[Federal Register: November 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 58611-58616]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13no09-38]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2009-0095]
Notice of Workshop on Product Testing
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission, we)
is announcing a two-day workshop to discuss issues relating to the
testing, certification, and labeling of certain consumer products
pursuant to section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act. We invite
interested parties to participate in or attend the meeting and to
submit comments. The workshop will be held in Bethesda, Maryland on
December 10 through 11, 2009.
DATES: The workshop will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday,
December 10, 2009, and Friday, December 11, 2009.
Comments must be received by January 11, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at CPSC's headquarters building at
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, 4th Floor Hearing
Room. There is no charge to attend the workshop. Persons interested in
attending the workshop must register online at http://www.cpsc.gov and
click on the link titled, ``CPSC Staff Workshop: Product Testing''
under the ``What's Hot'' portion of the website near the bottom of the
CPSC's home page. This link also has more information about the
workshop.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-0095,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no
longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) except
through http://www.regulations.gov.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following way:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted
without change, including any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal information provided, to http://
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information,
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information
electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 58612]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Howell, Office of Hazard
Identification and Reduction, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-7577
or e-mail: rhowell@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Does the Law Require?
Section 14(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15
U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), establishes requirements for the
testing and certification of products subject to a consumer product
safety rule under the CPSA or similar rule, ban, standard, or
regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission and which are
imported for consumption or warehousing or distributed in commerce.
Under section 14(a)(1)(A) of the CPSA, manufacturers and private
labelers must issue a certificate which ``shall certify, based on a
test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program, that such
product complies with all rules, bans, standards, or regulations
applicable to the product under the CPSA or any other Act enforced by
the Commission.'' CPSC regulations, at 16 CFR part 1110, further define
the certificate requirement as applying only to importers and domestic
manufacturers. Section 14(a)(1)(B) of the CPSA further requires that
the certificate provided by the importer or domestic manufacturer
``specify each such rule, ban, standard, or regulation applicable to
the product.'' The certificate described in section 14(a)(1) of the
CPSA is known as a General Conformity Certification.
Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)) establishes
testing requirements for children's products that are subject to a
children's product safety rule. (Section 3(a)(2) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C.
2052(a)(2)) defines a children's product as a consumer product designed
or intended primarily for children 12 and younger.) Section 14(a)(2)(A)
of the CPSA also states that, before a children's product that is
subject to a children's product safety rule is imported for consumption
or warehousing or distributed in commerce, the manufacturer or private
labeler of such children's product must submit sufficient samples of
the children's product ``or samples that are identical in all material
respects to the product'' to an accredited ``third party conformity
assessment body'' to be tested for compliance with the children's
product safety rule. Based on such testing, the manufacturer or private
labeler, under section 14(a)(2)(B) of the CPSA, must issue a
certificate that certifies that such children's product complied with
the children's product safety rule based on the assessment of a third
party conformity assessment body accredited to perform such tests.
Section 14(d)(2)(A) of the CPSA requires the Commission to initiate
a program by which a manufacturer or private labeler may label a
consumer product as complying with the certification requirements. This
provision applies to all consumer products that are subject to a
product safety rule administered by the Commission.
Section 14(d)(2)(B) of the CPSA requires the Commission to
establish protocols and standards for:
Ensuring that a children's product tested for compliance
with a children's product safety rule is subject to testing
periodically and when there has been a material change in the product's
design or manufacturing process, including the sourcing of component
parts;
Testing of random samples;
Verifying that a children's product tested by a conformity
assessment body complies with applicable children's product safety
rules; and
Safeguarding against the exercise of undue influence on a
third party conformity assessment body by a manufacturer or private
labeler.
II. What Is the CPSC Considering With Regard to Testing and
Certification?
Although section 14 of the CPSA appears to impose the same testing
and certification requirements for consumer products and for children's
products, there are significant differences between consumer products,
children's products, manufacturers, and even testing methods and
sampling methods. These differences make it difficult to devise a
regulatory approach that is:
General enough to apply to most, if not all, consumer
products subject to section 14 of the CPSA;
Detailed enough so that interested parties know what tests
need to be performed, how often those tests need to be performed, and
how many samples need to be tested;
Rigorous enough so that the test results provide
confidence that all (rather than most or some) consumer products comply
with consumer product safety rules; and
Sensitive enough to the needs of small businesses and
individuals, such that any regulatory program designed to implement
section 14 of the CPSA does not prove so costly or so burdensome as to
drive those small businesses and individuals out of business regardless
of the quality or safety of the products they make.
For example, one can imagine that the testing requirements that
apply to a manufacturer who makes tens of thousands of electronic toys
that will be sold at retail outlets throughout the world will and
should differ from the testing requirements that apply to an individual
who hand-carves ten wooden toys and sells them at local craft shows.
Nevertheless, under section 14 of the CPSA, the electronic toys and
wooden toys both may fit the definition of ``children's product'' and
be subject to testing by a third party conformity assessment body.
Similarly, one can imagine that a large manufacturer has the financial
and technical resources and sophistication to devise testing programs
and to source its products to ensure that the product and the
components used to make the product comply with consumer product safety
rules, whereas an individual might not. Nevertheless, under section 14
of the CPSA, both the large manufacturer and the individual must test
and certify their products and must specify each such rule, ban,
standard, or regulation applicable to the product.
The Commission, therefore, will conduct a two-day workshop to
discuss possible options for implementing section 14 of the CPSA. We
believe that a properly structured testing program will greatly reduce
the likelihood of unsafe or otherwise non-compliant products entering
the market. A properly structured testing and certification program
also may result in fewer product recalls and CPSC enforcement actions,
increased consumer confidence, and safer consumer products.
III. What Topics Will Be Addressed at the Workshop?
In general, the workshop will focus on the following topics:
Reasonable Testing Programs;
Additional Third-Party Testing Requirements for Children's
Products;
Issues Affecting Importers and Small Businesses;
The Consumer Product Labeling Program; and
Certification.
We address these topics in greater detail in parts III.A through
III.E of this document.
A. Reasonable Testing Programs
1. What Is a ``Reasonable Testing Program?''
As explained in part I of this document, section 14(a)(1)(A) of the
[[Page 58613]]
CPSA requires manufacturers and private labelers of a product which is
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or similar
rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the
Commission to issue a certificate that is based on a test of each
product or upon a reasonable testing program. Section 14(a)(1)(A) of
the CPSA, however, begins with the phrase ``except as provided by''
section 14(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the CPSA. (Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA
pertains to third party testing of children's products while section
14(a)(3) of the CPSA establishes a schedule for third party testing.)
While one might interpret the ``except for'' clause in section 14(a)(1)
of the CPSA as not extending the ``reasonable testing program''
requirement to children's products, section 14(b) of the CPSA
authorizes the Commission to prescribe reasonable testing programs for
any product subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or
a similar rule, regulation, standard, or ban under any other Act
enforced by the Commission and for which a certificate is required
under section 14(a) of the CPSA. Thus, because children's products are
subject to a certificate requirement under section 14(a) of the CPSA,
the Commission, by regulation, may prescribe a reasonable testing
program for children's products.
We envision a reasonable testing program as having five elements
regardless of the quantity of product manufactured or the size of the
importer or manufacturer. The five elements are:
Product specifications that describe the consumer product
and list the safety rules, standards, etc., with which the product must
comply. The product specification should include a complete description
of the product and any other information, including, but not limited
to, a bill of materials, parts listing, raw material selection and
sourcing, and/or model names or numbers of items necessary to describe
the product and differentiate it from other products.
Certification tests which are performed on samples of the
manufacturer's consumer product to demonstrate that the product is
capable of passing the tests prescribed by the standard.
A production testing plan which describes the tests that
must be performed and the testing intervals to provide reasonable
assurance that the products as produced meet all applicable safety
rules.
A remedial action plan which must be employed whenever
samples of the consumer product or results from any other tests used to
assess compliance yield unacceptable or failing test results.
Documentation of the reasonable testing program and how it
was implemented.
These essential elements are intended to promote the use or
consideration of proper product design and material specifications,
adequate production and quality control processes, effective remedial
action process, and proper records maintenance procedures to assure,
with reasonable certainty, that all products entered into commerce
comply with all safety rules, standards, bans, or regulations. Some
elements may be procedural or process-control oriented. Some elements
may involve reliance on test data from material or component suppliers,
and some elements may be based on third party testing validation.
2. What Are the Issues Regarding a Reasonable Testing Program?
We invite discussion and comment on the following issues pertaining
to a ``reasonable testing program:''
Certain CPSC regulations, such as 16 CFR 1203.33(b)
(describing characteristics of a ``reasonable testing program'' for
testing bicycle helmets) include product specifications, certification
testing, production testing, and corrective action as elements of a
``reasonable testing program.'' However, those other CPSC regulations
tend to be specific to a single product type and affect a limited
number of manufacturers. In part III.A.1 of this document, we described
the five elements we believe should constitute a ``reasonable testing
program'' for all manufacturers. Please discuss whether the five
elements are appropriate for all manufacturers and whether additional
requirements or modifications should be made. For example, we have
heard about one testing program that evaluates hazards and risk
assessment when the product is being designed; this step would occur
before any testing is conducted, so one might consider whether
additional requirements should be part of a reasonable testing program
or modifications to the CPSC's five elements. Please identify any
references, standards, and other regulatory approaches that may be
helpful.
What factors should be considered to determine a
reasonable frequency for production testing? For example, should the
frequency for testing product samples be determined by production
volume, the amount of time that has elapsed since the product was last
tested, or some combination of those two and/or other factors? How
should the testing frequency be determined for very low volumes or
seasonal production? What rationale should be used to determine the
frequency of production testing? What references, standards, or models
exist?
[cir] Should the potential hazard (either the severity or the
probability of occurrence) be considered in determining how frequently
the testing is conducted? For example, should a product subject to a
consumer product safety rule, where the potential hazard is death, be
tested more frequently than a product where the potential hazard is
some lesser degree of harm? If so, how might a rule incorporate
potential hazard into testing frequency?
How should a reasonable testing program requirement
address the number of samples to be tested? Production volumes can vary
tremendously among manufacturers; one manufacturer might make hundreds
of thousands of the same item, whereas an individual who hand-weaves or
carves a product might make only one item. Please identify any
references, standards, and other regulatory approaches that may be
helpful.
How might component or batch testing be incorporated into
a ``reasonable testing program?'' What circumstances would warrant new
component or batch testing?
[cir] Under what circumstances should component testing be
permitted or not permitted?
[cir] Are there particular types of component testing which should
or should not be permitted?
[cir] What are the potential problems in or obstacles to using
component testing?
Section 19(a)(6) of the CPSA makes it unlawful for any
person to fail to furnish a certificate required by the CPSA or any
other act enforced by the Commission or to issue a false certificate if
such person ``in the exercise of due care has reason to know that the
certificate is false or misleading in any material respect * * *.'' If,
under a reasonable testing program, a manufacturer may rely on
certificates provided by a component supplier, what criteria or factors
should we consider in determining whether a manufacturer has exercised
``due care?'' How might a reasonable testing program's results apply in
determining whether a certificate is false or misleading?
What problems (if any) will small manufacturers or
manufacturers of low volume products encounter in establishing a
reasonable testing program as described in part III.A.1 of this
document? To what extent do small businesses or manufacturers of low
volume products already have
[[Page 58614]]
procedures in place that are intended to ensure that their products
meet the applicable product safety rules?
What quality assurance procedures do manufacturers use now
that might overlap with the reasonable testing program envisioned here?
B. What Are the Issues Regarding Additional Third-Party Testing
Requirements for Children's Products?
Section 14(d)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA requires the Commission to
establish protocols and standards for ensuring that a children's
product tested for compliance with a children's product safety rule is
subject to testing periodically and when there has been a material
change in the product's design or manufacturing process, including the
sourcing of component parts.
Should the potential hazard (either the severity or the
probability of occurrence) be considered in determining how frequently
the periodic testing is conducted? For example, should a product
subject to a consumer product safety rule, where the potential hazard
is death, be tested more frequently than a product where the potential
hazard is some lesser degree of harm? If so, how might a rule
incorporate potential hazard into testing frequency?
What changes should constitute a ``material change'' in a
product's design or manufacturing process? Are there criteria by which
one might determine whether a change is a ``material'' change? For
example, a material change in a product's design or manufacturing
process could be described as a change that affects the product's
ability to comply with a consumer product safety rule. However, as a
practical matter, it may be difficult to determine what consumer
product safety rules apply to the product and the extent to which
compliance with those rules is affected by a change.
Under what circumstances or conditions might the testing
be limited to the change itself? For example, assume that a product is
painted using paint made by Paint Company A, but then the product
manufacturer changes to use paint made by Paint Company B. Would it be
acceptable to test only the paint made by Paint Company B, under
section 14(d)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA, rather than test the entire
product?
Section 14(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the CPSA refers to the
``testing of random samples to ensure continued compliance.'' What
constitutes a ``random sample?'' How should the sample be collected,
and who should collect it? How should a regulation address the number
of samples to be tested? Please identify any references, standards, and
other regulatory approaches that may be helpful. For products that are
arguably unique, such as hand-made or custom products, what would
constitute a ``random sample?''
Section 14(d)(2)(B)(iii) of the CPSA requires the
Commission to establish protocols and standards for ``verifying that a
children's product tested by a conformity assessment body complies with
applicable children's product safety rules.'' What requirements or
procedures are needed to verify compliance? Who conducts the
verification process and how? For example, should verification be done
by a different third party conformity assessment body and using the
same tests that were applied to the children's product? How often
should verification be conducted? Please identify any references,
standards, and other regulatory approaches that may be helpful.
Section 14(d)(2)(B)(iv) of the CPSA requires the
Commission to establish protocols and standards for ``safeguarding
against the exercise of undue influence'' on third party conformity
assessment bodies.
[cir] What specific requirements should a rule specify to ensure
that a third party conformity assessment body is safeguarded against
undue influence by a manufacturer or private labeler?
[cir] What specific requirements should a rule establish to ensure
that manufacturers and private labelers do not exercise or attempt to
exercise undue influence on third party conformity assessment bodies?
Currently, the notices of requirements we have issued for the
accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies specify that
``firewalled'' conformity assessment bodies (which are third party
conformity assessment bodies that are owned, managed, or controlled by
a manufacturer or private labeler) must submit to the Commission
copies, in English, of their training documents showing how employees
are trained to notify the Commission immediately and confidentially of
any attempt by the manufacturer, private labeler, or other interested
party to hide or exert undue influence over the third party conformity
assessment body's test results. We have heard recommendations to
strengthen or increase the evidence needed to protect against the
exercise of undue influence and to apply such recommendations to all
third party conformity assessment bodies and perhaps to manufacturers
and private labelers. For example, individual employees could sign
documents acknowledging that they are aware of and/or have received
training pertaining to safeguards against undue influence. Please
identify any references, standards, and other regulatory approaches
that may be helpful.
What provisions (if any) should be made for small
manufacturers and manufacturers with low production volumes and why?
For example, specifying the frequency of periodic testing or the number
of random samples to be tested may be inappropriate where the volume of
children's products being manufactured is low or where the children's
product is one-of-a-kind.
Although the enforcement of most third party testing
requirements of the CPSA has been stayed at least until February 10,
2010 (74 FR 6396 (February 9, 2009)), many manufacturers and importers
have subjected their products to third party testing. We are interested
in learning about:
[cir] The experiences of firms in obtaining third party testing,
including information on the actual testing costs, and the experiences
of small firms and crafters, especially those with no more than a few
employees or with low volume products (e.g., less than 10,000 units per
year);
[cir] Testing costs and the possible impacts of required periodic
testing on the financial health of the businesses;
[cir] The use of component testing to reduce the cost of testing or
the potential for using component testing for lowering the cost of
testing;
[cir] The circumstances under which component testing should or
should not be permitted. For example, component testing may be
appropriate for testing parts for lead and for phthalates, but
inappropriate for testing pursuant to 16 CFR part 1203 (Safety Standard
for Bicycle Helmets). As another example, one might argue that
component testing may be appropriate for raw materials under certain
circumstances, but that certain items should not be considered to be
``component'' and, therefore, are not appropriate for component
testing. How might we define ``component?'' May the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 be read to require foreign manufacturers
of components meant for children's products to issue certifications?;
[cir] Whether particular types of component testing should or
should not be permitted. For example, assume that the product is a doll
with painted eyes. If a manufacturer can develop a sample doll whose
entire head is painted, using the same paint as used for the eyes, a
testing laboratory would be able to
[[Page 58615]]
obtain a sufficient paint sample from a smaller number of sample dolls
compared to the number of dolls that would need to be tested if the
manufacturer's samples had to have the same sized painted eyes as the
dolls to be sold on the market. As another example, assume that a
product is assembled in pieces; if a manufacturer can test the pieces
before assembling the product, a testing laboratory would not have to
receive an assembled final product and then break the product down into
pieces for testing; and
[cir] The potential problems in or obstacles to using component
testing.
C. What Are the Issues Pertaining to Importers and Small Businesses?
We recognize that importers, small businesses, and others may
operate in an environment that may differ significantly from that of
large manufacturers. For example, importers may acquire their product
from many sources, including manufacturing operations under their
control and contract manufacturers or foreign wholesalers that are not
under their control. If an importer is not directly involved in the
manufacturing process, its ability to monitor and control the
manufacturing process may be limited.
How might an importer involved with a contract
manufacturer ensure testing is conducted when the source of a component
part changes? We seek information on approaches that will ensure that
consumer products comply with consumer product safety rules and similar
rules, bans, standards, or regulations under other acts enforced by the
Commission while recognizing that importers and others may face
constraints due to their lack of direct involvement in the manufacture
and production of the consumer product.
Many small businesses have expressed concerns about the
implementation of section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, particularly small
businesses importing or manufacturing children's products which require
testing by a third party conformity assessment body. While we do not
have sufficient information regarding the size or production volume of
all children's product manufacturers, the information that is available
suggests that, in 2006, 98 percent of domestic firms manufacturing
toys, dolls, and/or games employed fewer than 500 employees, and 81
percent employed fewer than 20 employees. (See Employer Firms, &
Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes, 2006 (North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 33993 pertaining
to the doll, toy, and game manufacturing industry), available on the
Internet at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us06_n6.pdf.)
[cir] There will be an economic impact on all parties required to
obtain third party testing of children's products. Those dealing with
higher volumes may be able to amortize the testing costs over a larger
volume of product, thereby reducing the incremental per-piece testing
cost. However, requiring all businesses to abide by the same protocols
and standards, regardless of their size or methods of production, may
burden the smallest volume businesses with significant testing costs.
We seek a better understanding of the potential cost impact on these
smaller businesses and how a testing program pursuant to section
14(d)(2)(B) of the CPSA might be structured to minimize the cost burden
while ensuring product safety.
[cir] Small businesses producing a very small volume of children's
products, often custom-ordered, present unique challenges. These small
businesses often buy small quantities of components at retail
establishments. These components often are not children's products when
sold at retail and therefore are not subject to the third party testing
requirements. However, when the components are used to manufacture a
children's product, they must meet all applicable standards. For
example, a plain button sold at retail is not a children's product and
is not subject to third party testing. If the same button is used to
manufacture a toy, the button becomes a component of a children's
product and becomes subject to the third party testing requirement and
to children's product safety rules. We invite comment on possible
approaches for product testing, including component testing, in these
situations.
D. What Are the Issues Pertaining to a Consumer Product Labeling
Program?
Section 14(d)(2)(A) of the CPSA requires the Commission to
initiate, by regulation, a program by which a manufacturer or private
labeler may label a consumer product as complying with the
certification requirements in section 14(a) of the CPSA for consumer
products and for children's products.
We believe that the party certifying the consumer product is
responsible for ensuring that the product complies with all applicable
consumer product safety rules or similar rules, bans, standards, or
regulations under any other act enforced by the Commission and that
only the party certifying the product's compliance, or its authorized
representative, may affix the label to the consumer product. We also
believe that the label should be affixed before the consumer product is
placed on the market and should be affixed to the product packaging or,
if there is no packaging, to the product or on a tag or other material
included with the product.
What requirements, if any, should be specified as part of
the label program? For example, should a rule specify the label's text
or provide other specifications such as size, color, font, and
location? Should a rule impose any restrictions on the label's use? If
so, what should the specifications or restrictions be?
What challenges, if any, would a label program present to
manufacturers, such as manufacturers of certain products or small
manufacturers, and how could such challenges be addressed?
E. What Are the Issues Pertaining to Certification?
Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA states that every certificate required
under section 14 of the CPSA ``shall accompany'' the product or
shipment of products covered by the same certificate and that a copy of
the certificate shall be furnished to each distributor or retailer.
Section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA allows for electronic filing of
certificates up to 24 hours before arrival of an imported product and
directs manufacturers and private labelers to furnish a copy to the
Commission and to the Commissioner of Customs upon request.
What constitutes or should constitute ``accompanying'' the
product or shipment?
In the Federal Register of November 18, 2008 (73 FR
68328), we issued a final rule discussing, among other things, the
electronic certificate. The final rule allowed an electronic
certificate to ``accompany'' the product or shipment if the certificate
is identified by a unique identifier and can be accessed through a
World Wide Web URL or other electronic means as long as the URL or
other electronic means and the unique identifier are created in advance
and are available to the Commission or to Customs and Border Protection
when the product is available for inspection. The final rule also
stated that importers and domestic manufacturers and private labelers
satisfy the requirement of ``furnishing'' the certificate to
distributors and retailers if they are given ``a reasonable means to
access the certificate.'' (See 16 CFR 111.13, ``Availability of
electronic certificate''.) The final rule, however, gave no specific
details on what constitutes a ``unique identifier,'' ``other
[[Page 58616]]
electronic means,'' or ``reasonable means.'' What changes, if any, are
needed to the rule regarding electronic certificates? Should foreign
manufacturers be required to issue a certificate?
IV. Details Regarding the Workshop
The workshop will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday,
December 10, 2009, and Friday, December 11, 2009 at the CPSC's
headquarters building at 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland
20814, in the 4th Floor Hearing Room.
The workshop will open with a review of CPSC staff's current work
on sections 14(a) and 14(d)(2) of the CPSA, including a discussion of
the factors involved in sampling and an overview of the economic
issues, followed by break-out sessions on the following subjects:
The Consumer Product Labeling Program;
Reasonable Testing Programs;
Sampling Plans;
Safeguarding Against Undue Influence on Product Testing;
Additional Third-Party Testing Requirements for Children's
Products; and
Verification of Children's Product Testing Results.
The panels at the break-out sessions will consist of Commission staff
and invited members from the public. If you would like to make a
presentation at the workshop or be considered as a panel member for a
specific break-out session, please send, via electronic mail (e-mail),
a note indicating your desire to participate and/or indicating which of
the break-out sessions you wish to join. We ask that you limit the
number of break-out sessions to no more than three. We will select
panelists and persons who will make presentations at the workshop,
based on considerations such as: The individual's familiarity or
expertise with the topic to be discussed; the practical utility of the
information to be presented (such as a discussion of specific
standards, methods, or other regulatory approaches), and the
individual's viewpoint or ability to represent certain interests (such
as large manufacturers, small manufacturers, consumer organizations,
etc.). The e-mail should be sent to Robert Howell at rhowell@cpsc.gov
no later than November 20, 2009. In addition, please inform Mr. Howell
of any special equipment needs required to make a presentation. While
an effort will be made to accommodate all persons who wish to make a
presentation, the time allotted for presentations will depend on the
number of persons who wish to speak on a given topic and the workshop
schedule. We recommend that individuals and organizations with common
interests consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request
time for a joint presentation. If you wish to make a presentation and
want to make copies of your presentation or other handouts available,
you should bring copies to the workshop. We will notify those who are
selected to make a presentation or participate in a break-out session
panel at least 3 weeks before the workshop. Selections will be made in
attempt to ensure that a wide variety of interests are represented.
If you do not wish to make a presentation, you do not need to
notify the CPSC, but please be aware that seating will be on a first-
come, first-served basis.
If you need special accommodations because of disability, please
contact Mr. Howell at least 7 days before the workshop.
In addition, we encourage written or electronic comments to the
docket. Written or electronic comments will be accepted until January
11, 2010. Please note that all comments should be restricted to how the
CPSC should interpret and implement the requirements found in sections
14(a) and 14(d)(2) of the CPSA so as to promote increased product
safety while minimizing possible adverse impacts or unintentional
consequences of the implementing regulations to be developed.
Dated: November 9, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-27328 Filed 11-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P