CPSC Argues Component Rule Would Ease CPSIA Burdens, Trade Is Unsure

While several of the 58 comments submitted in response to CPSC’s May 2010 proposed rule on component testing agreed the rule would be useful, many questioned whether it would actually provide the intended relief to industry.

(In May 2010, CPSC issued a proposed rule on the conditions and requirements for testing component parts of consumer products to demonstrate, in whole or in part, the compliance of a consumer product with CPSC rules, bans, etc. to support a General Conformity Certificate or a Children’s Product Certificate, and for other purposes. See ITT’s Online Archives or 05/21/10 news, 10052134, for BP summary of the proposed rule.)

Staff Says Testing Burden Would Be Reduced, Especially if Suppliers Participate

CPSC staff state that the proposed rule could result in significant advantages for manufacturers (including importers) of consumer products, provided that those supplying component parts choose to perform the required testing.

For manufacturers (including importers), the ability to issue either General Conformity or Children's Product Certificates based at least in part on testing performed by or arranged by component part suppliers, would reduce their testing burden. Suppliers who choose to perform or arrange the required testing could reduce the total amount of testing required by the CPSIA, because the same component part might be used in a number of different products.

Benefits even without supplier participation. Even if suppliers do not choose to perform the testing and certify their component parts, staff believe the rule would still benefit the trade. For example, testing only the relevant component parts rather than the finished product would allow manufacturers (including importers) to avoid the sometimes difficult process of preparing a finished product for testing and could reduce the number of finished products that may have to be destroyed in destructive testing. In addition, the proposed rule’s composite testing would allow similar parts to be combined to make one sample for testing, thereby reducing the number of tests required.

Low use of interim policy is due to pending final rule. CPSC staff acknowledge that their December 2009 "Interim Enforcement Policy on Component Testing and Certification of Children's Products and Other Consumer Products to the August 14, 2009 Lead Limits" has been little used, even though it allows for certain reliance on component test reports for certification purposes.¹ However, staff believe this is due to the unwillingness of suppliers to invest in new procedures prior to finalization of a rulemaking on the topic.

Trade Concerned that Rule’s Tracing, Recordkeeping, Etc. Would Reduce Any Benefits

According to the comments submitted, the trade appreciates the proposed rule’s efforts to reduce their CPSIA testing burdens, but believes that the following provisions may undermine its intended benefits:

Tracing too onerous. Several companies stated that the proposed rule would introduce costly and complex tracing requirements that they may not be able to meet. This was particularly a concern for smaller companies, who stated that they would not be able to take advantage of the proposed rule at all due to this requirement. (The proposed rule would require manufacturers (or importers), who rely on component certifications by suppliers to meet their own certification requirements, to identify the source of all certified components, identify testing documentation on certificates, etc.)

Recordkeeping too excessive. Virtually all of the comments stated that the proposed rule’s recordkeeping requirements are excessively burdensome, and the effect on the trade vastly underestimated by CPSC. One stated that requiring certifiers to maintain records to support the traceability of component suppliers for as long as the corresponding product is produced or imported by the certifier and for 5 years thereafter is the equivalent of “forever” as many of their products have been produced for over 20 years. Several also noted the burden of requiring records to be maintained in English.

Clarify importer certification. One importer stated that the proposed rule should clarify that an importer can accept the certificate of a finished product certifier (i.e., the foreign manufacturer) to certify their product coming into a port.

Composite testing not practical. Some stated that the proposed rule’s provisions allowing for certain composite testing (combining multiple components or paints when testing for a target chemical) would not work. They said that as the proposed rule would require this type of test result to be divided by the number of components, the level of allowable target chemical (such as lead) in each component would have to be so minute as to be impractical.

Suppliers have little incentive, only liability. One component supplier asked what benefits they could expect to receive for taking on the additional liability of having their components third-party tested and certifying their compliance. The supplier wondered if there would be any enforcement action taken against testing parties who failed to meet their obligations or only against component suppliers who volunteered to take on the liability. The supplier also stated that the rule should be clarified to require any party seeking to be a component part certifier to specifically state their intention in writing using some standard format, as the word “certify” is used in many different contexts throughout the supply chain.

CPSC Reviewing Comments, Plans to Finalize Rule in Spring/Summer 2011

CPSC staff state that they are reviewing and drafting responses to comments received on this proposed rule. Based on the comments and further staff analyses, they will recommend clarifications and updates to the proposed rule, and submit a draft final rule to the Commission for consideration “in fiscal year 2011.” According to a recent statement by Commissioner Nord, the expected timeframe is spring/summer 2011. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 01/28/11 news, 11012843, for BP summary.)

¹See ITT’s Online Archives or 12/29/09 news, 09122925, for BP summary of CPSC’s interim policy.

(D/N CPSC-2010-0037)