FR 2024-28243

The document from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) serves as a notice for public comments regarding the extension of an information collection process. This process pertains specifically to the notification requirements for coal and wood burning appliances. The CPSC is acting under the guidelines of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and is seeking input before requesting an extension of the existing information collection approval, which expires in March 2025.

General Summary

This Federal Register notice invites public opinion on the necessity and efficiency of the information collection mandated for manufacturers and importers of coal and wood burning appliances. The goal is to ensure that consumers have access to crucial safety information via appliance labels and manuals. This information arms users with knowledge about proper installation, operation, and maintenance to prevent accidents. The public has until February 3, 2025, to submit comments, and the CPSC has laid out specific methods for submitting these contributions.

Significant Issues or Concerns

While the document outlines the information needed from manufacturers, it lacks a detailed explanation of why this collection is necessary, which questions its practical utility. Additionally, the number of respondents and the burdens estimated by the CPSC are speculative, with little data provided to support these figures. The text also leaves unexplained the rationale behind specific clearance requirements, potentially leading to questions about their relevance and adequacy.

For a layperson, the document's use of legal and regulatory jargon without clear definitions could be intimidating or confusing. Moreover, the public is not informed about how their comments will be processed or taken into account, potentially discouraging engagement. There is also a lack of guidance on what constitutes sensitive information that should be kept from public electronic platforms, risking unnecessary disclosures.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this notice affects consumers who rely on accurate and clear safety information for appliances that can pose significant risks if mismanaged. Should the CPSC successfully extend the approval, it signifies continued diligence in consumer safety, particularly concerning potential home hazards like fires. However, if the collection methods remain unclear or burdensome to manufacturers, the quality and availability of this information might suffer.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Manufacturers and importers of coal and wood burning appliances are directly impacted by the processes delineated in the document, as non-compliance might result in legal challenges or market disruptions. On the other hand, if the commentary leads to streamlining the requirements, these stakeholders could experience a reduced regulatory burden, potentially lowering costs.

Consumers stand to benefit significantly if the notice leads to improved safety protocols and clearer, more reliable information on appliance use. However, insufficient action from this process, or an overly complex compliance method, might limit these benefits.

In conclusion, while the document aims to maintain consumer protections through updated data collection, the lack of clarity and justification could weaken its intended impact unless addressed. Stakeholder participation in the commentary process could lead to constructive changes, provided their contributions are meaningfully analyzed and integrated.

In reviewing the financial aspects of the document, the total estimated annualized respondent cost is highlighted as approximately $795. This figure is derived from multiplying a total estimated annual burden of 17.5 hours by an average total hourly employee compensation rate of $45.41. The compensation rate is based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics concerning private industry workers in goods-producing industries. The financial computation indicates a meticulous approach to an average labor cost associated with compliance for respondents, in this case, identified as manufacturers and importers of coal and wood-burning appliances.

However, although the method for calculating this burden is clear, issues arise in connection with the assumptions made about the estimated number of respondents and the estimated time per response. It is noted in the document that there is a lack of supporting data for the estimated figures, which impacts the accuracy of the cost estimate. If, for instance, the number of annual submissions changes significantly, the projected cost of $795 could vary accordingly. This financial estimate forms a crucial part of understanding the impact of compliance but is less compelling due to such foundational uncertainties.

Further consideration could be given to elucidating the rationale behind the use of these specific rates and assumptions. This could address concerns about their accuracy and enhance the clarity of financial obligations stated. Moreover, while the cost figure is modest, expanded transparency about the calculations and underlying data would likely facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of the financial burden on responding entities.

While the financial summary appears adequate within its framework, it could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how the costs and assumptions are validated. Such enhancements could align with addressing one of the document's broader issues: the need for more extensive justification of regulatory and procedural approaches to ensure practical utility and clear communication to the public.