[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18218-18219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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standard should be maintained without change, rescinded, or modified to 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: http://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: http://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: http://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: 
[email protected].

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