Small Batch Mnfrs Seek CPSC 3rd-Party Test Alternatives, Broader Definition of "Small"
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has posted stakeholder presentations from its October 26, 2011 public meeting on possible alternative testing requirements for small batch manufacturers as well as written comments received to date on the topic.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
(H.R. 2715, or Public Law 112-28, recently amended CPSC's third-party testing requirements for children's products by allowing it to establish alternative testing requirements for small batch manufacturers (for firms up to $1 million in revenue and less than 7,500 units in the previous year), or if alternatives are unavailable or economically impracticable, an exemption from certain1 of the third party testing requirements.)
Highlights of Presentations and Comments
The following are highlights of the presentations and comments:
- Change “small batch” definition to address specialty products. Several urged CPSC to consider a broader or different definition of small batch manufacturer as there are many companies with small runs of specialty products that will not qualify for the small batch exemption set out in H.R. 2715 as their gross revenue exceeds $1 million. (Staff previously stated that their proposed exemption for low volume production in a May 2010 proposed rule would have applied more extensively than the small batch provisions of H.R. 2715 because it would have covered manufacturers exceeding $1 million in revenue but with certain low-volume products. See ITT’s Online Archives 11101912 for summary.)
- Recognize alternative testing as equivalent. CPSC was urged to recognize alternative testing, such as to the European Toy Standard, as being equivalent to CPSIA third-party testing for small batch manufacturers of children’s products.
- Completely exempt small batch manufactures. Others stated that small batch manufacturers should not have to third-party test at all since they were not responsible for the many recalls that led to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act's (CPSIA's) third-party testing and other requirements. Several submitted cost estimates for third-party testing, stating that they are prohibitively high for small batch manufacturers.
- Establish registration database. One presenter also urged CPSC to quickly establish the registration system for small batch manufacturers of children's products required by H.R. 2715 since Congress made registration a prerequisite for small batch manufacturers wishing to take advantage of any alternative requirements that CPSC may issue. He also said such a database would be useful to CPSC as it would give contact information for smaller entities and could facilitate “spot checks” of compliance.
1P.L. 112-28 prohibits CPSC from providing alternative testing requirements or exemptions for any of the third-party testing requirements for: lead in paint, cribs, pacifiers, small parts, children’s metal jewelry, baby bouncers/walkers/jumpers, or durable infant or toddler products.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11100718 for summary of CPSC announcing the public meeting and seeking comments.)
Written comments are available here.