collier, Children’s Sleepwear Received after Publication of the Notice of 1995. Coalition; 5 pages; January 24, 1996. Proposed Rulemaking’’; 8 pages; July 12, 83. Memorandum from Warren J. Prunella, 59. Comment on proposed amendments 1995. Associate Executive Director for Economic from Stephen Schnitzer and Marvin 71. Memorandum from George Sweet, Analysis, to file concerning small business Sandberg, PCA Apparel; 5 pages; February 6, EPHF, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled effects of proposed amendments to the 1996. ‘‘Human Factors Responses to Sleepwear children’s sleepwear flammability standards; 60. Comment on proposed amendments NPR Comments’’; 7 pages; May 5, 1995. 3 pages; February 17, 1995. from The Coalition for American Trauma 72. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, 84. Memorandum from Warren J. Prunella, Care; 2 pages; February 6, 1996. ESME, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, entitled Associate Executive Director for Economic 61. Comment on proposed amendments ‘‘Response to Comments’’; 3 pages; July 14, Analysis, to Eric A. Rubel, General Counsel, from Cressie Goff, Sew Sweet Stitches, and 1995. concerning requirements for Congressional Carol Grider, R.N., with enclosures; 3 pages; 73. Memorandum from Suad Nakamura, review of final amendments to the children’s February 21, 1996. Ph.D., EHPS, to Terrance R. Karels, Project sleepwear standards; 3 pages; undated. 62. Memorandum from Terry L. Kissinger, Manager, entitled ‘‘Children’s Sleepwear— 85. Vote sheet to accompany briefing Ph.D., EHHA, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, Response to Comments on the Notice of package on children’s sleepwear entitled ‘‘Injury Data Related to the Proposed Rulemaking’’; 2 pages; July 19, flammability standards; 2 pages; October 11, Children’s Sleepwear Standards’’; 13 pages; 1995. 1995. July 12, 1995. 74. Memorandum from Patricia Fairall, 86. Memorandum from Terrance R. Karels, 63. Letter from Carole LaCombe, Director, Compliance Officer, to Terrance R. Karels, Project Manager, and Ronald L. Medford, Product Safety Canada, to Eric C. Peterson, Program Manager, entitled ‘‘Response to Assistant Executive Director for Hazard Executive Director, Consumer Product Safety Comments from Proposed Amendments to Identification and Reduction entitled Commission, concerning Canadian standards the Children’s Sleepwear Standards ‘‘Questions Regarding Children’s Sleepwear for the flammability of children’s sleepwear; published in the Federal Register on October Amendments,’’ with attachments; 21 pages; 3 pages; September 13, 1993. 25, 1994’’; 5 pages; June 26, 1995. January 30, 1996. 64. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, ES, 75. Memorandum from Terry L. Kissinger, concerning telephone conversation between Ph.D., EHHA, to Terrance R. Karels, ECPA, [FR Doc. 96–22697 Filed 9–6–96; 8:45 am] staff of the Consumer Product Safety entitled ‘‘Response to Letter from John BILLING CODE 6355±01±P