CPSC Staff Answers Nord's Questions on Periodic (Add'l) Testing Rule, Etc.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has published staff answers to questions posed by Commissioner Nord on the four1 pending draft documents CPSC is currently considering on testing, certification, and labeling of consumer products. Nord’s questions mostly focus on the draft final rule on third-party periodic (additional) testing of children’s products, which also has requirements for initial certification, labeling of all consumer products, etc.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 11092610 for summary of the draft final rule on periodic testing of children’s products, etc.)
New Law’s Small Batch Provision to Override Proposed “Low Volume” Exemption
In one question, Commissioner Nord referenced CPSC’s May 2010 proposed rule on periodic testing and labeling that would have exempted domestic manufacturers (or importers) of children’s products that had low production volumes (less than 10,000 units) from the periodic, third-party testing requirements for children’s products.
However, the draft final rule being considered by the Commission omits this exception and instead references the “small batch manufacturer” provisions of H.R. 2715 (Public Law 112-28). These provisions state that CPSC must either provide small batch manufacturers (up to $1 million in revenue and 7,500 units) of children’s products alternative testing requirements or exempt them from third-party testing requirements.2
Staff believes that the exemption for low volume production in its May 2010 proposed rule would have applied more extensively than the small batch provisions of H.R. 2715. This is because their proposal would have covered manufacturers exceeding $1M in revenue but with certain low-volume products.
Too Early to Know Effect of New Law’s Cost Reduction Provision on Periodic Testing Rule, Others
Staff also states that it is premature to say whether implementation of H.R. 2715 would necessitate further amendment to the periodic testing and labeling final rule or to other testing rules. (Besides the small batch manufacturer provisions, H.R. 2715 requires CPSC to seek comments on ways to reduce the cost of third-party testing, exempts ordinary books from third-party testing, etc. See ITT’s Online Archives 11080230 for summary of H.R. 2715.)
Draft Rule Would Allow Mnfr to Decide Production Testing Plan
Regarding production testing requirements described in the draft final periodic testing rule, staff states that the draft does not prescribe what the manufacturer must do for compliance; rather, the manufacturer would be responsible for developing a production testing plan that incorporates effective testing such that continual compliance with the requirements of the rule would be assured. The draft final rule leaves the manufacturer the flexibility to use the best practices of the company’s unique production process in developing a production testing plan.
Vote Set for October 19
The vote on the four related draft notices, including the draft final rule on periodic testing and labeling, is currently scheduled for October 19, 2011. (See ITT's Online Archives 11101214 for summary of the scheduled vote.)
1The four related notices are: (1) a draft final rule that would establish testing requirements for the initial certification of children’s products, periodic testing, testing after a material change, and safeguarding against undue influence on third-party labs. It would also establish voluntary labeling for children’s and non-children’s consumer products; (2) a notice (required by H.R. 2715) seeking comments on ways to reduce the CPSIA third-party testing requirements which could conceivably change some of these testing requirements; (3) a draft final rule on relying on component part testing or certification, or another party’s finished product testing or certification, to meet the CPSIA testing and certification requirements; and (4) a draft proposed rule that would provide for the testing of representative (instead of random) samples for continued compliance testing of children’s products.
2Under H.R. 2715, the term “small batch manufacturer” means a manufacturer that had no more than $1,000,000 in total gross revenue from sales of all consumer products in the previous calendar year and had no more than 7,500 units of the same consumer product manufactured in the previous calendar year. In its draft final rule, CPSC states that it would partially exempt small batch manufacturers from third-party testing until it determines how to proceed on H.R. 2715’s requirements.