The new proposed rule offers guidelines for the testing and labeling procedures to comply with the CPSIA.
Ongoing legislation swirls around the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). The CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) has recently proposed a rule in order to create reasonable testing programs for the lead content of children’s (and non-children’s) products. This rule also includes details about the labeling process once those products complete testing. The rule dictates that product manufacturers must use a third-part assessor at least once a year with some exclusion. The following is a complete list of the proposed rule details.
Proposed regulations relating to reasonable testing programs for children’s products provide that:
1) Manufacturers would be required to submit sufficient samples of a children’s product to a third-party tester that would provide a high degree of assurance that the tests demonstrate the product’s ability to meet applicable safety rules
2) Fewer samples would be required if the manufacturing process consistently creates parts uniform in composition and quality
3) If a product sample fails testing, the manufacturer must take remedial action
4) Manufacturers would be required to conduct periodic testing at least annually, except as provided in (5) or (7)
5) If manufacturers have implemented a reasonable testing program as described, it would be required to submit samples of its product to a third party tester for periodic testing at least once every two years
6) If a reasonable testing program isn’t implemented, all periodic testing would be required by a third party tester
7) Periodic testing wouldn’t be required unless a manufacturer produced more than 10,000 units of a particular product.
Manufacturers will be required to label the products once testing is complete. The following are the proposed guidelines for labeling.
Proposed regulations relating to consumer product labeling provide that:
1) Manufacturers may indicate by a uniform label, on or provided with the product, that the product complies with applicable safety rules
2) Label would be required to meet certain printing requirements
3) Manufacturers may use another label on product as long as such label doesn’t alter or mislead consumers as to the meaning of the label referenced by (2).
If you have the time, patience and understanding to slog through the complete document of legal mumbo-jumbo, the Proposed Rule was published in the May 20, 2010 Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 97.