Highlights of CPSC Meeting on “15 Month” Testing and Labeling, Component Testing Draft Rules

A Commission vote on the two draft proposed rules is currently scheduled for April 28, 2010.

(See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/09/10, 04/14/10, and 04/21/10 news, (Ref: 10040905), (Ref: 10041415), and (Ref: 10042125), for BP summaries providing details of the two draft proposed rules and CPSC delaying its vote on them to April 28.)

Testing and Labeling “15 Month” Proposed Rule

Commission questions and staff responses regarding the draft proposed “15 Month Rule” included the following:

Confusion Over Responsible Party for the 3 Different Testing Requirements

During the meeting, four of the five Commissioners expressed confusion over which party would actually be responsible for certain Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 testing as laid out in the draft proposed “15 Month Rule,” particularly the periodic, material change, and verification testing.

Pros and Cons of Relying on Supplier Tests

CPSC staff state that just as the draft proposed rule would allow manufacturers and importers to rely on voluntary certifications by component suppliers as the basis for their initial product certifications (general conformity certificates for non-children’s products and certifications based on third-party testing for children’s products), they could also rely on component suppliers’ periodic, material change, and verification testing to meet their own such requirements.

Relying on supplier tests has risks. However, the supplier would have to meet the same requirements that would apply to the manufacturer/importer (such using third-party labs, random sampling, etc), and it may be difficult for the manufacturer or importer to know such requirements were met.

In addition, it may be more prudent for the manufacturer or importer to conduct their own periodic, material change, and verification testing, as they are the parties ultimately responsible for certification of the final product. Staff also pointed out that CPSC regulates final consumer products, not component parts such as buttons or plastics.

Having suppliers certify components has benefits. Commissioner Northup stated that the language they used to describe the parties responsible for conducting periodic, material change and verification testing would have to be clearer and that any language indicating “ultimate responsibility” toned down. She was concerned that giving the impression that relying on supplier certifications was risky for manufacturers or importers would undermine the benefits of the component testing proposed rule that would allow for such reliance.

Commissioner Adler thought that concerns, ultimate responsibility and not undermining the good of the component testing rule, could be adequately addressed with appropriate language.

Concerns Over “High Degree of Assurance”

Staff noted the importance in the draft of manufacturers and importers having a “high degree of assurance” that all of their consumer products (whether part of a reasonable testing program or as part of third-party and continuing testing of children’s products) comply with all applicable rules, bans, standards, or regulations.

Commissioner Nord criticized the passages of the draft describing this high degree of assurance since they apply to “all” products. According to Nord, “all” implies 100% certainty and since 100% certainty can only come from individual tests of every single product, this language was too strong.

Component Testing Draft Proposed Rule

The following are highlights of Commission questions and staff responses regarding the draft proposed rule on component testing:

Generally Strong Approval from Commissioners

Four of the five Commissioners expressed their strong approval of the draft proposed rule on component testing, stating that it would provide significant relief to manufacturers, importers, as well as crafters and other small businesses, who could rely on testing done by others, while still maintaining the safety of consumer products.

Recordkeeping and Tracing Would Increase

Staff pointed out that even though the draft proposed rule would provided significant relief to manufacturers and importers in terms of testing, it would require them to trace component parts, ensure they have all appropriate testing documentation, and maintain records.

Supplier Certifications Would be Voluntary

Staff stressed several times that certification by component suppliers would be voluntary as it is not required by the CPSIA and such components are generally not under CPSC’s jurisdiction.

Commissioner Adler suggested that the staff develop a separate term such as “intermediate certifier” to describe component suppliers who voluntarily certify their products.

CPSC meeting Webcast (posted 04/19/10) available at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/previous.html

CPSC staff presentations (posted 04/21/10) available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia10/brief/certtest.pdf