18218 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2006–0011] 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610 

Review of the Standard for the 

Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress 

Sets 

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maintained without change, rescinded, 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: lscott@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2006, 

the CPSC issued a standard for the 

flammability (open flame) of mattress 

sets under the Flammable Fabrics Act. 

(71 FR 13472, March 15, 2006). The 

Mattress Standard sets forth 

performance requirements that all 

mattress sets must meet before being 

introduced into commerce. The Mattress 

Standard establishes flammability 

requirements to reduce deaths and 

injuries associated with mattress fires by 

limiting the size of the fire generated by 

a mattress set during a 30-minute test. 

The Mattress Standard establishes two 

test criteria, which the mattress set must 

meet to comply with the standard: (1) 

The peak rate of heat release for the 

mattress set must not exceed 200 kW at 

any time during the 30 minute test; and 

(2) the total heat release must not 

exceed 15 MJ for the first 10 minutes of 

the test. These requirements are set forth 

at 16 CFR part 1633. 

The CPSC has selected the Mattress 

Standard for review in accordance with 

the regulatory review provisions of 

Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) The purpose 

of a review under Section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act is to 

determine whether such rule should be 

continued without change, or should be 

rescinded, or amended, consistent with 

the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes to minimize any significant 

impact of the rules on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Agency 

must consider the following factors: 

(1) The continued need for the rule; 

(2) The nature of complaints or 

comments received concerning the rule 

from the public; 

(3) The complexity of the rule; 

(4) The extent to which the rule 

overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with 

other Federal rules, and, to the extent 

feasible, with State and local 

governmental rules; and 

(5) The length of time since the rule 

has been evaluated or the degree to 

which technology, economic conditions, 

or other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the rule. 5 U.S.C. 610(b). 

An important step in the review 

process involves gathering and 

analyzing information from affected 

persons about their experience with the 

rule and any material changes in 

circumstances since issuance of the 

rule. This document requests written 

comments on the continuing need for 

the rule, its adequacy or inadequacy, its 

small business impacts, and other 

relevant issues. Comments concerning 

the subjects below would assist the 

CPSC’s review. The purpose of these 

questions is to assist commenters in 

their responses and not to limit the 

format or substance of their comments. 

Comments are requested on all issues 

raised by Section 610 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Safety and Effectiveness 

1. Do you believe that mattresses that 

comply with the Mattress Standard 

provide adequate safety from fires that 

may involve a mattress? Are there 

additional requirements or protections 

that could reduce the number of deaths 

and injuries resulting from mattress 

fires? 

2. Do any aspects of the Mattress 

Standard need to be updated to improve 

effectiveness as a result of technological 

developments since the standard went 

into effect? 

Costs and Impacts 

3. Are there any requirements of the 

Mattress Standard that are especially or 

unnecessarily costly and/or 

burdensome? Which ones? How might 

the Mattress Standard requirements be 

modified to reduce the costs or burdens 

on the industry without reducing the 

fire safety provided by the Mattress 

Standard? Please explain your response 

and provide supporting data. 

4. Do you believe that any of the 

requirements in the Mattress Standard 

lead to a disproportionate burden on 

small entities? If so, which requirements 

lead to a disproportionate burden, and 

how? How might CPSC modify the 

Mattress Standard requirements to 

reduce the burden on small businesses 

or the industry without reducing the fire 

safety provided by the Mattress 

Standard? 

5. What percent of the time and cost 

of mattress construction, including 

testing, does complying with the 

Mattress Standard represent? Do these 

percentages vary significantly 

depending on the type of mattress, 

geographical location, size of firm, or 

other factors? Which requirements in 

the Mattress Standard have the greatest 

impact on cost of production? The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of Economic Adjustment; 

Announcement of Federal Funding 

Opportunity (FFO) 

AGENCY: Office of Economic Adjustment 

(OEA), Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Federal funding opportunity 

announcement. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

opportunity to request funding from the 

Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), 

a Department of Defense (DoD) field 

activity, for community planning 

assistance to help prevent the siting of 

energy projects from adversely affecting 

DoD’s test, training, and military 

operations. Commercial development of 

energy projects may affect unique DoD 

activities and military readiness, 

especially when located near 

installations, ranges, or on lands 

beneath designated military training 

routes or special use airspace. State, 

tribal, and local governments can 

support effective collaboration, early 

engagement and dialogue between DoD 

and energy developers to ensure 

proposed energy projects may proceed 

without compromising the DoD 

missions. This notice includes proposal 

submission requirements and 

instructions, eligibility requirements, 

and selection criteria that will be used 

to evaluate proposals from eligible 

respondents. OEA grants to a state or 

local government may result from any 

proposal submitted under this notice, 

subject to the availability of 

appropriations. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

a. Federal Awarding Agency: Office of 

Economic Adjustment, Department of 

Defense. 

b. Funding Opportunity Title: 

Community Adjustment Planning 

Assistance in Response to Siting of 

Energy Projects to Support Department 

of Defense Mission Interests. 

c. Announcement Type: Initial 

Federal Funding Opportunity. 

d. Catalog Of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number & Title: 

12.610, Community Economic 

Adjustment Assistance for Compatible 

Use and Joint Land Use Studies. 

e. Key Dates: Proposals will be 

considered on a continuing basis. OEA 

will evaluate all proposal documents 

and requests, and provide a response to 

the respondent within 30 business days 

of OEA’s receipt of a final and complete 

proposal. 

I. Period of Funding Opportunity 

Proposals will be considered on a 

continuing basis, subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds, 

commencing on the date of publication 

of this notice. 

II. Funding Opportunity 

a. Program Description 

OEA is a DoD Field Activity 

authorized under 10 U.S.C 2391 to 

provide assistance to state or local 

governments, and instrumentalities of 

state and local governments, including 

regional governmental organizations, to 

plan and carry out community 

adjustments required by the 

encroachment of a civilian community 

on a military installation if the Secretary 

determines that the encroachment of the 

civilian community is likely to impair 

the continued operational utility of the 

installation, including test and training 

ranges and associated military airspace. 

OEA’s Compatible Use and Joint Land 

Use Studies Program provides technical 

and financial assistance to state and 

local governments to plan and carry out 

community adjustments required to 

mitigate or prevent incompatible 

civilian development and activities that 

are likely to impair the continued 

operational utility of a DoD installation. 

The objectives of OEA’s Compatible Use 

and Joint Land Use Studies Program are 

to assist states and local governments to 

plan and carry out community 

adjustments to promote compatible 

civilian development and activities in 

support of continued operational utility 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES