Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29555 

ITAR and the EAR are an example of 

requirements that may for certain 

provisions be harmonized to reduce the 

burden on exporters, improve 

compliance with the export clearance 

requirements, and ensure the export 

clearance requirements are achieving 

their intended purpose for use under the 

U.S. export control system, specifically 

under the transactions ‘‘subject to the 

ITAR’’ and ‘‘subject to the EAR.’’ 

Request for Comments on Additional 

Improvement and Harmonization of 

Export Clearance Provisions 

BIS is considering further revisions to 

part 758 of the EAR as part of 

Commerce’s retrospective regulatory 

review and ongoing harmonization 

efforts being undertaken by Commerce 

and State as part of ECR 

implementation. As part of this review 

effort for how part 758 can be improved 

to make these provisions more effective 

and to assist BIS in developing 

regulatory changes to improve these 

provisions of the EAR, BIS requests 

comments on these potential future 

changes described under paragraphs (A) 

through (E). Export control documents 

in paragraphs (A) through (C) include 

the commercial invoice and contractual 

documentation. 

A. Require ECCNs on export control 

documents. The ECCN for all 9x515 and 

‘‘600 series’’ items is currently required 

to be identified on the export control 

documents, along with the destination 

control statement. BIS is considering 

requiring that the ECCN be identified for 

all items on the Commerce Control List. 

This would not include items that are 

designated EAR99. 

B. Require identification of country of 

ultimate destination on export control 

documents. BIS is considering requiring 

that the country of ultimate destination 

be identified on the export control 

documents. This requirement would 

mirror the requirement in the ITAR and 

BIS believes that this would only impact 

a small number of exports where 

additional actions would be needed by 

exporters, because in most cases, the 

export control documents already 

identify the country of ultimate 

destination. 

C. Require license number or export 

authorization symbol on export control 

documents. BIS is also considering 

requiring that the license number or 

export authorization symbol be 

identified on export control documents. 

This proposed revision would require 

that the license number, license 

exception code, or no license required 

designation be entered on the export 

control documents. BIS specifically 

requests comments on the application of 

this requirement to mixed authorization 

and mixed jurisdiction shipments. 

D. Require AES filing for exports to 

Canada for items controlled for NS, MT, 

NP and CB. BIS seeks comments on the 

potential impact and feasibility of 

changing section 758.1 under paragraph 

(b) to require EEI filing in the AES for 

all exports to Canada of items controlled 

for National Security (NS), Missile 

Technology (MT), Nuclear 

Nonproliferation (NP), and Chemical & 

Biological Weapons (CB) reasons, 

regardless of license requirements 

(meaning regardless of whether the 

export was authorized under a license, 

license exception, or designated as no 

license required). Because of the AES 

filing exemption for non-licensed items 

to Canada, BIS currently has little 

visibility into the movement of these 

items into Canada, except for exports to 

Canada that involve a licensed item (see 

paragraph (b)(2) of section 758.1), a 

9x515 or ‘‘600 series’’ item (see 

paragraph (b)(3) of section 758.1) or are 

to be transhipped to a third country (see 

paragraph (b)(6) of section 758.1) which 

do require EEI filing in the AES. 

Therefore, BIS is seeking information 

that would help us determine: 

—The volume of trade that would be 

impacted by this filing requirement; 

—if this filing requirement would be 

beneficial and practical or detrimental 

and burdensome for industry; 

—if this filing requirement would have 

a commercial impact on exporters; 

and 

—if there are alternative methods to 

collecting or accessing this data. 

E. Other suggestions for improving 

and harmonizing export clearance 

requirements. Any other suggestions for 

improving the EAR export clearance 

requirements, including suggestions 

where additional harmonization should 

be considered for the export clearance 

requirements under the EAR and ITAR 

to ease the regulatory burden on 

exporters and make the provisions more 

effective would be helpful to receive in 

response to this ANPR. These 

suggestions can apply to any export 

clearance provision under part 758 of 

the EAR or any other EAR provisions 

that relate to export clearance 

requirements. 

Comments should be submitted to BIS 

as described in the ADDRESSES section of 

this ANPR by July 6, 2015. BIS will 

consider all comments submitted in 

response to this ANPR that are received 

before the close of the comment period. 

Comments received after the end of the 

comment period will be considered if 

possible, but their consideration cannot 

be assured. BIS will not accept public 

comments accompanied by a request 

that a part or all of the material be 

treated confidentially because of its 

business proprietary nature or for any 

other reason. BIS will return such 

comments and materials to the persons 

submitting the comments and will not 

consider them. All public comments in 

response to this ANPR must be in 

writing and will be a matter of public 

record, and will be available for public 

inspection and copying on the BIS 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

Reading Room at http://

efoia.bis.doc.gov/index.php/electronicfoia/index-of-documents. 

Dated: May 13, 2015. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12296 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1201 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2012–0049] 

Safety Standard for Architectural 

Glazing Materials 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is proposing an amendment to the 

Safety Standard for Architectural 

Glazing Materials (16 CFR part 1201) to 

clarify certain test procedures specified 

in the standard. The CPSC proposes to 

replace the testing procedures for 

glazing materials in certain architectural 

products, set forth in 16 CFR 1201.4, 

with the testing procedures contained in 

the voluntary standard, ANSI Z97.1– 

2009ε2, American National Standard for 

Safety Glazing Materials Used in 

Buildings—Safety Performance 

Specifications and Methods of Test. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by July 21, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2012– 

0049, 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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–2012–0049, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Baker, Project Manager, Division 

of Mechanical Engineering, Directorate 

for Laboratory Sciences, Office of 

Hazard Identification and Reduction, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 

telephone: 301–987–2289; 

bbaker@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Safety Standard for Architectural 

Glazing Materials 

On January 6, 1977 (42 FR 1427), as 

amended on June 20, 1977 (42 FR 

31164), the Commission issued the 

Safety Standard for Architectural 

Glazing Materials under the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) to reduce 

or eliminate risks of injuries associated 

with walking, running, or falling 

through or against glazing materials 

(‘‘CPSC standard’’). The standard 

applies to glazing materials used or 

intended for use in any of the following 

architectural products: 

(1) Storm doors or combination doors; 

(2) Doors (both exterior and interior); 

(3) Bathtub doors and enclosures; 

(4) Shower doors and enclosures; and 

(5) Sliding glass doors (patio-type). 

The standard applies to glazing 

materials and architectural products 

incorporating glazing materials that are 

produced or distributed for sale to or for 

the personal use, consumption or 

enjoyment of consumers in or around a 

permanent or temporary household or 

residence or in recreational, school, 

public, or other buildings or parts 

thereof. The standard was codified at 16 

CFR part 1201. 

The standard exempts the following 

products, materials, and uses: 

(1) Wired glass used in doors or other 

assemblies to retard the passage of fire 

where required by federal, state, local, 

or municipal fire ordinance; 

(2) Louvers of jalousie doors; 

(3) Openings of doors which a 3 inch 

diameter sphere is unable to pass; 

(4) Carved glass (as defined in section 

1201.2(a)(36)), dalle glass (as defined in 

§ 1201.2(a)(37)), or leaded glass (as 

defined in section 1201.2(a)(14)), which 

is used in doors and glazed panels (as 

defined in sections 1201.2(a)(7) and 

(a)(10)) if the glazing material meets all 

of the following criteria: 

(i) The coloring, texturing, or other 

design qualities or components of the 

glazing material cannot be removed 

without destroying the material; and 

(ii) The primary purpose of such 

glazing is decorative or artistic; and 

(iii) The glazing material is 

conspicuously colored or textured so as 

to be plainly visible and plainly 

identifiable as aesthetic or decorative 

rather than functional (other than for the 

purpose of admitting or controlling 

admission of light components or heat 

and cold); and 

(iv) The glazing material, or assembly 

into which it is incorporated, is divided 

into segments by conspicuous and 

plainly visible lines. 

(5) Glazing materials used as curved 

glazed panels in revolving doors; and 

(6) Commercial refrigerator cabinet 

glazed doors. 16 CFR 1201.1(c). 

On September 27, 1978, (43 FR 

43704), the Commission amended the 

standard to clarify the definitions, 

description of test apparatus, and test 

procedures in the standard. The 

Commission stated that under the 

CPSA, when an amendment to a 

consumer product safety rule involves a 

material change, the procedures in 

section 7 and 9 apply. 15 U.S.C. 

2058(h). The Commission determined, 

however, that the amendments to the 

definitions, test apparatus, and test 

procedures did not involve a material 

change to the standard because they did 

not affect the basic purpose and 

provisions of the standard. (42 FR 

53798, 53799 (Oct. 3, 1977); 43 FR 

43704 (Sept. 27, 1978.) Accordingly, the 

Commission did not apply the 

provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the 

CPSA. However, the Commission 

provided notice and comment under the 

informal rulemaking procedures of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), 

5 U.S.C. 553, before issuing a final rule. 

The Commission subsequently 

revoked portions of the standard that 

prescribed requirements for ‘‘glazed 

panels’’ (45 FR 67383, August 28, 1980); 

an accelerated environmental durability 

test for plastic glazing materials 

intended for outdoor exposure (45 

66002, October 6, 1980); and a modulus 

of elasticity test, a harness test, and an 

indoor aging test applicable to plastic 

glazing materials (47 FR 27853, June 28, 

1982). 16 CFR 1201.1(d) n.1. Tempered 

glass, wired glass, and annealed glass 

are also exempt from the accelerated 

environmental durability tests. 16 CFR 

1201.4(a)(2). 

The testing procedures currently set 

forth in 16 CFR 1201.4 require impact 

tests and accelerated environment 

durability tests for non-exempted 

materials, which are intended to 

determine if glazing materials used in 

these architectural products meet safety 

requirements designed to reduce or 

eliminate unreasonable risks of death or 

serious injury to consumers when 

glazing material is broken by human 

contact. The testing procedures further 

describe the testing equipment and 

apparatus required to be used, and the 

test result interpretation methodology to 

be employed in determining if the 

glazing materials being tested meet the 

safety requirements of the standard. 

B. Petition Request 

On June 26, 2012, the Commission 

received a petition from the Safety 

Glazing Certification Council (‘‘SGCC’’ 

or ‘‘petitioner’’), requesting that the 

Commission initiate rulemaking to 

replace the testing procedures for 

glazing materials in certain architectural 

products, as set forth in 16 CFR 1201.4, 

with the testing procedures contained in 

the voluntary standard, ANSI Z97.1– 

2009ε2, American National Standard for 

Safety Glazing Materials Used in 

Buildings—Safety Performance 

Specifications and Methods of Test (the 

ANSI standard). SGCC stated that 

consumers and the glazing industry 

would be better served if the test 

procedures for glazing materials used in 

architectural products set forth in 16 

CFR 1201.4 were replaced with the 

ANSI standard test procedures because 

the ANSI test procedures are more 

efficient and modern. The petitioner 

asserts that the testing procedures set 

forth in section 1201.4 were 

promulgated in 1977, and they have not 

been updated or clarified, as necessary. 

The petitioner stated that the ANSI 

standard for glazing materials has been 

updated periodically (in 1984, 1994, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29557 

1http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/ 

CommissionBriefingPackages/2013/ 

ArchitecturalGlazingPetitionBriefingPackage.pdf. 

2004, and 2009), unlike the CPSC 

standard, and that these updates include 

modifications in testing equipment and 

procedures. Petitioner asserted that the 

absence of updates to the CPSC standard 

during a period in which the ANSI 

standard was revised four times has 

resulted in different testing methods 

and qualifying procedures that have 

created confusion in the industry 

regarding which test methodology must 

be used in what circumstance. 

Petitioner claimed that the existence of 

overlapping but divergent CPSC and 

voluntary standards has resulted in 

manufacturers paying for duplicative 

testing. 

On August 30, 2012, notice of the 

petition was published in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 52625). The 

Commission received five comments, all 

supporting the petitioner’s request to 

amend the existing test procedures with 

the ANSI standard. The petition was 

referred to the Commission’s staff for 

evaluation. On April 3, 2013, CPSC staff 

submitted a briefing package to the 

Commission evaluating the petition, 

including the feasibility of integrating 

the test procedures of the ANSI standard 

into the CPSC standard.1 On April 9, 

2013, the Commission voted to grant the 

petition. 

On May 6, 2015, CPSC staff submitted 

a briefing package to the Commission 

recommending that the Commission 

issue a proposed amendment to 16 CFR 

1201.4 that would replace the testing 

procedures set forth in the CPSC 

mandatory standard for glazing 

materials in certain architectural 

products, with the testing procedures 

contained in the voluntary standard, 

ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2. The staff’s briefing 

package is available on the CPSC’s Web 

site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/ 

Newsroom/FOIA/ 

CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/ 

Proposed-Rule-to-Amend-the-SafetyStandard-for-Architectural-GlazingMaterial.pdf. 

C. Statutory Authority 

The proposed amendment to the 

CPSC standard would clarify certain test 

procedures specified in the mandatory 

standard. Under section 9 (h) of the 

CPSA, if an amendment of a consumer 

product safety rule ‘‘involves a material 

change,’’ 15 U.S.C. 2058(h), the 

Commission must make certain 

findings, including a finding that the 

amendment is ‘‘reasonably necessary to 

prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk 

of injury associated with such product’’; 

the expected benefits of the amended 

rule ‘‘bear a reasonable relationship to 

its costs’’; and the amended rule 

imposes ‘‘the least burdensome 

requirement which prevents or 

adequately reduces the risk of injury for 

which the rule is being promulgated.’’ 

Id. §§ 2056(a); 2058(a)–(g). If the 

amendment does not constitute ‘‘a 

material change’’ for purposes of section 

9(h) of the CPSA, the Commission is not 

required to make the findings that are 

otherwise required for the amendment 

of a consumer product safety rule. 

When the Commission previously 

amended the CPSC standard to clarify 

the definitions and the description of 

test apparatus and test procedures in the 

architectural glazing standard, the 

Commission determined that the 

amendments to the definitions, test 

apparatus, and test procedures did not 

involve a material change to the 

standard because the changes did not 

affect the basic purpose and provisions 

of the standard. (43 FR 43704, 

September 27, 1978). However, the 

Commission did not elaborate on what 

changes might affect the basic purpose 

of a standard. 

To assess what types of changes may 

result in a material change for the 

proposed amendment, the Commission 

looked to other statutory language for 

guidance. The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act (‘‘CPSIA’’) directed 

the Commission to establish protocols 

and standards to test children’s 

products for testing and certification 

purposes ‘‘when there has been a 

material change in the product’s design 

or manufacturing process.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2063(d)(2)(B). The Commission’s 

regulation implementing this provision 

defines ‘‘material change’’ as: ‘‘any 

change in the product’s design, 

manufacturing process or sourcing of 

component parts that . . . could affect 

a product’s ability to comply with the 

applicable rules, bans, standards or 

regulations.’’ 16 CFR 1107.2. This 

definition contemplates that certain 

changes would not be considered 

‘‘material’’ if changes are not significant 

enough to potentially impact the 

product’s ability to comply with 

applicable standards and regulations. 

The basis for the Commission’s 

findings in promulgating the standard 

for architectural glazing was that 

unreasonable risks of injury are 

associated with architectural glazing 

materials used in certain architectural 

glazing products. In assessing the 

question of whether unreasonable risks 

of injury or injury potential are 

associated with architectural glazing 

materials, the Commission balanced the 

degree, nature, and frequency of injury 

against the potential effect of the 

standard on the ability of architectural 

glazing materials to meet the need of the 

public and the effect of the standard on 

the cost, utility, and availability of 

architectural glazing materials to meet 

that need. 16 CFR 1201.1(d)(5). 

Consistent with this prior analysis, for 

the proposed amendment, the 

Commission has reviewed whether the 

proposed amendment would alter the 

original basic purpose of the rule 

addressing an unreasonable risk of 

injury associated with architectural 

glazing materials, including whether the 

proposed amendment would have an 

important or significant impact on the 

safety of consumers or on the burdens 

imposed on the regulated industry. In 

particular, to assess whether the basic 

purpose and provisions of the standard 

would be altered, the Commission 

compared the existing CPSC test 

procedures in the mandatory standard 

with the ANSI test procedures. The 

basic purpose of 16 CFR 1201.4 is to 

provide test procedures that will assess 

the safety of architectural glazing 

materials. The mandatory standard was 

promulgated to reduce or eliminate risks 

of injuries associated with walking, 

running, or falling through or against 

glazing materials in storm doors, doors 

(both exterior and interior), shower and 

bathtub doors and enclosures, and 

sliding or patio-type doors. The 

adoption of the ANSI test procedures 

will not alter that purpose. As discussed 

in section II below, the proposed 

amended testing procedures will clarify 

the existing test procedures and update 

references to current test methods. 

In addition, the Commission reviewed 

whether there would be an important or 

significant impact on the safety of 

consumers. As discussed in section IV 

below, CSPC staff’s review showed that 

almost all of the samples tested both to 

16 CFR 1201.1 and the ANSI standard 

passed both standards; only a small 

number of samples tested (5 out of more 

than 3,500) failed the CPSC standard 

testing, but passed when tested to the 

voluntary standard. Thus, the proposed 

amendment is unlikely to have an 

important or significant impact on the 

safety of consumers because testing to 

either standard provided consistent and 

comparable test results. 

The Commission also reviewed 

whether there would be any important 

or significant impact on the burdens 

imposed on the regulated industry. As 

discussed in section V below, CPSC 

staff’s review showed existing 

widespread compliance with the ANSI 

standard. Therefore, the data did not 

show that adoption of the ANSI test 

procedures would impose any 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

additional burdens on the regulated 

industry. In fact, a slight reduction in 

the burdens imposed on the regulated 

industry is likely because the proposed 

amendment would reduce confusion in 

the industry regarding applicable test 

procedures. Moreover, adoption of the 

ANSI test procedures likely will make 

testing of the architectural glazing 

materials more efficient, less costly, and 

reduce redundant testing for 

manufacturers who currently comply 

with the ANSI standard, as well as the 

CPSC mandatory standard. 

Accordingly, as provided under 

section 9(h) of the CPSA, the 

Commission believes that the proposed 

amendment replacing the test 

procedures specified in the CPSC 

mandatory standard with the test 

procedures in the ANSI standard would 

not involve a material change requiring 

the procedures under sections 7 and 9 

of the CPSA. However, because the 

proposed amendment would make 

revisions to an existing standard, the 

Commission is providing notice and 

comment under the informal 

rulemaking procedures of the APA, 5 

U.S.C. 553, before issuing a final rule. 

II. The Proposed Amendment 

A. No Change in Scope 

The proposed amendment would 

replace the test procedures in the CPSC 

standard at 16 CFR 1201.4 with the 

ANSI test procedures. The ANSI 

standard covers certain products, 

materials, and uses that are exempt from 

the CPSC standard. The proposed 

amendment would not change the scope 

of products, materials, or uses covered 

by the CPSC standard. 

The CPSC standard currently 

exempts: Wired glass used in doors or 

other assemblies to retard the passage of 

fire where required by federal, state, 

local, or municipal fire ordinance; 

louvers of jalousie doors; openings of 

doors which a 3 inch diameter sphere is 

unable to pass; carved glass, dalle glass, 

or leaded glass; glazing materials used 

as curved glazed panels in revolving 

doors; and commercial refrigerator 

cabinet glazed doors. 16 CFR 1201.1(c). 

In addition, the test procedures at 16 

CFR 1201.4(a)(2) do not provide for 

accelerated environmental durability 

testing of plastic glazing materials 

because those tests were removed from 

16 CFR part 1201 by the Commission in 

the early 1980s. (45 FR 66002, October 

6, 1980). Moreover, tempered glass, 

wired glass, and annealed glass are not 

required to be subjected to the 

accelerated environmental durability 

tests. Id. at § 1201.4(a)(2). 

In contrast, the ANSI standard does 

not exempt any specific glazing 

materials. The ANSI testing procedures 

include testing for materials and 

products that are not covered by the 

CPSC standard: Plastic glazing and fireresistant wire-glass. Accordingly, the 

ANSI standard includes tests for certain 

items, such as fire-resistant wired glass 

and accelerated environmental 

durability testing for plastic glazing, 

which are otherwise exempt from the 

CPSC standard. Although the ANSI 

standard does not specifically exempt 

tempered glass, wired glass, and 

annealed glass from the accelerated 

environmental durability tests, the ANSI 

standard only requires plastic glazing 

and organic coated glass to be subjected 

to the accelerated environmental 

durability test. Tests in the ANSI 

standard that apply to materials, 

products, or uses that are exempt from 

the CPSC standard would not be 

included in the proposed amendment. 

In the proposed amendment, the 

Commission does not propose to alter 

the scope or exemptions provided in the 

CPSC standard; materials that are 

exempt from 16 CFR part 1201 would 

continue to be exempt, and those 

exempt materials would not be subject 

to the ANSI test procedures. The 

proposed amendment, however, would 

adopt the ANSI standard for the 

remaining test procedures in the CPSC 

standard. 

B. Test Procedures for Glazing Materials 

The proposed amendment replacing 

the CPSC test procedures in 16 CFR 

1201.4 with the ANSI test procedures 

will clarify the existing test procedures 

and update references to current test 

methods. 

1. Obsolete References Will Be Replaced 

With Updated Test Methods 

Currently, 16 CFR 1201.4(b)(3)(ii) 

refers to obsolete ASTM standard 

practices and equipment, which have 

been replaced in the ANSI standard 

(5.4.1.1, 5.4.1.2). For example, the 

simulated weathering test in the CPSC 

standard references two outdated ASTM 

standards: 

• ASTM G26–70—Practice for 

Operating Light Exposure Apparatus 

(Xenon-Arc Type) With and Without 

Water for Exposure of Nonmetallic 

Materials, was withdrawn by ASTM in 

2000, and replaced with ASTM G155— 

Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light 

Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic 

Materials. 

• The obsolete 1970 edition of ASTM 

D2565–70—Practice for Xenon-Arc 

Exposure of Plastics Intended for 

Outdoor Applications, has been revised 

over the years; its current edition is 

ASTM D2565–99 (2008). 

For manufacturers who test to both 

the 16 CFR 1201.4 and the ANSI 

standard, using these withdrawn and 

obsolete versions of current standards 

can result in increased costs and 

duplication of testing if manufacturers 

are required to test to the earlier 

versions of these editions to meet the 

regulation and also test to the current 

versions of these standard practice test 

procedures to meet the voluntary 

standard. Furthermore, the old 

standards referenced in 16 CFR 

1201.4(b)(3)(ii) require obsolete test 

equipment that is currently not 

manufactured. By replacing the CPSC 

testing procedures with the updated 

references in the ANSI standard, the 

proposed amendment would allow the 

use of currently manufactured test 

equipment rather than the obsolete and 

outdated equipment referenced in 

section 1201.4(b)(3)(ii). The updated 

references would not involve a material 

change to the standard because 

changing these references to reflect 

current test methods would not alter the 

basic purpose of the CPSC standard. 

2. The ANSI Impact Tests Are Similar 

to the Impact Tests in Section 1201.4(b) 

Although ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 has 

been modified several times since the 

CPSC standard was published, the 

impact tests of 16 CFR 1201.4(b) and 

ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 (5) are similar. The 

CPSC standard shows drawings of a 

Glass Impact Test Structure (Figures 1– 

5) that is similar to the drawing of the 

Impact Test Frame drawing in ANSI 

Z97.1–2009ε2 (Figures 1–7), except for 

differences in the descriptive terms used 

for naming the parts of the test 

apparatus, i.e., Main Frame and SubFrame in ANSI Z97.1–2009,ε2 versus 16 

CFR 1201.4’s Impact Test Structure and 

Test Specimen Mounting Frame. ANSI 

Z97.1–2009ε2 provides enlarged 

drawings of the Impact Test Frame. 

Overall, the Glass Impact Test Structure 

of 16 CFR 1201.4 appears to be of 

similar construction to the ANSI Z97.1– 

2009ε2 Impact Test Frame, except that 

ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 provides clearer 

assembly drawings. 

The ANSI drawings are larger and 

clearer to use, which would benefit 

manufacturers. In addition, if the ANSI 

impact test procedures were adopted, 

manufacturers who currently test to 

both the CPSC standard and ANSI 

standard could avoid duplicative testing 

because the manufacturers would not 

need to conduct impact tests for both 

the CPSC standard and the ANSI 

standard. The proposed amendment 

adopting the ANSI test procedures 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29559 

would not involve a material change to 

the standard because the ANSI impact 

tests are comparable to the CPSC impact 

tests, but clearer construction drawings 

are provided in the ANSI standard. 

3. The ANSI Test Procedures Clarify 

Specimen Categories, Methodology, and 

Quantity 

The CPSC standard provides two 

impact categories, 150 foot-pound 

impact test (Category I) and 400 footpound impact test (Category II). 16 CFR 

1201.4(d). The ANSI standard provides 

three impact categories (5.1.2.1): A 400 

foot-pound impact test (Class A); a 150 

foot-pound impact test (Class B); and a 

100 foot-pound impact test (Class C) for 

fire-resistant wired glass. The proposed 

amendment would not result in a 

material change because the impact 

categories in the CPSC standard would 

remain the same and still include the 

150 foot-pound impact test and 400 

foot-pound impact test. The 100 footpound test in the ANSI standard only 

applies to fire-resistant wired glass, a 

product that is exempt from the CPSC 

standard. The Commission is not 

proposing to change the scope of the 

materials covered by the CPSC standard. 

Thus, manufacturers would not be 

required to follow the ANSI standard 

100 foot-pound impact test (Class C) for 

fire-resistant wired glass because these 

materials remain exempt under the 

proposed amendment. 

Both 16 CFR 1201.4(e)(1) and ANSI 

Z97.1–2009ε2 (5.1.4 (1)) permit using a 

3-inch diameter steel sphere for 

evaluating any hole remaining in an 

impact tested specimen after the impact 

test for flat specimens. However, the 

standards differ because the CPSC 

standard requires that the specimen be 

evaluated in a horizontal position after 

the vertical test is completed. ANSI 

Z97.1–2009ε2 requires that the impacted 

specimen remain in the vertical, upright 

as-impact tested position while being 

evaluated with the 3-inch diameter steel 

sphere. Adopting the ANSI test 

procedure does not constitute a material 

change in the test method because the 

basic purpose of the requirement is not 

altered; rather, the test procedure is 

clarified. Leaving the specimen in the 

vertical position makes it less likely that 

gravity or human error will contribute to 

the potential failure of a product. 

In addition, the requirements for size 

classification of impact specimens at 16 

CFR 1201.4(c)(2) does not specify the 

number of specimens to be impact 

tested; rather, the standard requires only 

that the largest size and each thickness 

offered by the manufacturer are to be 

tested. However, ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2

(4.4) requires that four specimens of 

each size and thickness are to be impact 

tested. Specifying the number of 

specimens to be tested would not 

involve a material change to the 

standard because the proposed 

amendment would not alter the basic 

purpose of the requirement; rather, the 

ANSI test method would clarify the 

number of specimens to be tested, 

which would help reduce confusion on 

the number of specimens to be tested 

and provide a clearer test for 

manufacturers. 

4. The ANSI Test Procedures Clarify 

Procedures for Evaluating Tempered 

Glass Specimens 

ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 (5.2) has more 

specific procedures for evaluating 

tempered glass specimens than 16 CFR 

1201.4(d). The ANSI standard specifies 

a procedure to evaluate tempered glass 

specimens that did not fracture as a 

result of the 400 foot-pound Class A 

impact test. In the CPSC standard, 

fragmented pieces of glass were 

evaluated, by size and weight, only if 

the specimen failed the impact test. The 

ANSI standard requires that all samples 

that have been impacted be subjected to 

a ‘‘Center Punch Fragmentation Test,’’ 

which requires purposely fracturing the 

unbroken impact-tested tempered glass 

specimen with a center punch and 

hammer. In both cases, the fractured 

pieces of the tempered glass specimen 

are evaluated by weighing the 10 largest 

fragments. A tempered glass specimen is 

considered to conform to both the CPSC 

standard and ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 as 

acceptable for use as safety glazing, if 

the 10 largest fragments weigh no more 

than the equivalent of 10 in2 of the 

original unbroken specimen; however, 

ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 requires that the 

pieces selected be no longer than 4 

inches in length. Adopting the ANSI test 

procedures for evaluating tempered 

glass would not alter the basic purpose 

of the CPSC standard; rather, the ANSI 

Center Punch Fragmentation Test 

provides a more accurate and efficient 

way of measuring potential failures, 

which would further clarify the impact 

test for tempered glass for 

manufacturers. 

5. Other Provisions 

There are other testing procedures in 

the CPSC standard and the ANSI 

standard that are similar. Both standards 

have a boil test for laminated glass and 

similar requirements for testing for 

failure (1201.4(c)(3)(i); ANSI Z97.1– 

2009ε2 (5.3)). Both standards provide for 

accelerated environmental durability 

testing for organic coated glass 

(1201.4(d)(2)(B); ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2

(5.4)); adhesion tests for organic coated 

glass (1201.4(e)(ii)(B)(1); ANSI Z97.1– 

2009ε2 (5.4.2.2.1)); tensile strength tests 

for organic coated glass 

(1201.4(e)(ii)(B)(2); ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2

(5.4.2.2.2)); and impact testing of 

organic coated glazing materials for 

indoor service (1201.4(c)(3)(iii); ANSI 

Z97.1–2009ε2 (5.4.3)). The similarities in 

the testing procedures between the two 

standards further support the adoption 

of the proposed ANSI testing 

procedures. The proposed amendment 

would not result in a material change 

because the tests are comparable; 

however, manufacturers who currently 

test to both the CPSC standard and 

ANSI standard could reduce confusion 

regarding which standard to follow, and 

avoid duplicative testing, if the 

Commission specified the use of the 

ANSI test procedures. 

III. Injury Information 

CPSC Staff reviewed the Injury and 

Potential Injury Incident (IPII), In-Depth 

Investigation IDI), and Death Certificate 

databases for injuries reported to the 

Commission and identified 430 

incidents for the period from 1978 to 

2014. Since 1978, 98 architectural 

glazing-related fatalities were reported 

to the CPSC. Shower doors and 

enclosures accounted for 64 percent of 

the injuries and deaths. Glass or partial 

glass storm doors accounted for 15 

percent of the reported injuries and 

deaths, and ‘‘sliding glass’’ doors or 

doors only specified as ‘‘glass doors’’ 

accounted for 8 percent each of the 

reported injuries and deaths. At least 

two of the incidents involved wired 

glass, which is exempt from the CPSC 

standard. 

In addition to reviewing the CPSC 

databases, CSPC staff also identified 

9,942 cases that occurred during the 

period from 1991 through 2013, which 

involved injuries from architectural 

glazing products treated in the 

emergency departments of CPSC’s 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (‘‘NEISS’’) member hospitals. 

Staff determined that due to design 

changes within NEISS, estimates made 

before 1991 are not comparable. Based 

on these cases, staff computed a 

national estimate of 420,000 emergency 

department-treated injuries, with a 

coefficient of variance of 0.0648 percent. 

The 95 percent confidence interval for 

this estimate is 366,000 to 473,000. 

Ninety-six percent of the cases during 

the 1992 to 2013 period, which were 

reviewed by staff, involved lacerations. 

During this 20-year time period, the 

estimated number of emergency 

department-treated architectural glazing 

breakage incidents has declined. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Injury severity ranged from minor 

lacerations, abrasions, and contusions, 

to more severe laceration, puncture, and 

penetration injuries. The body part most 

often involved in these incidents was 

the arm (46.8%), followed by hand 

(30.1%), and head (8.6%). The incidents 

captured in NEISS suggest that the most 

severe injuries (i.e., injuries that 

necessitated transfer to another hospital 

or admission to the hospital where 

emergency room treatment was 

provided) represented approximately 5 

percent of the total. Lacerations are the 

most common hazard associated with 

glazing failures, and can range from 

superficial to extreme in their severity. 

Severe injuries often require surgery and 

rehabilitation, which may result in the 

loss of motion, loss of sensation, or 

permanent disfigurement. 

Although many incident reports 

lacked detailed information about the 

injury, a review of the incidents from 

the CPSC databases suggests that many 

of the injuries and deaths resulted from 

products that did not meet the CPSC 

standard; the deep laceration injuries 

and puncture and penetration wounds 

reported in these incidents, some of 

which were fatal, most likely resulted 

from large glass fragments from broken 

pieces of non-safety glass. 

IV. Impact on Consumer Safety 

To assess the potential effect of the 

proposed amendment on consumer 

safety, in January 2014, CPSC staff 

collected information on sample data 

from 16 SGCC-approved testing 

laboratories to assess the relative 

compliance of architectural glazing 

companies with 16 CFR 1201.4 and the 

ANSI standard. The 16 laboratories 

represented approximately 70 percent of 

the third party testing laboratories 

responsible for testing architectural 

glazing products. Specifically, the 

companies were asked if specimens that 

pass 16 CFR 1201.4 were ever 

noncompliant with ANSI standard, and 

if so, the frequency of such occurrence. 

Ninety percent of all responses stated 

that there had never been an instance in 

which a specimen that complied with 

the ANSI standard did not also comply 

with the requirements of 16 CFR 1201.4. 

These data indicate that replacing the 

CPSC standard testing procedures with 

the testing procedures in the ANSI 

standard would not have an important 

or significant impact on consumer safety 

because only a small number of samples 

tested (5 out of more than 3,500) failed 

the CPSC standard testing, but passed 

when tested to the voluntary standard. 

Accordingly, the data show that testing 

to either standard provides consistent 

testing results, and adopting the ANSI 

standard would not significantly affect 

the testing results. 

V. Burdens on Industry Generally 

As discussed in section II, replacing 

the test procedures in 16 CFR 1201.4 

with the ANSI standard test procedures 

will make product testing more efficient 

and avoid potentially redundant tests 

for manufacturers who currently comply 

with the voluntary and the CPSC 

standard. Moreover, there is already 

substantial compliance with the ANSI 

standard. 

CPSC staff’s review showed that there 

are about 250 manufacturers of 

architectural glazing materials and 

roughly 2,500 glazing material products 

certified annually. SGCC manages the 

certification testing for about 70 percent 

of the market. The remaining 

manufacturers conduct in-house testing 

or they contract testing through labs 

outside of SGCC. All but a small 

proportion of these manufacturers 

currently test to both the CPSC 

mandatory standard and the ANSI 

voluntary standard. 

Most manufacturers in the 

architectural glazing industry certify 

their products to ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2

and 16 CFR part 1201. Of the products 

certified through SGCC, 99 percent or 

1,855 products were certified to both 

ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 and 16 CFR part 

1201. Only 12 products (0.6%) were 

certified solely to ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2; 

seven products (0.4%) were certified 

solely to 16 CFR part 1201. CPSC staff’s 

review of manufacturers from the Glass 

Association of North America 

(‘‘GANA’’), which consists of members 

that both do and do not participate in 

the SGCC program, indicated that of the 

35 manufacturers that test their 

products outside of SGCC and provided 

certification information, 32 

manufacturers certified to both 

standards, and only three manufacturers 

listed certification to just 16 CFR part 

1201. 

Based on CPSC staff’s review, if the 

ANSI standard test procedures were 

adopted, the proposed amendment 

would not have an important or 

significant impact on the burdens 

imposed on the regulated industry. 

Almost all of the manufacturers already 

certify to the ANSI standard. 

Manufacturers currently testing to both 

the ANSI standard and the CPSC 

standard will probably experience a 

decrease in testing and certification 

costs because they would only need to 

follow one testing protocol to be 

certified to both standards. This reduces 

the number of samples that a 

manufacturer needs to fabricate for 

testing, which will directly reduce 

certification costs. In addition, for 

manufacturers who contract out their 

testing, shipping costs will be reduced, 

due to the smaller number of samples 

shipped. SGCC estimates that its 

customers each would save an average 

of $1,284 per product tested annually. 

Thus, the proposed amendment likely 

would lessen the impact on the burdens 

imposed on industry to meet the 

requirements of the CPSC standard. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) requires that proposed rules be 

reviewed for the potential economic 

impact on small entities, including 

small businesses. 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

Section 603 of the RFA requires 

agencies to prepare and make available 

for public comment an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’), describing the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

identifying impact-reducing 

alternatives. The requirement to prepare 

an IRFA does not apply if the agency 

certifies that the rulemaking will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Id. 605. Because the Commission 

expects that the economic effect on all 

entities will be minimal, the 

Commission certifies that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Would Apply 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) guidelines 

categorize manufacturers of flat glass as 

‘‘small’’ if they have fewer than 1,000 

employees; and they categorize 

manufacturers of products made with 

purchased glass as ‘‘small’’ if they have 

fewer than 500 employees. In cases 

where firms fall under both categories, 

the size standard for flat glass 

manufacturers is applied to classify the 

firm. Based upon these criteria, the 

number of small manufacturers and 

importers identified in the architectural 

glazing market is 104, including 10 

firms of undetermined size. Of the 104 

small manufacturers known to produce 

architectural glass, 84 certify their 

products through the SGCC and 20 

certify their products through other inhouse testing, or they contract the 

testing. 

The expected impact of the proposed 

rule is to reduce the costs of 

certification for most manufacturers. 

The 102 of 104 small manufacturers 

currently testing to both the ANSI 

standard and the CPSC standard also 

will probably experience a decrease in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29561 

testing and certification costs because 

they would only need to follow one 

testing protocol to be certified to both 

standards. This reduces the number of 

samples a manufacturer needs to 

fabricate for testing, thus directly 

reducing certification costs. In addition, 

for manufacturers who contract out their 

testing, shipping costs will be reduced, 

due to the smaller number of samples 

shipped. 

SGCC estimates that its customers 

would each save an average of $1,284 

per product tested annually. Two 

manufacturers outside SGCC’s 

membership who currently test to both 

standards will also likely see cost 

savings. However, if these two 

manufacturers currently conduct their 

testing in-house, they do not incur the 

costs of shipping samples to SGCC; 

thus, the cost savings will be limited to 

the savings from fabricating fewer 

testing samples. 

One of the two small domestic 

manufacturers that does not certify to 

both standards is listed under SGCC’s 

certified products directory and tests 

products only to 16 CFR part 1201. 

SGCC’s fees are structured so that 

testing to ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2 and 16 

CFR part 1201 currently cost the 

manufacturer the same. Thus, this 

manufacturer should not experience an 

increase in testing fees from aligning 16 

CFR 1201.4’s testing protocol with ANSI 

Z97.1–2009 2. However, there will 

probably be an increase in cost 

associated with the shipping and 

fabrication of the higher number of 

CPSC samples required to be tested 

under ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2. 

Of those small manufacturers 

identified outside of SGCC, only one 

was found to have products tested only 

to 16 CFR 1201.4, according to 

certification information readily 

available. This small manufacturer 

contracts out to a lab for certification 

and the lab tests to both standards. 

Therefore, this small manufacturer 

should not incur any significant 

increase due to testing fees. However, 

this manufacturer could experience 

some increase in shipping and 

fabricating costs, as identified above. 

In summary, 102 of 104 small 

architectural glazing producers (or about 

98 percent of the small producers) 

would experience some slight cost 

savings, or no impact, due to the 

proposed amendment. Consequently, 

the Commission certifies that the 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the RFA. 

VII. Environmental Considerations 

Generally, the Commission’s 

regulations are considered to have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment, and environmental 

assessments and impact statements are 

not usually required. See 16 CFR 

1021.5(a). The proposed rule is not 

expected to have an adverse impact on 

the environment and is considered to 

fall within the ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR 

1021.5(c). However, the proposed rule 

will decrease the number of samples 

that most manufacturers are required to 

test, and will likely lead to a small, 

beneficial effect on the environment 

because waste produced by the 

manufacture of excess samples, and the 

transport of those samples, will be 

reduced. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Currently, there is no paperwork 

collection burden associated with 16 

CFR part 1201, and the proposed 

amendment to the regulation does not 

create any new paperwork collection 

burdens. Thus, no paperwork burden is 

associated with the proposed rule, and 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) does not apply. 

IX. Executive Order 12988 (Preemption) 

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that when a consumer 

product safety standard under this Act 

is in effect and applies to a risk of injury 

associated with a consumer product, no 

state or political subdivision of a state 

may either establish or continue in 

effect any provision of a safety standard 

or regulation which prescribes any 

requirements as to the performance, 

composition, contents, design, finish, 

construction, packaging, or labeling of 

such product, which are designed to 

deal with the same risk of injury 

associated with such consumer product, 

unless such requirements are identical 

to the requirements of the federal 

standard. Section 9(h) of the CPSA 

provides that the Commission may by 

rule amend any consumer product 

safety rule. Therefore, the preemption 

provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA 

would apply to any rule issued under 

section 9(h). 

X. Effective Date 

The APA generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of a final rule. 5 

U.S.C. 553(d). Accordingly, if a final 

rule is issued, the amendment will go 

into effect 30 days after publication of 

a final rule. 

XI. Incorporation by Reference 

The Commission proposes to 

incorporate by reference ANSI Z97.1– 

2009ε2. The Office of the Federal 

Register (‘‘OFR’’) has regulations 

concerning incorporation by reference. 1 

CFR part 51. The OFR recently revised 

these regulations to require that, for a 

proposed rule, agencies must discuss in 

the preamble to the NPR, ways that the 

materials that the agency proposes to 

incorporate by reference are reasonably 

available to interested persons, or how 

the agency worked to make the 

materials reasonably available. In 

addition, the preamble to the proposed 

rule must summarize the material. 1 

CFR 51.5(a). 

In accordance with the OFR’s 

requirements, section II of this preamble 

summarizes the ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2

standard that the Commission proposes 

to incorporate by reference into 16 CFR 

part 1201. Interested persons may 

purchase a copy of ANSI Z97.1–2009ε2

from the following address. Attn: ANSI 

Customer Service Department, 25 W 

43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 

10036. The standard is also available for 

purchase from ANSI’s Web site: http:// 

webstore.ansi.org/

RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI+Z97.1- 

2009. A copy of the standard can also 

be inspected at CPSC’s Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923. 

XII. Request for Comments 

The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit their comments to the 

Commission on any aspect of the 

proposed amendment. Comments 

should be submitted as provided in the 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1201 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Consumer protection, 

Imports, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Incorporation by reference. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR 

part 1201 as follows: 

PART 1201—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING 

MATERIALS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 2, 3, 7, 9, 14, 19. Pub.L. 

92–573, 86 Stat. 1212–17; (15 U.S.C. 2051, 

2052, 2056, 2058, 2063, 2068). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 16 U.S.C. 803(e)(1) (2012). 

2 42 U.S.C. 7178 (2012). 

3 18 CFR 11.1 (2014). 

4 Id. (c)(5). 

5We use the term ‘‘relicense’’ to refer to any new 

or subsequent license. 

6 18 CFR 11.1(c)(5) (2014). We refer to the 

addition of capacity and a reduction of capacity (on 

occasion, capacity is reduced as a result of 

construction, in which case annual charges are 

lowered) as ‘‘new capacity.’’ 

7Licensees or exemptees that are state or 

municipal entities are already not assessed annual 

§ 1201.4 [Amended] 

■ 2. Revise § 1201.4 to read as follows: 

(a) Except as provided in § 1201.1(c) 

and (d), architectural glazing products 

shall be tested in accordance with all of 

the applicable test provisions of ANSI 

Z97.1–2009ε2 ‘‘American National 

Standard for Safety Glazing Materials 

Used in Building—Safety Performance 

Specifications and Methods of Test.’’ 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approves the incorporation by reference 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ANSI Customer Service 

Department, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th 

Floor, New York NY, 10036. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

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

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

(b) [Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove Figures 1 through 5 to 

Subpart A of Part 1201. 

Dated: May 19, 2015. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12438 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 11 

[Docket No. RM15–18–000] 

Commencement of Assessment of 

Annual Charges 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

proposes to revise its regulations 

regarding when the Commission will 

commence assessing annual charges to 

hydropower licensees and exemptees, 

other than state or municipal entities, 

with respect to licenses and exemptions 

authorizing unconstructed projects and 

new capacity. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to commence 

assessing annual charges two years from 

the effective date of the project license, 

exemption, or amendment authorizing 

new capacity, rather than on the date 

that project construction starts. The 

proposed revisions will provide 

administrative efficiency and promote 

certainty among licensees, exemptees, 

and Commission staff as to when annual 

charges will commence. 

DATES: Comments are due July 21, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed in the 

following ways: 

• Electronic filing through http://

www.ferc.gov. Documents created 

electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native 

applications or print-to-PDF format, 

rather than in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery. Those unable 

to file electronically may mail or handdeliver comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

for submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Comment Procedures section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tara DiJohn (Legal Information), Office 

of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8671, tara.dijohn@

ferc.gov. 

Norman Richardson (Technical 

Information), Office of the Executive 

Director, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6219, norman.richardson@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph 

Number 

I. Background .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1. 

II. Proposed Revisions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8. 

III. Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................................................................................. 13. 

A. Information Collection Statement ............................................................................................................................................. 13. 

B. Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 14. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act .......................................................................................................................................................... 15. 

D. Comment Procedures ................................................................................................................................................................. 20. 

E. Document Availability ................................................................................................................................................................ 24. 

I. Background 

1. Section 10(e)(1) of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA),1 and section 3401 of 

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1986,2 require the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

to, among other things, collect annual 

charges from licensees in order to 

reimburse the United States for the costs 

of administering Part I of the FPA. The 

Commission assesses these annual 

charges against licensees and exemptees 

of projects with more than 1.5 

megawatts (MW) of installed capacity 

under section 11.1 of its regulations.3

2. Currently, the Commission begins 

assessing these annual charges against 

licensees and exemptees with original 

licenses or exemptions authorizing 

unconstructed projects on the date 

project construction starts.4 The 

Commission also begins assessing 

annual charges for new capacity, 

authorized by a relicense 5 or an 

amendment of a license or exemption, 

on the date that the construction to 

enable such capacity starts.6 Because 

this proposed rule affects only projects 

with respect to which annual charges 

are assessed when project construction 

starts, we will not further discuss state 

or municipal projects, projects that do 

not have installed capacity that exceeds 

1.5 MW, or constructed projects without 

newly authorized capacity.7


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS