CPSC Approves Part Testing, 15 Month, Drawstring & Hairdryer Rules, Discusses Bath Seat Rule

The Commission also heard staff presentations on a final rule to establish mandatory standards for infant bath seats.

“15 Month” Testing and Labeling Proposed Rule Approved with Revisions

CPSC has revised and approved a proposed “15 Month Rule” for Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) testing and labeling that would establish requirements for: (i) reasonable testing programs for non-children’s products; (ii) testing to support initial certification of children’s products; (iii) continuing testing of children's products on a periodic basis and whenever a material change occurs; (iv) etc.

Changes from the draft and highlights of the Commissioners’ statements include:

Verification requirements dropped. The CPSC has decided not to impose any verification² obligations on manufacturers and importers ‘at this time.’ Instead, CPSC intends to conduct verification on its own inherent authority while the agency gains more experience with testing and certification requirements.

‘Low volume’ mnfers/importers. CPSC has also decided to revise the language on low volume manufacturers/importers to clarify that once a manufacture or importer manufactures or imports more than 10,000 units of a product, they would become subject to the periodic testing requirements for children’s products. However, the periodic testing would not have to begin with the 10,001 unit and could be phased in.

Periodic testing every 2 years. Under the approved proposed rule, manufacturers (and importers) with reasonable testing programs in place would be required to conduct third-party periodic testing of children’s products every two years. (The draft version had only stated that those with reasonable testing programs could conduct periodic testing on a ‘less frequent basis’ than the annual testing that would be required for those without such programs.)

Retailer reliance on certificates. According to Commissioner Northup, the approved proposed rule also contains explicit language informing retailers that they may rely on manufacturer/importer certificates, in order to ease retailer concerns over liability and to reduce duplicative testing imposed by retailers.

Commissioner statements. Commissioner Nord was the least enthusiastic about the proposed rule, stating that she was still concerned about testing costs, the complexity of the rule, the reasoning behind defining reasonable testing programs in a rulemaking, and the requirement that periodic testing be conducted by CPSC-recognized third-party labs. Commissioners Northup and Tenenbaum were more enthusiastic and thought the proposed rule’s interpretation of the CPSIA was fair while still ensuring safety. Commissioner Adler was concerned that the proposed rule was not stringent enough.

(See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/09/10 news, (Ref: 10040905), for BP summary of the draft proposed “15 Month” rule.)

Component Testing Proposed Rule Approved with Revisions

The Commission also voted unanimously to approve for publication, with changes from the draft version, the related proposed rule on component testing. Changes from the draft and highlights of the Commissioners statements include:

Component & final product certifiers. Unlike the draft, the approved proposed rule would distinguish component part certifiers from finished product certifiers. It would also make clear that a finished product certifier could rely on a component certifier’s certification as long as the component certifier had assumed all testing responsibility, and the final product certifier had exercised ‘due care’ when relying on the component certificate.

Increased recordkeeping. The proposed rule would also increase the recordkeeping requirements so that manufacturers and importers would be required to maintain records for 5 years (from 3) after a product was no longer being produced or imported.

Commissioner statements. The Commissioners were generally very supportive of the proposed rule, though Commissioner Adler expressed concern over ‘due care’ and stated that future clarification could be needed to ensure that manufacturers and importers were taking certain precautions (such as checking to see if a third-party lab is really CPSC-certified, investigating any consumer complaints, etc.) as part of ‘due care.’

(See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/14/10 news, (Ref: 10041415), for BP summary of the draft proposed rule on component testing.)

Drawstring and Hairdryer 15 (j) Proposed Rules Approved

The draft proposed “15 (j)” rules that would make voluntary standards for drawstrings and hand-held hairdryers mandatory, were approved for publication without change from the draft versions.

(The proposed rules would designate certain children’s upper outerwear with drawstring violations and handheld hairdryers without immersion protection to be substantial product hazards under section 15 (j) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. Products with such hazards can be refused admission into the U.S., be subject to corrective action, face certain reporting requirements, etc. See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/29/10 news, (Ref: 10042920), for BP summary of the draft proposed rules.)

Staff and Commission Discuss Draft Infant Bath Seat Final Rule

CPSC staff also presented for Commission discussion a draft final rule to establish mandatory consumer product safety standards for infant bath seats. According to staff, the draft final rule is substantially similar to CPSC’s September 2009 proposed rule that would make the voluntary ASTM F1967-08a infant bath seat standard mandatory, with certain modifications. These modifications pertain to the issue of support in the definition of infant bath seats and a slight modification to one of the testing requirements. A Commission vote on the final rule is due May 12, 2010.

(See ITT’s Online Archives or 09/03/09 news, (Ref: 09090320), for BP summary of proposed rule on infant bath seats.)

¹CPSC often refers to this as its “15 month” rule since it was meant to be issued 15 months after enactment of the CPSIA -- or by November 2009.

²Under the draft, verification would have meant testing initiated by the manufacturer or importer that demonstrates that the test results from one third-party lab are consistent with the test results from another third-party lab for a particular children's product.

CPSC recorded Webcast of 05/05/10 meeting available at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/previous.html

CPSC Commissioner Nord's statement on the testing and labeling proposed rule (dated 05/05/10) available at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/nord05052010.pdf

CPSC ballot and draft final rule on infant bath seats (dated 04/28/10) available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia10/brief/bathseatFR.pdf

CPSC ballot and draft accreditation requirements for third party labs for infant bath seats (dated 04/28/10) available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia10/brief/102testingNR.pdf