Request for Comments Concerning Proposed Request for Approval of a Collection of Information-Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators

AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C., Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission requests comments on a proposed request for extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of residential garage door operators. The collection of information consists of testing and recordkeeping requirements in certification regulations implementing the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators (16 CFR part 1211). The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting approval of this extension of a collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget.

DATES:

The Office of the Secretary must receive written comments not later than April 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments should be captioned “Residential Garage Door Operators” and mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207, or delivered to that office, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Written comments may also be sent to the Office of the Secretary by facsimile at (301) 504-0127 or by e-mail at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information about the proposed extension of approval of the collection of information, or to obtain a copy of 16 CFR Part 1211, call or write Linda L. Glatz, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0416, extension 2226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In 1990, Congress enacted legislation requiring residential garage door operators to comply with the provisions of a standard published by Underwriters Laboratories to protect against entrapment. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 (the Improvement Act) (Pub. L. 101-608, 104 Stat. 3110) includes requirements that residential garage door operators manufactured on or after January 1, 1993, must comply with the entrapment protection provisions in UL Standard 325 in effect on or before January 1, 1992. The entrapment protection requirements of UL Standard 325 are codified as the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators, 16 CFR part 1211.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the collection of information concerning the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators under control number 3041-0125. OMB's most recent approval will expire on April 30, 2000. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval without changes of this collection of information.

A. Certification Requirements

The Improvement Act provides that UL Standard 325 shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2058). Section 14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of a consumer product subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate stating that the product complies with all applicable consumer product safety standards. Section 14(a) of the CPSA also requires that the certificate of compliance must be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program.

Section 14(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(b)) authorizes the Commission to issue regulations to prescribe a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with a consumer product safety standard. Section 14(b) of the CPSA allows firms that are required to issue certificates of compliance to use an independent third-party organization to conduct the testing required to support the certificate of compliance.

Section 16(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2065(b)) authorizes the Commission to issue rules to require establishment and maintenance of records necessary to implement the CPSA or determine compliance with rules issued under the authority of the CPSA. On December 22, 1992, the Commission issued rules prescribing requirements for a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators (57 FR 60449). These regulations also require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of residential garage door operators to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing to support certification of compliance. 16 CFR Part 1211, Subparts B and C.

The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers and importers of residential garage door operators to protect consumers from risks of death and injury resulting from entrapment accidents associated with garage door operators. More specifically, the Commission uses this information to determine whether the products produced and imported by those firms comply with the standard. The Commission also uses this information to facilitate corrective action if any residential garage door operators fail to comply with the standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.

B. Estimated Burden

The Commission staff estimates that about 22 firms are subject to the testing and recordkeeping requirements of the certification regulations. The staff estimates that each respondent will spend 60 hours annually on the collection of information for a total of about 1320 hours. Using an hourly rate of $13.50, based on 1999 Statistical Abstract data for average all private sector wages, the total industry cost would be about $18,000.

C. Request for Comments

The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

—Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;

—Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;

—Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and

—Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.