72944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Meridian, MS, Key Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 

19, Orig-A 

Garrison, ND, Garrison Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Stanley, ND, Stanley Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Broken Bow, NE, Broken Bow, Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 

Harvard, NE, Harvard State, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 35, Orig 

Harvard, NE, Harvard State, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Harvard, NE, Harvard State, VOR/DME 

RNAV OR GPS RWY 35, Orig, 

CANCELLED 

Schribner, NE, Schribner State, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Portland, OR, Portland Intl, VOR–A, Amdt 10 

Beaufort, SC, Beaufort County, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 25, Amdt 2 

Rapid City, SD, Rapid City Rgnl, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 32, Amdt 19 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, 

Amdt 33 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 25, 

Amdt 1 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, LOC/DME RWY 20, 

Amdt 1 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, NDB RWY 2, Amdt 6 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, NDB RWY 20, Amdt 5 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, 

Amdt 1 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, 

Amdt 3 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, 

Amdt 2 

Newport News, VA, Newport News/ 

Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, 

Amdt 2 

Norfolk, VA, Hampton Roads Executive, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1 

Norfolk, VA, Hampton Roads Executive, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig, CANCELLED 

Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/ 

McAllister Field, Takeoff Minimums and 

Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 

Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/ 

McAllister Field, ZILLA TWO Graphic 

Obstacle DP 

Huntington, WV, Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson 

Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 

Amdt 1 

[FR Doc. 2010–29411 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0085] 

16 CFR Parts 1632 and 1633 

Third Party Testing for Certain 

Children’s Products; Mattresses, 

Mattress Pads, and/or Mattress Sets: 

Revisions to Terms of Acceptance of 

Children’s Product Certifications 

Based on Third Party Conformity 

Assessment Body Testing Prior to 

Commission’s Acceptance of 

Accreditation 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of requirements; revision 

of retrospective testing terms. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is issuing a notice amending the 

terms under which it will accept 

certifications for children’s products 

based on third party conformity 

assessment body (laboratory) testing to 

the flammability regulations at 16 CFR 

parts 1632 and/or 1633 that occurred 

before the Commission’s acceptance of 

the accreditation of the third party 

conformity assessment body. We are 

taking this action in response to 

requests from certain mattress 

manufacturers to reduce unnecessary 

retesting of mattresses, mattress pads, 

and/or mattress sets that have already 

been tested and found to be in 

compliance with CPSC regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: The revision 

announced in this notice is effective 

November 29, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert ‘‘Jay’’ Howell, Assistant Executive 

Director for The Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; e-mail: rhowell@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSA, as 

added by section 102(a)(2) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110– 

314, directs the CPSC to publish a 

notice of requirements for accreditation 

of third party conformity assessment 

bodies to assess children’s products for 

conformity with ‘‘other children’s 

product safety rules.’’ Section 14(f)(1) of 

the CPSA defines ‘‘children’s product 

safety rule’’ as ‘‘a consumer product 

safety rule under [the CPSA] or similar 

rule, regulation, standard, or ban under 

any other Act enforced by the 

Commission, including a rule declaring 

a consumer product to be a banned 

hazardous product or substance.’’ Under 

section 14(a)(3)(A) of the CPSA, each 

manufacturer (including the importer) 

or private labeler of products subject to 

those regulations must have products 

that are manufactured more than 90 

days after the Commission has 

established and published notice of the 

requirements for accreditation tested by 

a third party conformity assessment 

body accredited to do so, and must issue 

a certificate of compliance with the 

applicable regulations based on that 

testing. Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, as 

added by section 102(a)(2) of the CPSIA, 

requires that certification be based on 

testing of sufficient samples of the 

product, or samples that are identical in 

all material respects to the product. The 

Commission also emphasizes that, 

irrespective of certification, the product 

in question must comply with 

applicable CPSC requirements (see, e.g., 

section 14(h) of the CPSA, as added by 

section 102(b) of the CPSIA). 

In the Federal Register of August 18, 

2010 (75 FR 51020), we published a 

notice of requirements providing the 

criteria and process for Commission 

acceptance of accreditation of third 

party conformity assessment bodies for 

testing pursuant to 16 CFR parts 1632, 

‘‘Standard for the Flammability of 

Mattresses and Mattress Pads (FF 4–72, 

amended),’’ and/or 1633, ‘‘Standard for 

the Flammability (Open Flame) of 

Mattress Sets,’’ which set minimum 

standards for flammability of mattresses, 

mattress pads, and/or mattress sets 

under the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 

U.S.C. 1191 et seq.) (FFA). The notice of 

requirements stated that the publication 

had the effect of lifting the stay of 

enforcement with regard to testing and 

certification of children’s products 

under 16 CFR parts 1632 and/or 1633, 

such that each manufacturer of such a 

product must have any such product 

manufactured after November 16, 2010, 

tested by a third party conformity 

assessment body accredited to do so, 

and must issue a certificate of 

compliance based on that testing (75 FR 

at 51021 through 51022). 

We addressed testing performed by a 

third party conformity assessment body 

prior to the Commission’s acceptance of 

its accreditation, or ‘‘retrospective’’ 

testing, in section IV of the notice of 

requirements. We stated that we would 

accept a certificate of compliance with 

the standard included in 16 CFR parts 

1632 and/or 1633, based on testing 

performed by an accredited third party 

conformity assessment body (including 

a government-owned or -controlled 

conformity assessment body, and a 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72945 

firewalled conformity assessment body), 

prior to the Commission’s acceptance of 

its accreditation if: 

• At the time of product testing, the 

product was tested by a third party 

conformity assessment body that was ISO/ 

IEC 17025 accredited by an ILAC–MRA 

member at the time of the test. For firewalled 

conformity assessment bodies, the firewalled 

conformity assessment body must be one that 

the Commission accredited by order at or 

before the time the product was tested, even 

though the order will not have included the 

test methods in the regulations specified in 

this notice. If the third party conformity 

assessment body has not been accredited by 

a Commission order as a firewalled 

conformity assessment body, the Commission 

will not accept a certificate of compliance 

based on testing performed by the third party 

conformity assessment body before it is 

accredited, by Commission order, as a 

firewalled conformity assessment body; 

• The third party conformity assessment 

body’s application for testing using the test 

methods in 16 CFR part 1632 and/or 1633 is 

accepted by the CPSC on or before October 

18, 2010; 

• The product was tested under 16 CFR 

part 1632 and/or 1633 on or after August 18, 

2010; 

• The accreditation scope in effect for the 

third party conformity assessment body at 

the time of testing expressly included testing 

to 16 CFR part 1632 and/or 1633; 

• The test results show compliance with 

the applicable current standards and/or 

regulations; and 

• The third party conformity assessment 

body’s accreditation, including inclusion in 

its scope of 16 CFR part 1632 and/or 1633, 

remains in effect through the effective date 

for mandatory third party testing and 

manufacturer certification for conformity 

with 16 CFR parts 1632 and/or 1633. 

75 FR at 51022. 

II. Requests for Revision 

In response to the notice of 

requirements, the International Sleep 

Products Association (ISPA) submitted a 

letter to the Commission arguing that 

the CPSIA’s third party testing 

requirements do not apply to part 1632 

or 1633. In the alternative, the ISPA 

urged that we adopt a longer 

implementation period for third party 

testing under 16 CFR part 1632, and to 

‘‘grandfather in all previously conducted 

1632 and 1633 testing performed by 

third party labs accredited by the CPSC, 

regardless of whether those tests 

occurred before or after August 18, 

2010.’’ (The ISPA letter may be viewed 

at http://www.regulations.gov in the 

docket folder for docket number CPSC– 

2010–0085.) The ISPA met with 

individual Commissioners and CPSC 

staff to discuss the requests on 

September 15, October 22, October 26, 

and November 9, 2010. Summaries of 

those meetings may be found at: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ 

meetings/meetings.html. 

With regard to the request for a longer 

implementation period for third party 

testing for 16 CFR part 1632, the ISPA 

requested an additional year ‘‘[f]or those 

prototype and ticking substitutes that 

were not tested by a third party lab and 

that are being used in children’s 

mattresses sold today * * * to allow 

manufacturers of children’s mattresses 

12 months to retest all of the applicable 

prototypes and ticking substitutes.’’ The 

ISPA presented two main arguments in 

support of this request. First, it noted 

that ‘‘using a third party to perform the 

required 1632 tests will involve 

substantial time and costs.’’ Second, it 

asserted that ‘‘changes in how 1632 tests 

are to be performed make it difficult to 

conduct those tests at this moment.’’ The 

standard for the flammability of 

mattresses and mattress pads at 16 CFR 

part 1632 sets forth a test to determine 

the ignition resistance of a mattress or 

mattress pad when exposed to a 

smoldering cigarette. Lighted cigarettes 

are placed at specified locations on the 

surface of a mattress (or mattress pad). 

The ignition source is specified in 16 

CFR part 1632 by physical properties 

that were originally selected to 

represent an unfiltered Pall Mall 

cigarette, but those cigarettes are no 

longer available. ISPA stated a concern 

that there may be substantial confusion 

about what ignition source will be 

required for part 1632 tests ‘‘[f]or at least 

the short term.’’ 

With regard to the request that we 

accept, for children’s product 

certification purposes, all tests pursuant 

to 16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633 

previously conducted by accredited 

third party laboratories, regardless of 

when the test occurred, the ISPA 

presented three main arguments, all of 

which focused on the testing conducted 

under 16 CFR part 1633. First, the ISPA 

noted that because the mattress 

flammability test required by 16 CFR 

part 1633 since 2007 is a complex, 

open-flame test that involves the 

destruction of a mattress, most 

manufacturers have been using third 

party laboratories for this testing. 

According to the ISPA, many of the 

laboratories that have done the testing 

since the standard was revised 

substantially in 2007 meet the baseline 

requirements for acceptance by the 

CPSC. Second, there have been no 

changes to the test method required 

under 16 CFR part 1633 since 2007. 

Third, the ISPA notes that testing under 

16 CFR part 1633 is expensive and timeconsuming. It argued that accepting 

only those third party tests of children’s 

mattresses under 16 CFR part 1633 that 

have occurred since August 18, 2010, 

would be ‘‘arbitrary and wasteful’’ 

because requiring the mattress industry 

to retest all mattress prototypes used in 

making children’s mattress sets ‘‘would 

take months to perform and cost the 

industry hundreds of thousands—if not 

millions—of dollars and would provide 

no discernable safety benefit.’’ 

Similarly, on November 2, 2010, the 

Commission received a letter from the 

Springs Creative Products Group, LLC, 

claiming that the notice of requirements 

would ‘‘put an extreme burden on 

mattress manufacturers to complete 

additional and redundant testing by 

accredited labs * * * by November 16, 

2010,’’ and asking that we: 

• ‘‘Grandfather in all Part 1633 

qualification and confirmation testing 

performed since 2006 by all test labs 

that are accredited by the CPSC;’’ 

• ‘‘Grandfather in all Part 1632 tests 

performed by accredited labs since 

2006;’’ and 

• Grant a one year compliance period 

‘‘for all Part 1632 prototypes and ticking 

substitutes that were not tested by 

accredited labs.’’ 

Letter from Derick S. Close, CEO, 

Springs Creative Products Group, LLC, 

to Inez Tenenbaum, Chairman, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(October 26, 2010). (The Springs 

Creative Products Group letter may be 

viewed at http://www.regulations.gov in 

the docket folder for docket number 

CPSC–2010–0085). The letter asserted 

that ‘‘[r]equiring manufacturers to have 

the same labs retest the same Part 1633 

prototypes following the same exact test 

method as was done since 2006 would 

impose wasted costs on an industry 

recovering from the worst recession in 

70 years’’ and that ‘‘the industry needs 

more time to retest materials [in] an 

orderly manner because the CPSC is in 

the midst of changing the cigarettes 

used for testing.’’ Id. at pages 1 through 

2. 

III. The Response to the Requests 

A. A Brief Description of Testing Under 

16 CFR Parts 1632 and 1633 

We have considered the requests and, 

through this notice, are revising our 

position regarding ‘‘Limited Acceptance 

of Children’s Product Certifications 

Based on Third Party Conformity 

Assessment Body Testing Prior to the 

Commission’s Acceptance of 

Accreditation.’’ To help interested 

parties understand our reasons for 

revising our position, we begin by 

explaining what prototype testing 

pursuant to 16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633 

involves and the relevance of the letters’ 

reference to cigarettes. 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES

72946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

The Standard for the Flammability of 

Mattresses and Mattress Pads, 16 CFR 

part 1632, sets forth a test to determine 

the ignition resistance of a mattress or 

mattress pad when exposed to a lighted 

cigarette. In brief, the regulations 

require pre-market prototype testing for 

each new mattress design and also 

require prototype testing when there has 

been a change in materials of an existing 

prototype design that could influence 

cigarette ignition resistance. Six 

mattress surfaces must be tested for each 

prototype. Lighted cigarettes are placed 

at specified locations on the surface of 

a mattress (or mattress pad). The 

Standard establishes pass/fail criteria 

for the tests. Currently, the Standard 

specifies the ignition source for these 

tests by its physical properties. These 

properties originally were selected to 

represent an unfiltered Pall Mall 

cigarette, which was identified as the 

most severe smoldering ignition source. 

Recently, however, the Commission 

published a proposed rule (75 FR 67047 

(Nov. 1, 2010)), to amend the mattress 

standard to require a standard reference 

material cigarette, which was developed 

by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, as the ignition source 

for testing to the mattress Standard. 

The Standard for the Flammability 

(Open Flame) of Mattress Sets, 16 CFR 

part 1633, is intended to minimize or 

delay ‘‘flashover’’ when a mattress is 

ignited in a typical bedroom fire. 

(‘‘Flashover’’ is the point at which the 

entire contents of a room are ignited 

simultaneously by radiant heat, making 

conditions in the room untenable and a 

safe exit from the room impossible. At 

flashover, room temperatures typically 

exceed 600–800 degrees Celsius 

(approximately 1100–1470 degrees 

Fahrenheit).) In general, the Standard 

requires manufacturers to test 

specimens of each of their mattress 

prototypes (designs) before mattresses of 

that prototype may be introduced into 

commerce. The specimen is to be no 

smaller than twin size, unless the largest 

size mattress or set produced of that 

type is smaller than twin size, in which 

case the largest size must be tested. 

The Standard prescribes a full-scale 

test using a pair of T-shaped gas burners 

designed to represent burning 

bedclothes. The mattress set must not 

exceed a peak heat release rate of 200 

kilowatts (kW) at any time during a 30 

minute test, and the total heat release 

for the first 10 minutes of the test must 

not exceed 15 megajoules (‘‘MJ’’). 

Mattresses that meet the Standard’s 

criteria will make only a limited 

contribution to a fire, especially in the 

fire’s early stages. This will allow 

occupants more time to discover the fire 

and escape. 

Thus, both 16 CFR parts 1632 and 

1633 contemplate testing of prototypes 

rather than testing mattresses, mattress 

sets, or mattress pads that are already in 

production. The prototype itself does 

not have to be a children’s mattress, 

mattress set, or mattress pad for 

purposes of section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA; however, to support the issuance 

of a certificate for a children’s product, 

the prototype testing must be conducted 

by a CPSC-accepted third party 

conformity assessment body. 

B. The Revised ‘‘Limited Acceptance of 

Children’s Product Certifications Based 

on Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Body Testing Prior to the Commission’s 

Acceptance of Accreditation’’ 

Given the nature of prototype testing 

under 16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633, we 

agree that revising our position on our 

‘‘Limited Acceptance of Children’s 

Product Certifications Based on Third 

Party Conformity Assessment Body 

Testing Prior to the Commission’s 

Acceptance of Accreditation’’ is 

appropriate. The revised position will 

reduce further the need for redundant 

testing. We will accept children’s 

product certifications based on third 

party conformity assessment body 

testing, prior to our acceptance of 

accreditation, under two different 

scenarios. 

1. Testing Performed by Certain 

Accredited Third Party Conformity 

Assessment Bodies on or After July 1, 

2007 

The notice of requirements that 

appeared in the Federal Register on 

August 18, 2010 described the 

circumstances under which the 

Commission would accept a certificate 

of compliance with the standard 

included in 16 CFR parts 1632 and/or 

1633 based on testing performed by an 

accredited third party conformity 

assessment body (75 FR at 51023). Due 

to the nature of prototype testing under 

16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633 and the 

date on which the requirements in 16 

CFR part 1633 became effective, we are 

modifying section IV of the notice of 

requirements as follows: 

• At the time of product testing, the 

product was tested by a third party 

conformity assessment body that was 

ISO/IEC 17025 accredited by an 

accreditation body that is a signatory to 

the ILAC–MRA; 

• The third party conformity 

assessment body’s application for 

testing using the test methods in 16 CFR 

part 1632 and/or 1633 is accepted by the 

CPSC on or before November 16, 2010; 

• The product was tested under 16 

CFR part 1632 and/or 1633 on or after 

July 1, 2007. The date on which the 

requirements in 16 CFR part 1633 

became effective is July 1, 2007, and, in 

an ‘‘Interim Enforcement Policy for 

Mattresses Subject to 16 CFR Parts 1632 

and 1633,’’ dated May 15, 2006, the 

CPSC anticipated that 16 CFR part 1633 

could prompt manufacturers to redesign 

mattress prototypes and use new 

materials to meet the then-new 

flammability requirements in 16 CFR 

part 1633, and that the new prototypes 

also would have to be tested to 

demonstrate compliance with 16 CFR 

part 1632. Therefore, provided that the 

other conditions set forth in part III.B.1 

of this document are met, we will accept 

testing that was done on or after July 1, 

2007. We decline to accept results for 

tests conducted in 2006, because such 

tests were not equivalent to the tests 

required in 16 CFR part 1633; 

• The accreditation scope in effect for 

the third party conformity assessment 

body at the time of testing expressly 

included testing to 16 CFR part 1632 

and/or 1633; 

• The test results show compliance 

with the applicable current standards 

and/or regulations; and 

• The third party conformity 

assessment body’s accreditation, 

including inclusion in its scope of 16 

CFR part 1632 and/or 1633, remains in 

effect through the effective date for 

mandatory third party testing and 

manufacturer certification for 

conformity with 16 CFR parts 1632 and/ 

or 1633. 

2. Testing Performed by Seven Testing 

Laboratories 

In July 2007, CPSC staff conducted 

onsite reviews of the facilities that were 

performing testing to 16 CFR part 1633. 

During these reviews, we met with 

laboratory technical staff, toured the 

laboratory facilities, and observed the 

laboratory staff performing the test 

procedures. The purpose of the onsite 

reviews was to observe and gather 

information because the CPSC had 

concerns about test performance. The 

CPSC staff reviews examined: 

• Laboratory staff qualifications; 

• Test area and equipment; 

• Calibration of equipment; 

• Testing, data collection, and storage 

of samples; and 

• Sample handling. 

At the time that CPSC staff did the 

onsite reviews, there were 11 

laboratories (nine within the United 

States and two in foreign countries) 

with the capability to perform the 

required test. (Resources limited the 

CPSC staff’s ability to review the 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72947 

remaining foreign and domestic 

laboratories prior to the implementation 

of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act.) CSPC staff visited 

the following laboratories: 

(1) Underwriters Laboratories (UL), in 

Northbrook, IL; 

(2) Stork Twin City Testing 

Corporation, in St. Paul, MN; 

(3) Govmark Organization, in 

Farmingdale, NY; 

(4) SGS US Testing, in Tulsa, OK; 

(5) Southwest Research Institute, in 

San Antonio, TX; 

(6) Intertek, in Elmendorf, TX; and 

(7) Chilworth, in Kelso, WA. 

CPSC staff has confidence that these 

laboratories can conduct the tests 

required by the mattress Standard 

properly because of these field visits 

and also on the basis of our review of 

test results submitted to the CPSC since 

2007, and, in some instances, 

verification of the test results by our 

own independent testing of mattresses 

built from prototypes tested by these 

laboratories. Therefore, we will accept 

children’s product certifications based 

on third party conformity assessment 

body testing by any of the seven 

laboratories listed above provided that: 

• The laboratory will be ISO/IEC 

17025 accredited by an accreditation 

body that is a signatory to the ILAC– 

MRA, and the accreditation scope will 

expressly include testing to 16 CFR part 

1632 and/or 1633 by November 16, 

2010; 

• Testing was conducted on or after 

July 1, 2007, but not later than 

November 16, 2010; and 

• The test results show compliance 

with the applicable current standards 

and/or regulations. 

C. The Request for an Extended 

Compliance Period 

Both the ISPA and the Springs 

Creative Products Group sought an 

additional one year for manufacturers to 

comply with the third party testing 

requirement. Both referred to costs and 

to the cigarettes to be used in the tests. 

We decline to extend the time by 

which manufacturers must engage in 

third party testing. We believe that our 

revised position regarding our ‘‘Limited 

Acceptance of Children’s Product 

Certifications Based on Third Party 

Conformity Assessment Body Testing 

Prior to the Commission’s Acceptance of 

Accreditation’’ substantially reduces or 

eliminates the need to retest products. 

More importantly, however, we note 

that section 14(a)(3)(F) of the CPSA 

expressly declares that: 

If the Commission determines that an 

insufficient number of third party conformity 

assessment bodies have been accredited to 

permit certification for a children’s product 

safety rule * * * the Commission may 

extend the deadline for certification to such 

rule by not more than 60 days. 

Thus, the conditions set forth in section 

14(a)(3)(F) of the CPSA have not been 

met. We do not have information 

suggesting that there are an insufficient 

number of third party conformity 

assessment bodies to conduct tests 

pursuant to 16 CFR parts 1632 and/or 

1633. While we recognize that third 

party testing may present economic 

issues for certain manufacturers as 

described in the ISPA submissions and 

subsequent meetings, section 14(a)(3)(F) 

of the CPSA does not authorize us to 

consider cost or the past or present state 

of the national economy as reasons for 

extending the deadline for certification. 

Additionally, the statute specifically 

allows for extension ‘‘not more than 60 

days’’; therefore, the one-year extension 

sought by the ISPA and Springs Creative 

Product Group would not be possible 

under section 14(a)(3)(F) of the CPSA. 

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29861 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 935 

[OH–253–FOR; Docket ID OSM–2009–0001] 

Ohio Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; approval of 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We are approving an 

amendment to the Ohio regulatory 

program (the ‘‘Ohio program’’) 

regulations under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). The amendment 

that we are approving involves changes 

to Ohio’s internal and procedural rules 

arising from a five-year review of the 

rules. The changes relate to practice and 

procedures before the reclamation 

commission, including definitions, 

commission meetings, appearance and 

practice before the commission; appeals 

to the reclamation commission; filing 

and service of papers; temporary relief; 

responsive pleadings; discovery; 

motions; pre-hearing procedures; notice 

of hearings and continuance of hearings; 

site views and location of hearings; 

conduct of evidentiary hearings; reports 

and recommendations of the hearing 

officer; and decisions of the 

commission. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective November 29, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Rieger, Chief, Pittsburgh Field 

Division, Columbus Office, Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, Telephone: (614) 416– 

2238, e-mail: grieger@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Ohio Program 

II. Description and Submission of the 

Amendment 

III. OSM’s Findings 

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments 

V. OSM’s Decision 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Ohio Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of the Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to the Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). 

You can find background information 

on the Ohio program, including the 

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of 

comments, and conditions of approval 

in the August 16, 1982, Federal Register 

(47 FR 34688). You can also find later 

actions concerning Ohio’s program and 

program amendments at 30 CFR 935.11, 

935.12, 935.15, and 935.16. 

II. Description and Submission of the 

Amendment 

By letter dated January 22, 2009, and 

received on January 23, 2009, 

(Administrative Record No. OH–2188– 

01), Ohio sent us an amendment to its 

program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.). This amendment includes 

revisions to its regulations (Ohio 

Administrative Code). 

Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 

119.032, all State agencies must review 

their internal and procedural rules every 

five years. In response to this 

requirement, the Ohio Reclamation 

Commission reviewed its procedural 

rules. The Commission’s procedural 

rules are found at Ohio Administrative 

Code 1513–3–01 through 1513–3–22. 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES