Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of Approval of Information Collection; Notification Requirements for Coal and Wood Burning Appliances
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The people in charge of making sure products are safe are checking to see if companies that sell stoves that burn coal and wood are telling people everything they need to know to stay safe. They're asking for permission to keep doing this important work.
Summary AI
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has made a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend their information collection for coal and wood burning appliances. This request concerns the collection of important safety and performance data that must appear on labels, instruction manuals, and point-of-sale literature for these appliances to ensure consumer safety. The current approval will expire on March 31, 2025, and the CPSC has not received any public comments on the matter. Manufacturers and importers are required to submit this information, and no additional burden is expected except when new models are introduced or existing models are changed.
Abstract
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of information collection regarding notification requirements for coal and wood burning appliances. OMB previously approved the collection of information under Control Number 3041-0040. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on March 31, 2025. On December 3, 2024, CPSC published a notice in the Federal Register to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. The Commission did not receive any public comments. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), highlighting their request for an extension to collect information concerning coal and wood-burning appliances. This request, submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), aims to continue gathering safety and performance data that manufacturers need to display on labels or within instruction manuals for these appliances. This process ensures that consumers have access to crucial safety information when installing, operating, and maintaining these products.
Summary of the Document
The essence of the document is the CPSC's intention to renew an existing requirement for manufacturers and importers of coal and wood-burning appliances to provide specific data on performance and safety. This data must appear in several formats, including labels attached to the appliance, instruction manuals, and any promotional literature available at the point of sale. Such measures are designed to equip consumers with vital information about safe usage and precautions. The current authorization permitting this information collection is set to expire on March 31, 2025. CPSC has not encountered any public resistance or comments against this renewal.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Despite being a seemingly routine administrative procedure, the document does present a few concerns:
Compliance Burden for New Entrants: There's a notable implication that established manufacturers may have an advantage due to the existing compliance framework. New entrants could find the requirements burdensome as they might lack the experience and resources of established players.
Cost Estimation: The cost estimation for this information collection is based on a generalized rate of $45.41 per hour for employee compensation. This may not reflect the actual costs faced by smaller firms, potentially underestimating the burden on these businesses.
Complex Language: The document includes technical jargon and references to specific legal statutes (e.g., '15 U.S.C. 2076(e)') that could be challenging for a general audience to understand. Simpler language or an explanation of such terms could enhance comprehension.
Clarity of Technical Requirements: Sections detailing requirements, such as 'clearance distances' and 'point-of-sale literature,' might benefit from clearer definitions to ensure all stakeholders, particularly those from non-legal backgrounds, fully understand the obligations.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document ensures that the public continues to receive important safety information about coal and wood-burning appliances. By requiring manufacturers to provide clear guidance on installation and operation, the document plays a role in preventing potential accidents and ensuring user safety.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Manufacturers and Importers: While established manufacturers might view this as a continuation of the status quo, smaller or newer manufacturers could face challenges. The standards might increase their operational costs and necessitate expertise that they may not yet possess.
Consumers: On the consumer side, this regulation is largely beneficial, as it mandates that they receive clear and crucial safety information. It empowers consumers with knowledge for safe appliance use, aligning with public interest and welfare.
In conclusion, while the document maintains an existing safety framework, its execution should consider the varying capacities of manufacturers to comply, ensuring that the benefits of consumer safety do not become overshadowed by regulatory burdens.
Financial Assessment
In the Federal Register document under review, the primary financial reference pertains to the estimated cost imposed on manufacturers and importers of coal and wood burning appliances due to compliance with certain information collection requirements. The estimated total annualized respondent cost is approximately $795. This figure is derived from an average total hourly employee compensation rate of $45.41, which is drawn from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, specifically for private industry workers within goods-producing sectors.
The computation for this cost includes the time estimated for respondents to comply with the information collection activities. It is noted that each submission requires an estimated 3.5 hours (3 hours for preparation and 30 minutes for mailing). Given an estimation of five submissions annually, the total estimated burden amounts to 17.5 hours per year. The calculation of the annual cost, therefore, considers these 17.5 hours multiplied by the hourly wage of $45.41, resulting in the almost precise annual cost of $794.68.
In considering the broader context and implications, one could infer potential issues related to the cost estimation. The use of an average hourly rate might not uniformly apply to all manufacturers, particularly small businesses that may have lower wage structures. Therefore, the financial burden might disproportionately impact smaller entities compared to established manufacturers that can more easily absorb these costs. Additionally, the document touches on the compliance aspect, which might be more burdensome for new entrants in the market, potentially giving established players a competitive edge.
It is important to highlight that these financial considerations play a crucial role in understanding the regulatory impact on businesses within the coal and wood-burning appliances market. Clarity and accuracy in estimating compliance costs help ensure that the burdens are fair across diverse types of entities, balancing regulatory intent with economic impact on the affected stakeholders.
Issues
• The document does not specify any particular organization or individual that could be favored, but mentions manufacturers and importers, which might imply an advantage to established entities over new entrants due to compliance burdens.
• The cost estimate provided for respondents is based on an average total hourly employee compensation rate of $45.41, which may not accurately reflect the cost for all respondents, especially small manufacturers.
• The language used in the document, particularly in the supplementary information section, may be too complex or technical for a lay reader to easily understand, such as references to specific regulations and acts (e.g., '15 U.S.C. 2076(e)') without explanation.
• The 'General Description of Collection' section could be simplified for better clarity by avoiding legal and technical jargon or providing clear definitions and context for terms like 'clearance distances' and 'point-of-sale literature'.