Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610 Review of the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets, 18218-18219 [2015-07659]
Download as PDF
18218
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC–2006–0011]
Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610
Review of the Standard for the
Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress
Sets
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of section 610 review
and request for comments.
AGENCY:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 Apr 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Lisa
L. Scott, Fire Protection Engineer,
Laboratory Sciences, Consumer Product
Safety Commission 5 Research Place,
Rockville, MD 20850, Telephone: (301)
987–2064; email: lscott@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2006,
the CPSC issued a standard for the
flammability (open flame) of mattress
sets under the Flammable Fabrics Act.
(71 FR 13472, March 15, 2006). The
Mattress Standard sets forth
performance requirements that all
mattress sets must meet before being
introduced into commerce. The Mattress
Standard establishes flammability
requirements to reduce deaths and
injuries associated with mattress fires by
limiting the size of the fire generated by
a mattress set during a 30-minute test.
The Mattress Standard establishes two
test criteria, which the mattress set must
meet to comply with the standard: (1)
The peak rate of heat release for the
mattress set must not exceed 200 kW at
any time during the 30 minute test; and
(2) the total heat release must not
exceed 15 MJ for the first 10 minutes of
the test. These requirements are set forth
at 16 CFR part 1633.
The CPSC has selected the Mattress
Standard for review in accordance with
the regulatory review provisions of
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) The purpose
of a review under Section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is to
determine whether such rule should be
continued without change, or should be
rescinded, or amended, consistent with
the stated objectives of applicable
statutes to minimize any significant
impact of the rules on a substantial
number of small entities. The Agency
must consider the following factors:
(1) The continued need for the rule;
(2) The nature of complaints or
comments received concerning the rule
from the public;
(3) The complexity of the rule;
(4) The extent to which the rule
overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with
other Federal rules, and, to the extent
feasible, with State and local
governmental rules; and
(5) The length of time since the rule
has been evaluated or the degree to
which technology, economic conditions,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) is conducting a
review of the Standard for the
Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress
Sets (Mattress Standard) as set forth at
16 CFR part 1633, pursuant to Section
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The purpose of this review is to
determine, while protecting consumer
safety, whether this standard should be
maintained without change, rescinded,
or modified to minimize any significant
impact of the rule on a substantial
number of small entities and whether
the rule should be changed to reduce
regulatory burden or improve its
effectiveness. The CPSC seeks comment
on these issues.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by June 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CPSC–2006–
0011, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
(email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission
encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written
submissions by mail/hand delivery/
courier to: Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–7923.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. All
comments received may be posted
without change, including any personal
identifiers, contact information, or other
personal information provided, to:
https://www.regulations.gov. Do not
submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or
other sensitive or protected information
that you do not want to be available to
SUMMARY:
the public. If furnished at all, such
information should be submitted in
writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number CPSC–2006–0011, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
or other factors have changed in the area
affected by the rule. 5 U.S.C. 610(b).
An important step in the review
process involves gathering and
analyzing information from affected
persons about their experience with the
rule and any material changes in
circumstances since issuance of the
rule. This document requests written
comments on the continuing need for
the rule, its adequacy or inadequacy, its
small business impacts, and other
relevant issues. Comments concerning
the subjects below would assist the
CPSC’s review. The purpose of these
questions is to assist commenters in
their responses and not to limit the
format or substance of their comments.
Comments are requested on all issues
raised by Section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Safety and Effectiveness
1. Do you believe that mattresses that
comply with the Mattress Standard
provide adequate safety from fires that
may involve a mattress? Are there
additional requirements or protections
that could reduce the number of deaths
and injuries resulting from mattress
fires?
2. Do any aspects of the Mattress
Standard need to be updated to improve
effectiveness as a result of technological
developments since the standard went
into effect?
Costs and Impacts
3. Are there any requirements of the
Mattress Standard that are especially or
unnecessarily costly and/or
burdensome? Which ones? How might
the Mattress Standard requirements be
modified to reduce the costs or burdens
on the industry without reducing the
fire safety provided by the Mattress
Standard? Please explain your response
and provide supporting data.
4. Do you believe that any of the
requirements in the Mattress Standard
lead to a disproportionate burden on
small entities? If so, which requirements
lead to a disproportionate burden, and
how? How might CPSC modify the
Mattress Standard requirements to
reduce the burden on small businesses
or the industry without reducing the fire
safety provided by the Mattress
Standard?
5. What percent of the time and cost
of mattress construction, including
testing, does complying with the
Mattress Standard represent? Do these
percentages vary significantly
depending on the type of mattress,
geographical location, size of firm, or
other factors? Which requirements in
the Mattress Standard have the greatest
impact on cost of production? The
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
lowest impact on cost of production?
Explain your response and provide
supporting data, if possible.
6. Do manufacturers rely on
information from suppliers or conduct
their own testing when selecting and/or
substituting: (1) Ticking materials; (2)
component materials; (3) fire resistant
materials; and (4) fire-blocking barrier
materials? How does this impact
decisions regarding prototyping
(qualified or subordinate prototypes) of
mattresses? How does material supply
variability affect a manufacturer’s ability
to consistently comply with the
technical and recordkeeping
requirements of the Mattress Standard?
7. Are the labeling and recordkeeping
requirements in the Mattress Standard
adequate, inadequate, or overly
burdensome to meet the requirements of
the standard?
8. Please explain what materials are
used by firms to meet the requirements
of the standard and how do the various
materials, or combinations of materials,
compare in terms of cost?
Clarity and Duplication
9. Is there any aspect of the Mattress
Standard that is unclear, needlessly
complex, or duplicative? Do any
portions of the standard overlap,
duplicate, or conflict with other federal,
state or local government rules? Most
notably, do any portions of this standard
overlap, duplicate, or conflict with
CPSC’s ‘‘Standard for the Flammability
of Mattresses and Mattress Pads,’’ as set
forth at 16 CFR part 1632? What
benefits, if any, would CPSC, the
regulated community, or other
stakeholders gain from reviewing the
interactions between that standard and
the Mattress Standard along with the
Mattress Standard’s independent
operation?
10. Do other government entities,
including other countries, have
alternative fire safety standards? If so,
how do they differ from CPSC’s
approach? Are these alternative
approaches more effective? Please
provide a copy of the alternative fire
safety standard(s) or a citation to the
standard(s).
11. Can any of the technical aspects
of the Mattress Standard be expanded or
clarified without reducing the fire safety
provided by the standard? For example,
should the measurement requirements
in the standard be defined more clearly,
such as uncertainty values associated
with dimensions, flow, temperature/
humidity, energy value, or other values?
Outreach and Advocacy
12. Are CPSC’s requirements in the
Mattress Standard known to firms that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 Apr 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
manufacture new mattresses or renovate
mattresses for sale, or import mattresses
into the United States, including small
firms and firms that build mattresses or
import mattresses infrequently or in
small lots? How could the requirements
of the standard be more effectively
communicated to such firms?
13. If mattresses fail to comply with
the Mattress Standard, is
noncompliance more commonly the
result of: (1) The manufacturer’s lack of
information (e.g., about the scope of the
standard or the safety requirements); (2)
manufacturing processes and
techniques; (3) methods of assembly; (4)
component selection and availability;
(5) cost considerations; or (6) other
factors? What can CPSC do to assist
manufacturers with meeting the
requirements of the standard? Please
explain.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–07659 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Office of Economic Adjustment;
Announcement of Federal Funding
Opportunity (FFO)
Office of Economic Adjustment
(OEA), Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Federal funding opportunity
announcement.
AGENCY:
This notice announces an
opportunity to request funding from the
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA),
a Department of Defense (DoD) field
activity, for community planning
assistance to help prevent the siting of
energy projects from adversely affecting
DoD’s test, training, and military
operations. Commercial development of
energy projects may affect unique DoD
activities and military readiness,
especially when located near
installations, ranges, or on lands
beneath designated military training
routes or special use airspace. State,
tribal, and local governments can
support effective collaboration, early
engagement and dialogue between DoD
and energy developers to ensure
proposed energy projects may proceed
without compromising the DoD
missions. This notice includes proposal
submission requirements and
instructions, eligibility requirements,
and selection criteria that will be used
to evaluate proposals from eligible
respondents. OEA grants to a state or
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18219
local government may result from any
proposal submitted under this notice,
subject to the availability of
appropriations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
a. Federal Awarding Agency: Office of
Economic Adjustment, Department of
Defense.
b. Funding Opportunity Title:
Community Adjustment Planning
Assistance in Response to Siting of
Energy Projects to Support Department
of Defense Mission Interests.
c. Announcement Type: Initial
Federal Funding Opportunity.
d. Catalog Of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Number & Title:
12.610, Community Economic
Adjustment Assistance for Compatible
Use and Joint Land Use Studies.
e. Key Dates: Proposals will be
considered on a continuing basis. OEA
will evaluate all proposal documents
and requests, and provide a response to
the respondent within 30 business days
of OEA’s receipt of a final and complete
proposal.
I. Period of Funding Opportunity
Proposals will be considered on a
continuing basis, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds,
commencing on the date of publication
of this notice.
II. Funding Opportunity
a. Program Description
OEA is a DoD Field Activity
authorized under 10 U.S.C 2391 to
provide assistance to state or local
governments, and instrumentalities of
state and local governments, including
regional governmental organizations, to
plan and carry out community
adjustments required by the
encroachment of a civilian community
on a military installation if the Secretary
determines that the encroachment of the
civilian community is likely to impair
the continued operational utility of the
installation, including test and training
ranges and associated military airspace.
OEA’s Compatible Use and Joint Land
Use Studies Program provides technical
and financial assistance to state and
local governments to plan and carry out
community adjustments required to
mitigate or prevent incompatible
civilian development and activities that
are likely to impair the continued
operational utility of a DoD installation.
The objectives of OEA’s Compatible Use
and Joint Land Use Studies Program are
to assist states and local governments to
plan and carry out community
adjustments to promote compatible
civilian development and activities in
support of continued operational utility
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18218-18219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07659]
[[Page 18218]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC-2006-0011]
Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610 Review of the Standard for
the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of section 610 review and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is conducting a
review of the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress
Sets (Mattress Standard) as set forth at 16 CFR part 1633, pursuant to
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of this
review is to determine, while protecting consumer safety, whether this
standard should be maintained without change, rescinded, or modified to
minimize any significant impact of the rule on a substantial number of
small entities and whether the rule should be changed to reduce
regulatory burden or improve its effectiveness. The CPSC seeks comment
on these issues.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-
2006-0011, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand
delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted
without change, including any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information,
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number CPSC-2006-0011, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa L. Scott, Fire Protection
Engineer, Laboratory Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission 5
Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850, Telephone: (301) 987-2064; email:
lscott@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2006, the CPSC issued a standard for the
flammability (open flame) of mattress sets under the Flammable Fabrics
Act. (71 FR 13472, March 15, 2006). The Mattress Standard sets forth
performance requirements that all mattress sets must meet before being
introduced into commerce. The Mattress Standard establishes
flammability requirements to reduce deaths and injuries associated with
mattress fires by limiting the size of the fire generated by a mattress
set during a 30-minute test. The Mattress Standard establishes two test
criteria, which the mattress set must meet to comply with the standard:
(1) The peak rate of heat release for the mattress set must not exceed
200 kW at any time during the 30 minute test; and (2) the total heat
release must not exceed 15 MJ for the first 10 minutes of the test.
These requirements are set forth at 16 CFR part 1633.
The CPSC has selected the Mattress Standard for review in
accordance with the regulatory review provisions of Section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) The purpose of a
review under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to
determine whether such rule should be continued without change, or
should be rescinded, or amended, consistent with the stated objectives
of applicable statutes to minimize any significant impact of the rules
on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency must consider the
following factors:
(1) The continued need for the rule;
(2) The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the
rule from the public;
(3) The complexity of the rule;
(4) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts
with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and
local governmental rules; and
(5) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the
degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have
changed in the area affected by the rule. 5 U.S.C. 610(b).
An important step in the review process involves gathering and
analyzing information from affected persons about their experience with
the rule and any material changes in circumstances since issuance of
the rule. This document requests written comments on the continuing
need for the rule, its adequacy or inadequacy, its small business
impacts, and other relevant issues. Comments concerning the subjects
below would assist the CPSC's review. The purpose of these questions is
to assist commenters in their responses and not to limit the format or
substance of their comments. Comments are requested on all issues
raised by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Safety and Effectiveness
1. Do you believe that mattresses that comply with the Mattress
Standard provide adequate safety from fires that may involve a
mattress? Are there additional requirements or protections that could
reduce the number of deaths and injuries resulting from mattress fires?
2. Do any aspects of the Mattress Standard need to be updated to
improve effectiveness as a result of technological developments since
the standard went into effect?
Costs and Impacts
3. Are there any requirements of the Mattress Standard that are
especially or unnecessarily costly and/or burdensome? Which ones? How
might the Mattress Standard requirements be modified to reduce the
costs or burdens on the industry without reducing the fire safety
provided by the Mattress Standard? Please explain your response and
provide supporting data.
4. Do you believe that any of the requirements in the Mattress
Standard lead to a disproportionate burden on small entities? If so,
which requirements lead to a disproportionate burden, and how? How
might CPSC modify the Mattress Standard requirements to reduce the
burden on small businesses or the industry without reducing the fire
safety provided by the Mattress Standard?
5. What percent of the time and cost of mattress construction,
including testing, does complying with the Mattress Standard represent?
Do these percentages vary significantly depending on the type of
mattress, geographical location, size of firm, or other factors? Which
requirements in the Mattress Standard have the greatest impact on cost
of production? The
[[Page 18219]]
lowest impact on cost of production? Explain your response and provide
supporting data, if possible.
6. Do manufacturers rely on information from suppliers or conduct
their own testing when selecting and/or substituting: (1) Ticking
materials; (2) component materials; (3) fire resistant materials; and
(4) fire-blocking barrier materials? How does this impact decisions
regarding prototyping (qualified or subordinate prototypes) of
mattresses? How does material supply variability affect a
manufacturer's ability to consistently comply with the technical and
recordkeeping requirements of the Mattress Standard?
7. Are the labeling and recordkeeping requirements in the Mattress
Standard adequate, inadequate, or overly burdensome to meet the
requirements of the standard?
8. Please explain what materials are used by firms to meet the
requirements of the standard and how do the various materials, or
combinations of materials, compare in terms of cost?
Clarity and Duplication
9. Is there any aspect of the Mattress Standard that is unclear,
needlessly complex, or duplicative? Do any portions of the standard
overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other federal, state or local
government rules? Most notably, do any portions of this standard
overlap, duplicate, or conflict with CPSC's ``Standard for the
Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads,'' as set forth at 16 CFR
part 1632? What benefits, if any, would CPSC, the regulated community,
or other stakeholders gain from reviewing the interactions between that
standard and the Mattress Standard along with the Mattress Standard's
independent operation?
10. Do other government entities, including other countries, have
alternative fire safety standards? If so, how do they differ from
CPSC's approach? Are these alternative approaches more effective?
Please provide a copy of the alternative fire safety standard(s) or a
citation to the standard(s).
11. Can any of the technical aspects of the Mattress Standard be
expanded or clarified without reducing the fire safety provided by the
standard? For example, should the measurement requirements in the
standard be defined more clearly, such as uncertainty values associated
with dimensions, flow, temperature/humidity, energy value, or other
values?
Outreach and Advocacy
12. Are CPSC's requirements in the Mattress Standard known to firms
that manufacture new mattresses or renovate mattresses for sale, or
import mattresses into the United States, including small firms and
firms that build mattresses or import mattresses infrequently or in
small lots? How could the requirements of the standard be more
effectively communicated to such firms?
13. If mattresses fail to comply with the Mattress Standard, is
noncompliance more commonly the result of: (1) The manufacturer's lack
of information (e.g., about the scope of the standard or the safety
requirements); (2) manufacturing processes and techniques; (3) methods
of assembly; (4) component selection and availability; (5) cost
considerations; or (6) other factors? What can CPSC do to assist
manufacturers with meeting the requirements of the standard? Please
explain.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-07659 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P