This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

28208 

Vol. 75, No. 97 

Thursday, May 20, 2010 

1The Commission voted 5–0 to approve 

publication of this proposed rule. Chairman Inez 

Tenenbaum and Commissioners Nancy Nord and 

Anne Northup each filed a statement concerning 

this action. These statements may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/ 

statements.html or obtained from the Commission’s 

Office of the Secretary. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1109 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0037] 

Conditions and Requirements for 

Testing Component Parts of Consumer 

Products 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is issuing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking regarding the conditions 

and requirements for testing of 

component parts of consumer products 

to demonstrate, in whole or in part, 

compliance of a consumer product with 

all applicable rules, bans, standards, 

and regulations: to support a general 

conformity certificate or a certificate for 

a children’s product pursuant to section 

14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Act (CPSA); as part of a reasonable 

testing program pursuant to section 

14(a) of the CPSA; as part of the 

standards and protocols for continued 

testing of children’s products pursuant 

to section 14(d)(2) of the CPSA; and/or 

to meet the requirements of any other 

rule, ban, standard, guidance, policy, or 

protocol regarding consumer product 

testing that does not already directly 

address component part testing.1

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by August 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0037, 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 (email) 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 820, 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 proposed 

collection of information. 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, with the sensitive portions 

clearly identified. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randy Butturini, Project Manager, 

Office of Hazard Identification and 

Reduction, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7562; e-mail rbutturini@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Except as provided in section 14(a)(2) 

of the CPSA, section 14(a)(1) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1), requires 

manufacturers and private labelers of a 

product that is subject to a consumer 

product safety rule (defined in section 

3(a)(6) of the CPSA), or to any similar 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation under 

any other act enforced by the 

Commission, to issue a certificate. The 

certificate: (1) Must certify, based on a 

test of each product or upon a 

reasonable testing program, that the 

product complies with all CPSC 

requirements; and (2) must specify each 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

applicable to the product. This 

certificate is called a General 

Conformity Certificate (GCC). 

Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a)(2), requires 

manufacturers and private labelers of 

any children’s product that is subject to 

a children’s product safety rule to 

submit samples of the product, or 

samples that are identical in all material 

respects to the product, to a third party 

conformity assessment body accredited 

by CPSC to be tested for compliance 

with such children’s product safety rule. 

Based on that testing, the manufacturer 

or private labeler must issue a certificate 

that certifies that such children’s 

product complies with the children’s 

product safety rule based on the 

assessment of a third party conformity 

assessment body accredited to conduct 

such tests. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)(B). The 

manufacturer or private labeler of the 

children’s product must issue either a 

separate certificate for each applicable 

children’s product safety rule or a 

combined certificate that certifies 

compliance with all applicable 

children’s product safety rules and 

specifies each such rule. This certificate 

is called a Children’s Product 

Certificate. 

Section 14(g) of the CPSA contains 

additional requirements for these 

certificates. 15 U.S.C. 2063(g). Each 

certificate must identify the 

manufacturer or private labeler issuing 

the certificate and any third party 

conformity assessment body on whose 

testing the certificate depends. The 

certificate must include, at a minimum, 

the date and place of manufacture, the 

date and place where the product was 

tested, each party’s name, full mailing 

address, telephone number, and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. Every certificate must be 

legible, and all required content must be 

in the English language. A certificate 

also may contain the same content in 

any other language. 

Section 14(g) of the CPSA also states 

that every certificate must accompany 

the applicable product or shipment of 

products covered by the same 

certificate, and a copy of the certificate 

must be furnished to each distributor or 

retailer of the product. Upon request, 

the manufacturer or private labeler 

issuing the certificate must furnish a 

copy of the certificate to the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28209 

Commission. The Commission has 

regulations, at 16 CFR part 1110, 

specifying the parties responsible for 

issuing certificates, the form and 

content of certificates, and other 

requirements for certificates, including 

that certificates can be provided in 

electronic form. 

This proposed rule would set forth 

the conditions and requirements for 

testing of component parts of consumer 

products, including children’s products, 

where such testing is intended to 

demonstrate, in whole or in part, the 

product’s compliance with any rule, 

standard, ban, or regulation enforced by 

the Commission that is subject to the 

requirements of section 14 of the CPSA 

and that does not itself directly address 

testing of component parts. Specifically, 

the proposed rule would establish the 

conditions under which a party 

certifying a product under section 14 of 

the CPSA may rely on tests of 

component parts of the product, 

including materials used to produce it, 

as all or part of the basis for a valid 

certificate that the product complies 

with all applicable requirements 

enforced by the Commission. The 

proposed rule also would set out the 

conditions under which such tests of 

component parts can be conducted by 

persons other than the manufacturer, 

such as the manufacturer or supplier of 

the component parts. The proposed rule 

is consistent with earlier positions taken 

by the Commission (see: (1) A Statement 

of Policy: Testing of Component Parts 

with Respect to Section 108 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act, available on the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/ 

componenttestingpolicy.pdf, which 

outlined the Commission’s interim 

position on component testing of 

products containing plasticized 

component parts for phthalates; (2) a 

Statement of Policy: Testing and 

Certification of Lead Content in 

Children’s Products, available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/ 

leadpolicy.pdf.; (3) Guidance Document: 

Testing and Certification Requirements 

Under the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, available at 

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia10/ 

brief/102testing.pdf; (4) a notice 

regarding a Commission workshop on 

testing and certification published in 

the Federal Register on November 13, 

2009, at 74 FR 58611, 58616; and (5) an 

Interim Enforcement Policy on 

Component Testing and Certification of 

Children’s Products and Other 

Consumer Products to the August 14, 

2000 Lead Limits (the Lead Limits 

Interim Enforcement Policy), available 

at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/ 

frnotices/fr10/comppol.pdf and 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 29, 2009 (74 FR 68593)). The 

proposed rule also reflects the 

Commission’s consideration of 

comments to those notices and to the 

workshop. 

The Commission invites comment on 

whether finished product certifiers 

should be permitted to rely on other 

types of certifications from other 

persons (in addition to component part 

certifications). The proposed rule only 

would allow a finished product certifier 

to rely on certificates relating to the 

performance of individual component 

parts; it would not authorize a finished 

product certifier to rely on a certificate 

from another party certifying that the 

finished product itself complies with an 

applicable rule. For example, it would 

not allow certification by others in the 

case of standards, such as the small 

parts ban at 16 CFR 1500.19, which 

require testing of the entire product as 

opposed to an individual component. 

Should this limitation be modified so 

that the importer of a product would be 

able to base its own certification on 

what might be termed a ‘‘subordinate’’ 

certificate from a foreign manufacturer 

or other interested party to the effect 

that the product complies with one or 

more of these standards? What are the 

risks and benefits of allowing such an 

arrangement? 

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, the Commission is issuing a 

proposed rule titled ‘‘Testing and 

Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification’’; that proposed rule would 

address testing, continuing testing, and 

labeling requirements for consumer 

products, including children’s products, 

and would create a new 16 CFR part 

1107. Component testing may help 

manufacturers meet their testing or 

continuing testing obligations under 

section 14 of the CPSA. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

A. Introduction 

The proposed rule would establish a 

new 16 CFR part 1109, setting forth the 

conditions under which the 

Commission will allow certification of 

consumer products based in whole or in 

part on testing of component parts or 

composite parts. The new part 1109 

would consist of two subparts: Subpart 

A—General Conditions and 

Requirements, and Subpart B— 

Conditions and Requirements for 

Specific Consumer Products, 

Component Parts, and Chemicals. 

B. Proposed Subpart A—General 

Conditions and Requirements 

Proposed subpart A, consisting of 

§§ 1109.1 through 1109.5, would set out 

generally applicable conditions and 

requirements. 

1. Scope—Proposed § 1109.1 

Proposed § 1109.1 would define the 

scope of the rule as applying to all tests 

of component parts of consumer 

products where the test results are used 

to support a certificate of compliance 

issued pursuant to section 14(a) of the 

CPSA or where the tests are otherwise 

required or permitted by section 14 of 

the CPSA. 

2. Purpose—Proposed § 1109.2 

Proposed § 1109.2 would discuss the 

rule’s purpose, which is to set forth the 

conditions and requirements under 

which the Commission will require or 

accept the results of testing of 

component parts of consumer products, 

instead of the entire consumer product, 

to meet, in whole or in part, the testing 

and certification requirements of 

sections 14(a), 14(b), and 14(d) of the 

CPSA. 

3. Applicability—Proposed § 1109.3 

Proposed § 1109.3 would specify that 

the rule applies to all manufacturers, 

importers, or private labelers and to the 

manufacturers or suppliers of 

component parts that: (1) Are 

responsible for certifying products 

under section 14(a) of the CPSA or for 

continued compliance testing under 

section 14(d) of the CPSA; or (2) test 

component parts of consumer products 

to support a certification of compliance 

under section 14(a) of the CPSA or to 

comply with continuing testing 

requirements under section 14(d) of the 

CPSA. 

4. Definitions—Proposed § 1109.4 

Proposed § 1109.4 would define 

various terms used in the rule. For 

example, the proposal would define a 

component part, in part, as ‘‘any part of 

a consumer product, including a 

children’s product, that either must or 

may be tested separately from a finished 

consumer product, to assess the 

consumer product’s ability to comply 

with a specific rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation enforced by the CPSC.’’ As 

another example, proposed § 1109.4 

would define a ‘‘finished product 

certifier’’ as ‘‘a firm responsible for 

certifying compliance of a consumer 

product with all applicable rules, bans, 

standards, and regulations pursuant to 

part 1110 of this chapter.’’ ‘‘Component 

part certifier’’ would be defined as ‘‘a 

firm that certifies component parts to be 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

used in consumer products as 

complying with one or more rules, bans, 

standards, or regulations enforced by 

the CPSC pursuant to part 1109.’’ The 

generic term ‘‘certifier’’ would be 

defined as a firm that is either a finished 

product certifier or a component part 

certifier. 

The proposed rule would provide that 

when samples of component parts are 

tested, they must be identical in all 

material respects to the component parts 

used in the finished product. Proposed 

§ 1109.4 would specify that ‘‘identical in 

all material respects’’ means there is no 

difference with respect to compliance to 

the applicable rules between the 

samples and the finished product. 

5. Conditions and Requirements 

Generally—Proposed § 1109.5 

Proposed § 1109.5 would set out 

conditions and requirements that 

generally apply to all types of 

component part testing. Proposed 

§ 1105.5(a)(1) would state that finished 

product certifiers may rely on testing of 

a component part of a consumer product 

only where testing of the component 

part is required or sufficient to assess 

the consumer product’s compliance, in 

whole or in part, with an applicable 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation. For 

example, testing a component part of a 

children’s product for lead may be 

sufficient in situations where only the 

component part is known to contain or 

may contain lead. On the other hand, 

testing a component part of a consumer 

product for compliance with the small 

parts requirements of 16 CFR part 1501 

will rarely, if ever, be appropriate, 

because the test procedure described at 

16 CFR 1501.4 generally requires that 

the entire product be tested to 

determine whether small parts can be 

detached during the use or abuse of the 

entire product. Proposed § 1109.5(a)(1) 

also would specify that any doubts 

about whether testing one or more 

component parts of a consumer product 

can help to assess whether the entire 

product complies with applicable rules, 

bans, standards, and regulations should 

be resolved in favor of testing the entire 

product. 

Proposed § 1109.5(a)(2) would require 

that the component part tested be 

identical in all material respects to the 

component used in the finished 

consumer product. Under this section, 

to be identical in all material respects to 

a component for purposes of supporting 

a certification of a children’s product, a 

sample need not necessarily be of the 

same size, shape, or finish condition 

(such as polished, deburred, etc.) as the 

component part of the finished product; 

rather, the sample may consist of any 

quantity that is sufficient for testing 

purposes and may be in any form that 

has the same content as the component 

part of the finished product. For 

example, assume that a children’s toy 

manufacturer receives plastic resins in 

an unfinished state (such as pellets) 

from a supplier and later molds the 

plastic resins into a component or a 

finished children’s toy in the 

manufacturing process, and assume that 

the plastic resins need to be tested for 

phthalates. The children’s toy 

manufacturer may send samples of the 

plastic, either as pellets or in their 

finished state, to a third party 

conformity assessment body for testing. 

A finished product certifier must 

exercise due care to ensure that no 

change in the component parts after 

testing and before distribution in 

commerce has occurred that would 

affect compliance, including 

contamination or degradation. Proposed 

§ 1109.5(a)(2) also would state that 

manufacturers must exercise due care in 

the proper management and control of 

all raw materials, component parts, 

subassemblies, and finished goods for 

any factor that could affect the finished 

product’s compliance with all 

applicable rules. The manufacturer must 

exercise due care that the manufacturing 

process does not add a prohibited 

chemical from an untested source, such 

as the material hopper, regrind 

equipment, or other equipment used in 

the assembly of the finished product. 

Proposed § 1109.4(g) would define ‘‘due 

care’’ to mean the degree of care that a 

prudent and competent person engaged 

in the same line of business or endeavor 

would exercise under similar 

circumstances. 

Under proposed § 1109.5(b), a 

finished product certifier would not be 

able to rely on testing of a component 

part of a consumer product for any rule, 

ban, standard, or regulation that 

requires testing the entire consumer 

product to assess compliance. 

Under proposed § 1109.5(c), certifiers 

and testing parties would be required to 

ensure that the required test methods 

and sampling protocols, as set forth in 

proposed 16 CFR part 1107, as well as 

any more specific applicable rules, bans, 

standards, regulations, or testing 

protocols, are used to assess compliance 

of the component part. 

Proposed § 1109.5(d) would state that, 

subject to any more specific rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation, component part 

testing may occur before final assembly 

of a consumer product, provided that 

nothing in the final assembly of the 

consumer product can cause the 

component part or the consumer 

product to become noncompliant. 

Proposed § 1109.5(e) would specify 

that finished product certifiers may not 

rely on component part testing 

conducted by another unless such 

component parts are traceable. 

Traceable is defined in proposed 

§ 1109.4(m) as the ability of a certifier to 

identify the source of a component part, 

including the name and address of the 

entity providing the component part to 

the certifier. 

Proposed § 1109.5(f) would require 

testing parties who are not themselves 

certifying a component part to provide 

the following documentation to the 

component part certifier, either in hard 

copy or electronically: 

(1) Identification or a description of 

the component part tested; 

(2) Identification of a lot or batch 

number for which the testing applies; 

(3) Identification of the applicable 

rules, bans, standards, and regulations 

for which each component part was 

tested; 

(4) Identification or a description of 

the testing methods and sampling 

protocols used; 

(5) The date or date range when the 

component part was tested; 

(6) The results of each test on a 

component part; and 

(7) If the product was tested by a third 

party conformity assessment body, 

regardless of whether such third party 

testing was required because the 

product is a children’s product or 

whether the testing party chose to use 

such third party conformity assessment 

body, identification of such conformity 

assessment body, a copy of the original 

test results, and a certification that all 

testing was performed in compliance 

with section 14 of the CPSA and 

proposed part 1107 of this title. 

The above information is needed so 

that, if noncomplying products are 

found, the Commission can use this 

information to determine whether a 

finished product certifier, component 

part certifier, or third party conformity 

assessment body is not complying with 

the appropriate requirements. 

Under proposed § 1109.5(g)(1), the 

Commission would consider any 

certificate issued by a component part 

certifier in accordance with this part to 

be a certificate issued in accordance 

with section 14(a) of the CPSA. A 

component part certificate must contain 

all of the information required by part 

1110 of this chapter. This provision 

would allow finished product certifiers 

to rely on section 19(b) of the CPSA, 

which provides that a person who holds 

a certificate issued in accordance with 

section 14(a) of the CPSA (to the effect 

that a consumer product conforms to all 

applicable consumer product safety 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28211 

rules) is not subject to the prohibitions 

in section 19(a)(1) of the CPSA 

(regarding distributing noncomplying 

products) and section 19(a)(2) of the 

CPSA (regarding distributing products 

subject to certain voluntary corrective 

actions) unless such person knows that 

such consumer product does not 

conform. However, such person may 

violate section 19(a)(6) of the CPSA if 

the products that are the subject of any 

certificate issued by that person in fact 

do not comply with the applicable 

standard(s) and such person, in the 

exercise of due care, would have reason 

to know that their certificate is false or 

misleading in any material respect. 

Proposed § 1109.5(h)(1) would address 

how this duty of due care applies to 

finished product certifiers. 

Proposed § 1109.5(g)(2) would 

provide that any person who elects to 

certify compliance of a component part 

with an applicable rule must assume all 

responsibilities of a manufacturer under 

part 1107 of this chapter with respect to 

that component part’s compliance with 

the applicable rule. 

Under proposed § 1109.5(h)(1), a 

finished product certifier must exercise 

due care in order to rely, in whole or in 

part, on a component part certificate 

issued by a component part certifier or 

on component part testing by a testing 

party as the basis for a finished product 

certificate. If a finished product certifier 

fails to exercise due care in its reliance 

on a certificate for a component part, 

then the Commission will not consider 

the finished product certifier to hold a 

component part certificate issued in 

accordance with section 14(a) of the 

CPSA. Exercising due care in this 

context means taking the steps a 

prudent and competent person would 

take to conduct a reasonable review of 

a component part certificate and to 

address any concern over its validity. 

Such steps may vary according to the 

circumstances. 

Under proposed § 1109.5(h)(2), a 

finished product certifier must not rely 

on component part testing by a testing 

party or component part certifier unless 

it receives the documentation under 

proposed § 1109.5(f) from the 

component part certifier or testing party. 

The Commission may consider a 

finished product certifier who does not 

obtain such documentation before 

certifying a consumer product to have 

failed to exercise due care. 

Under proposed § 1109.5(h)(3), any 

certification of a consumer product 

based, in whole or in part, on 

component part testing performed by a 

component part certifier or a testing 

party must: 

(1) Identify both the corresponding 

documentation required in proposed 

§ 1109.5(f) and any report provided by 

a third party conformity assessment 

body on which the consumer product’s 

certification is based; and 

(2) Certify that nothing subsequent to 

component part testing, for example, in 

the process of final assembly of the 

consumer product, changed or degraded 

the consumer product such that it 

affected the product’s ability to meet all 

applicable rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations. 

Proposed § 1109.5(i) would require 

testing parties to maintain the 

documentation that would be required 

in proposed § 1109.5(f) for 5 years. 

Additionally, all certifiers would have 

to maintain records to support the 

traceability of component part suppliers 

for as long as the product is produced 

or imported by the certifier plus 5 years. 

Test records would be retained for 5 

years. All records would be required to 

be available in the English language. 

The documentation and records are 

needed to enable the Commission to 

investigate component part suppliers 

and component part certifiers if 

noncomplying, yet certified, products 

are found. Records would be required to 

be maintained for 5 years because the 

statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 

2462 allows the Commission to bring an 

action within that time. It would be 

unnecessarily burdensome to require a 

manufacturer to maintain records 

beyond the time the Commission could 

pursue an action. The proposal would 

require certifiers to maintain the records 

at the location within the United States 

specified in 16 CFR 1110.11(d), or, if the 

records are not maintained at the 

custodian’s address, at a location 

specified by the custodian. The 

manufacturer must make these records 

available, either in hard copy or 

electronically, for inspection by the 

CPSC upon request. 

Some requirements enforced by the 

Commission limit the content of certain 

chemicals in consumer products. These 

include the limits for lead content in 

children’s products in section 101(a) of 

the CPSIA, the limit for lead content of 

paint and similar surface-coating 

materials in 16 CFR part 1303, the 

prohibition of more than 0.1 percent of 

certain phthalates in children’s toys and 

child care articles in section 108 of the 

CPSIA, and the limitation of the 

amounts of compounds of antimony, 

arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, 

lead, mercury, or selenium in paints or 

other surface coatings in toys in section 

4.3.5.2 of ASTM F 963 (‘‘Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Toy 

Safety’’). (Section 106(a) of the CPSIA 

states that the requirements of ASTM F 

963 must be considered to be consumer 

product safety standards issued by the 

Commission under section 9 of the 

CPSA.) 

The testing of component parts 

consists of three general categories: (1) 

Testing for the levels of chemicals in 

paints or surface coatings; (2) testing of 

actual component parts of a product to 

determine the content of chemicals in 

the component parts; and (3) testing of 

a combination of paints or surface 

coatings or a combination of component 

parts (i.e., composite testing), which can 

reduce the number of tests required or 

the number of products needed to 

obtain a sample large enough to test. 

C. Proposed Subpart B—Conditions and 

Requirements for Specific Consumer 

Products, Component Parts, and 

Chemicals 

1. Introduction 

Proposed subpart B would consist of 

four provisions, §§ 1109.11 through 

1109.14. The first three provisions 

would discuss specific requirements for 

consumer products (namely chemicals 

in paint and similar surface coatings, 

lead content, and phthalates in 

products). The fourth provision would 

concern composite testing. 

2. Proposed § 1109.11—Lead in Paint 

and Surface Coatings 

Proposed § 1109.11 would address 

component part testing for the levels of 

specified chemicals in paints or surface 

coatings. This aspect of the proposed 

rule is based on the Commission’s 

previously published enforcement 

policy for testing products for 

compliance with lead limits. 74 FR 

68593 (December 28, 2009). 

Section 101(f)(1) of the CPSIA 

required the Commission to revise its 

preexisting regulation (at 16 CFR 

1303.1) so that paints and similar 

surface coating materials having a lead 

content in excess of 0.009 percent of the 

weight of the total nonvolatile content 

of the paint or the weight of the dried 

paint film are banned hazardous 

products. (To simplify this discussion, 

we use the term ‘‘paint’’ broadly to 

include any type of surface coating that 

is subject to 16 CFR part 1303 or section 

4.3.5.2 of ASTM F 963.) The new lower 

limit in 16 CFR part 1303 applies not 

only to paint sold to consumers as such 

(for example, a gallon of paint sold at a 

hardware store), but also to any paint on 

toys or other articles for children and to 

any paint on certain household 

furniture items (not limited to children’s 

furniture). See 16 CFR part 1303. The 

principles for testing paint subject to 16 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

CFR part 1303 also apply to the testing 

of paint and surface coatings for toys in 

section 4.3.5.2 of ASTM F 963. 

In the case of paint and coatings, a 

manufacturer of a children’s product 

can send samples of the finished 

product to a third party conformity 

assessment body so that each type of 

paint may be scraped off and tested 

individually. However, where small 

amounts of a particular paint are used 

(such as painted eyes on a doll), under 

existing regulations, a large number of 

samples of the children’s product may 

be needed to obtain enough of that paint 

to test. 

Because compliance of a paint to its 

content limits is a function of the paint 

and not of the component part or 

substrate to which it is applied, 

proposed § 1109.11(a)(1) would require 

testing of paint after it has been applied 

to any suitable substrate, in an 

appropriate quantity, and dried. The 

substrate used need not be of the same 

material as in the finished product or 

have the same shape or other 

characteristics as the part of the finished 

product to which the paint will be 

applied. 

Proposed § 1109.11(a)(2) would 

provide that, for the tested paint to be 

identical in all material respects to that 

used in production of the consumer 

product, the paint samples tested must 

have the same composition as the paint 

used on the finished product. For 

example, if a children’s product 

manufacturer uses a drying agent that 

mixes with the paint, then the test 

sample must reflect this mixture. 

However, a larger quantity of the paint 

may be tested than is used on the 

consumer product, in order to generate 

a sufficient sample size. For example, a 

children’s product manufacturer may 

spray paint a large surface area of a 

substrate with the paint product for the 

purposes of generating a sufficient 

amount of paint for the sample. The 

paint may be supplied to the third party 

conformity assessment body either in 

liquid form or in the form of a dried film 

of the paint on any suitable substrate. (A 

third party conformity assessment body 

is a third party conformity assessment 

body recognized by the CPSC to conduct 

certification testing on children’s 

products. Such facilities are listed on 

the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/labapplist.aspx.) 

Proposed § 1109.11(a)(3) would 

require that the documentation required 

by a testing party pursuant to proposed 

§ 1109.5(f) and the certificate required of 

finished product certifiers under section 

14(a) of the CPSA and proposed 

§ 1109.5(g) identify each paint tested by 

color, location, specification number or 

other characteristic, the manufacturer of 

the paint, and the supplier of the paint 

(if different). 

Proposed § 1109.11(b) would state 

that, as part of its basis for certification 

of a children’s product to the lead paint 

limit or other paint limit, a certifier may 

rely on a test report showing passing 

test results for one or more paints used 

on the product, based on testing 

performed by a third party conformity 

assessment body. The manufacturer of 

the children’s product must ensure that 

each paint sample sent to a third party 

conformity assessment body is identical 

in all material respects to the paint used 

on the finished product. Test reports 

must identify each paint tested, by 

color, formulation, or other 

characteristic, and identify the 

manufacturer of the paint and the 

supplier of the paint (if different). 

Proposed § 1109.11(c) would state 

that, as part of its basis for certification 

of a children’s product to the lead paint 

limit or other paint limit, a component 

part certifier or finished product 

certifier may rely on a certificate from 

another person certifying that paint 

complies with the applicable limit. The 

paint certificate for a children’s product 

must be based on testing by a third party 

conformity assessment body of samples 

of paints that are identical in all 

material respects to the paints used on 

the finished product. The paint 

certificate must identify all test reports 

underlying the certification. 

Proposed § 1109.11(c) also would 

provide that any finished product 

certifier who certifies a children’s 

product as complying with the lead 

paint limit or other paint limit should 

be able to trace each batch of paint that 

is used on the product to the supplier 

and, if different, the paint manufacturer. 

The finished product manufacturer 

should ensure that paints meeting the 

applicable limits are not later 

contaminated with lead from other 

sources before or during application to 

the product. 

For consumer products that are not 

children’s products but are subject to 

lead paint limits (such as certain 

furniture items), proposed § 1109.11(c) 

would provide that a finished product 

certifier may base its certification to the 

lead paint limit on its own testing of 

each paint used on the product, on 

testing by any third party conformity 

assessment body, on paint 

certification(s) from any person, or on a 

combination of these methods. 

However, product manufacturers must 

ensure that paint meeting the applicable 

limits when tested and certified is not 

later contaminated with lead from other 

sources before or during application to 

the product. 

3. Proposed § 1109.12—Component Part 

Testing for Lead Content of Children’s 

Products 

a. Testing for Lead Content 

On August 14, 2009, the general limit 

for lead in any accessible part of a 

children’s product was reduced from 

600 parts per million (‘‘ppm’’) to 300 

ppm (see section 101(a)(2)(B) of the 

CPSIA). On that date, it became 

unlawful to sell, offer for sale, 

manufacture for sale, distribute in 

commerce, or import into the United 

States any product that is subject to the 

new lead limits, but fails to comply, 

regardless of when the product was 

made. Under section 101(a)(1) of CPSIA, 

any children’s product containing an 

accessible part with lead above the limit 

is to be treated as a banned hazardous 

substance under the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act. Section 101 of the 

CPSIA provides that the lead content 

limit for children’s products will be 

lowered to 100 ppm beginning August 

14, 2011, unless the Commission finds 

that a limit of 100 ppm is not 

technologically feasible for a product or 

product category. 

Currently, testing and certification is 

required for metal component parts of 

children’s metal jewelry. 73 FR 78331 

(December 22, 2008); 74 FR 6396 

(February 9, 2009). The certification 

must be based on testing by a third party 

conformity assessment body listed on 

CPSC’s Web site as qualified to test for 

lead in children’s metal jewelry (see 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/ 

labapplist.aspx). If the children’s metal 

jewelry bears paint, it must also be 

certified as in compliance with the 90 

ppm limit. The requirement for testing 

and certification of other children’s 

products for lead content (except paint) 

has been stayed until February 10, 2011. 

74 FR 68588 (December 28, 2009). 

The Commission has determined that 

some materials, by their nature, will 

never exceed the lead content limits. 

These materials include many natural 

materials such as gemstones, wood, 

cotton, and wool, as well as certain 

refined metals and alloys. For a more 

complete list of such materials, see 74 

FR 43031 (August 26, 2009). If all 

accessible parts of a children’s product 

consist of such materials, then that 

product need not be tested or certified 

as in compliance with the lead content 

limits. The Commission recently issued 

a ‘‘Statement of Policy on Testing and 

Certification of Lead Content in 

Children’s Products’’ (see 74 FR 55820 

(Oct. 29, 2009)). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28213 

Since the lead content requirements 

for children’s products apply to any 

accessible part of the product, testing of 

the children’s product’s component 

parts may be required. The Commission 

has promulgated a final rule for 

determining when parts of a children’s 

product may be deemed inaccessible 

and do not need to be tested for lead 

content. 16 CFR 1500.87; 74 FR 39535 

(August 7, 2009). Neither paint nor 

electroplating may be considered as 

making underlying materials 

inaccessible (see section 101(b)(3) of the 

CPSIA). 

b. Certification of Children’s Products 

Subject to Lead Content Requirements 

Children’s products, other than 

children’s metal jewelry or those made 

of materials that, by their nature, will 

never exceed the lead content limits, 

must be certified as being in compliance 

with the 300 ppm lead content limit 

only if they are manufactured after 

February 10, 2011, and only as to 

accessible parts that are not subject to a 

Commission determination as described 

in 16 CFR part 1500.91. Pursuant to 

section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, the 

certification must be based on testing by 

a third party conformity assessment 

body listed on CPSC’s Web site as 

qualified to test for lead in children’s 

products. 

Thus, proposed § 1109.12 would 

describe requirements pertaining to 

component part testing of children’s 

products to determine their lead 

content. Proposed § 1109.12(a) would 

explain that a certifier may rely on 

component part testing of each 

accessible part of a children’s product 

provided that: 

• The determination of which, if any, 

parts are inaccessible pursuant to 

section 101(b)(2) of the CPSIA is based 

on an evaluation of the finished 

product; and 

• For each accessible component part 

of the product, the certifier either has a 

component part test report or a 

component part certificate. 

Proposed § 1109.12(b) states that, as 

part of its basis for certification of a 

children’s product to the lead content 

limit, a finished product certifier could 

rely on a test report showing passing 

test results for one or more component 

parts used on the product, based on 

testing by a third party conformity 

assessment body. The proposal would 

require the component part test reports 

to identify each component part tested, 

by part number or other specification, as 

well as the manufacturer of the 

component part and the supplier (if 

different). 

Proposed § 1109.12(c) would address 

component part certificates. The 

proposal states that, as part of its basis 

for certification of a children’s product 

to the lead content limit, a finished 

product certifier could rely on a 

certificate from another person 

certifying that a component part 

complies with the lead limit. The 

component part certificate would have 

to be based on testing by a third party 

conformity assessment body of a sample 

identical in all material respects to the 

component part(s) used in the finished 

product. The proposal would require 

the component part certificate to 

identify all test reports underlying the 

certification consistent with section 14 

of the CPSA. 

Under proposed § 1109.12(d), the 

certificate accompanying the children’s 

product would have to list each 

component part tested, by part number 

or other specification, and for each such 

part identify the corresponding test 

report or component part certificate on 

which product certification is based. 

4. Proposed § 1109.13—Component Part 

Testing for Phthalates in Children’s 

Toys and Child Care Articles 

Section 108 of the CPSIA permanently 

prohibits the sale of any children’s toy 

or child care article containing 

concentrations of more than 0.1 percent 

of three specified phthalates (di-(2- 

ethylhexyl) phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, 

or benzyl butyl phthalate). Section 108 

of the CPSIA also prohibits, on an 

interim basis, the sale of any children’s 

toy that can be placed in a child’s 

mouth or child care article containing 

concentrations of more than 0.1 percent 

of three additional phthalates 

(diisononyl phthalate, diisodecyl 

phthalate, or di-n-octyl phthalate), 

pending the recommendation of a 

Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel. These 

prohibitions became effective on 

February 10, 2009. 

The Commission has stayed the 

requirement for testing and certification 

for the phthalate content requirements 

until 90 days after the Commission 

publishes a notice of requirements for 

accrediting conformity assessment 

bodies to test to the phthalate content 

requirements. 74 FR 68588 (December 

28, 2009). 

In general, phthalates are chemicals 

added to plastic to make the plastic 

more flexible or resilient, and concerns 

have been raised about possible adverse 

health effects resulting from exposure to 

phthalates. In March 2009, the 

Commission’s staff sought comment on 

a method for testing phthalate content 

as a percentage of the entire toy or child 

care article. Testing the phthalate 

content of an entire children’s toy or 

child care article may present certain 

difficulties. For example, the risk 

presented by phthalates in a component 

part may not be adequately described if 

the percentage concentration of 

phthalates is determined in comparison 

to the whole product, which may have 

other component parts that do not 

contain phthalates. In an extreme 

example, a product that has a 

plasticized component part that had a 

phthalate concentration above 0.1 

percent arguably could be brought into 

compliance with the phthalate limit by 

adding more non-plasticized material 

and thus ‘‘dilute’’ the concentration of 

phthalates in the whole product. 

However, this approach would not 

reduce the risk posed by the 

concentration of phthalates in the 

component part. Testing only the 

plasticized component parts would 

avoid such ‘‘dilution’’ scenarios, is more 

protective of human health, and is 

consistent with the CPSIA’s goal of 

limiting children’s exposure to 

phthalates. The benefits of the 

component part approach are twofold; 

in addition to providing more protection 

for children, it also may significantly 

reduce the testing costs for 

manufacturers in certain circumstances. 

Proposed § 1109.13(a) would reflect 

our position regarding component part 

testing for phthalates by stating that a 

certifier may rely on component part 

testing of appropriate component parts 

of a children’s toy or child care article 

for phthalate content if the certifier is 

provided with a copy of the original test 

results obtained from the third party 

conformity assessment body. 

Proposed § 1109.13(b) would state 

that, as part of its basis for certification 

of a children’s product to the phthalate 

content limit, a finished product 

certifier may rely on a test report 

showing passing test results for one or 

more component parts used on the 

product, based on testing by a 

recognized third party conformity 

assessment body. Component part test 

reports would have to identify each 

component part tested, by part number 

or other specification, and the 

manufacturer and the supplier of the 

component part (if different). 

Proposed 1109.13(c) would state that, 

as part of its basis for certification of a 

children’s product to the phthalate 

content limit, a finished product 

certifier may rely on a certificate from 

another person certifying that a 

component part complies with the limit. 

The component part report must be 

based on testing by a third party 

conformity assessment body of a sample 

that is identical in all material respects 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to the component parts used in the 

finished product. The component part 

certificate must identify all test reports 

underlying the certification required by 

section 14 of the CPSA. Any person who 

certifies a children’s product as 

complying with the phthalate content 

limits must be able to trace each 

component part of the product to the 

component part’s manufacturer. 

Proposed § 1109.13(d) would require 

that the certificate accompanying the 

children’s product list each component 

part tested by part number or other 

specification and, for each such part, 

identify the corresponding test report or 

component part certificate on which 

product certification is based. 

5. Proposed § 1109.14—Composite Part 

Testing 

Composite testing is where more than 

one paint or surface coating, or more 

than one component part, are combined 

and the combination is tested for the 

level of the target chemical. This can 

reduce the number of tests required or 

the number of products needed to 

obtain a sample large enough to test 

(composite testing). For example, if 

different parts of a doll are painted with 

small amounts of different paints, the 

paints could be mixed together and 

tested for lead. Proposed § 1109.14 

would address composite testing and 

would consist of three subsections, one 

dealing with tests of composite paints 

and surface coatings, one dealing with 

tests of composite component parts, and 

one dealing with how to ensure that no 

failure to comply with the chemical 

content limits will go undetected. 

Proposed § 1109.14(a) would state 

that, in testing paints for compliance 

with chemical content limits, testing 

parties may test a combination of 

different paint samples so long as they 

follow procedures ensuring that no 

failure to comply with the lead limits 

will go undetected. For an example of 

an acceptable method, see Test Method 

CPSC–CH–E1003–09, Standard 

Operating Procedure for Determining 

Lead (Pb) in Paint and Other Similar 

Surface Coatings (April 26, 2009) 

(available on the Internet at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/CPSC–CH– 

E1003–09.pdf). Proposed § 1109.14(a) 

also would require testing and 

certification of composite paints to 

comply with proposed § 1109.11. 

Proposed § 1109.14(b) would allow a 

third party conformity assessment body 

to test a combination of plastic 

component parts or a combination of 

metal component parts so long as the 

third party conformity assessment body 

follows procedures ensuring that no 

failure to comply with the lead limits 

will go undetected. The proposal would 

require such testing and certification of 

component parts to comply with 

proposed § 1109.12 for the lead content 

of children’s products or with proposed 

§ 1109.13 for the phthalate content of 

children’s toys and child care articles. 

When using composite testing, only 

the total amount of the target chemical 

is determined, not how much was in 

each individual paint or component 

part. Therefore, to determine that each 

paint or component part is within the 

applicable limit, proposed § 1109.14(c) 

would provide that the entire amount of 

the target chemical in the composite is 

attributed to each paint or component 

part. If this method yields an amount of 

the target chemical that exceeds the 

limit applicable to any paint or 

component part in the composite 

sample, additional testing would be 

required to determine which of the 

paints or component parts, if any, fails 

to meet the applicable limit. 

III. Previous Guidance on Component 

Part Testing and Requests for Comment 

Between 2008 and December 28, 

2009, the Commission discussed 

component part testing issues, either 

generally or regarding specific 

substances (such as lead and 

phthalates), and invited comment. We 

also held a public workshop on issues 

relating to product testing, including 

component part testing (see 74 FR 58611 

(November 13, 2009). In brief, the 

previous activities on component part 

testing have consisted of the following: 

First, the Commission’s staff posted a 

document on the Commission’s Web 

site explaining the new requirements for 

third party testing of children’s products 

and requesting comments on a number 

of issues related to component part 

testing. That document is available on 

the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/ 

ComponentPartsComments.pdf. The 

comment period closed on January 30, 

2009. 

Second, on August 7, 2009, the 

Commission issued a Statement of 

Policy: Testing of Component Parts with 

Respect to Section 108 of the CPSIA, 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/ 

componenttestingpolicy.pdf. The 

August 7, 2009, Statement of Policy 

outlined the Commission’s interim 

position on component part testing of 

products containing plasticized 

component parts for phthalates. In the 

Federal Register of August 17, 2009 (74 

FR 41400), the Commission invited 

comments on the Statement of Policy. 

The comment period closed on 

September 16, 2009. 

Third, in October 2009, the 

Commission issued a Statement of 

Policy: Testing and Certification of Lead 

Content in Children’s Products, 

available at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/ 

cpsia/leadpolicy.pdf. The October 2009 

Statement of Policy on lead content 

addressed component part testing for 

lead in children’s products and 

provided that component part testing 

could be used to test for compliance 

with the 300 ppm lead content limit, 

especially in circumstances where a 

product is made up of several 

substances, some of which will not, by 

their nature, contain lead, or where lead 

containing parts are inaccessible. 

Fourth, on November 3, 2009, CPSC 

staff issued a proposed Guidance 

Document Testing and Certification 

Requirements Under The Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (available at http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

library/foia/foia10/brief/102testing.pdf). 

The proposed Guidance Document set 

forth the CPSC staff’s proposed 

interpretation of the testing and 

certification requirements established in 

section 102 of the CPSIA. Although the 

Commission did not vote on this 

document, the document provided the 

framework for the December 10 through 

11, 2009, workshop on testing and 

certification requirements under section 

14 of the CPSA. The Guidance 

Document addressed component part 

testing in sections III.C and III.D of the 

document, as well as in section IV on 

Questions and Answers, in questions 14 

through 20. Moreover, component part 

testing was discussed in several sessions 

at the December 2009 workshop on 

testing and certification requirements. 

Stakeholders were able to submit 

comments on our proposed 

interpretation of section 14 of the CPSA 

with regard to testing of component 

parts and on the discussion on 

component part testing at the December 

2009 workshop by submitting comments 

on the workshop. We invited written 

comments on the December 2009 

workshop and testing and certification 

issues through January 11, 2010, in a 

notice announcing the workshop that 

appeared in the Federal Register of 

November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58611, 

58616. We summarize and respond to 

these comments in section IV of this 

document below. 

Fifth, on December 16, 2009, the 

Commission approved an Interim 

Enforcement Policy on Component 

Testing and Certification of Children’s 

Products and Other Consumer Products 

to the August 14, 2000 Lead Limits 

(available at http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

businfo/frnotices/fr10/comppol.pdf. The 

Lead Limits Interim Enforcement Policy 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28215 

was published in the Federal Register 

on December 29, 2009 (74 FR 68593). 

Finally, a petition was filed with the 

Commission seeking recognition of 

various methods of component part 

testing for lead in paint. The petition 

seeks approval for three methods of 

testing for lead in paint on component 

parts of a consumer product. In a notice 

that appeared in the Federal Register of 

December 29, 2009 (74 FR 68596), we 

invited comments on the petition. The 

comment period ended on February 26, 

2010. 

Any final rule arising out of this 

notice of proposed rulemaking is 

intended to supersede all policy 

statements and guidelines referred to 

above in section III of this document as 

they apply to testing of component 

parts. To the extent component part 

testing is not addressed by another 

CPSC-enforced rule, regulation, 

standard, or testing protocol, the 

Commission intends that this proposed 

rule, if finalized, shall apply. In general, 

certifiers should test and certify 

consumer products, including 

children’s products, based on the most 

specific regulation that applies to such 

consumer product. 

IV. Comments on Component Part 

Testing and the CPSC’s Responses 

As described in section III of this 

document above, we have invited and 

received comments on a number of 

documents relating to component part 

testing and at a public workshop. All of 

these documents were publicly 

available before the end of the comment 

period associated with the workshop 

held by the Commission on December 

10 through 11, 2009. See 74 FR 58611 

(November 13, 2009). The comment 

period for the workshop ended on 

January 11, 2010. During that comment 

period, we received 27 comments 

relating to testing of component parts of 

regulated products. Because the 

comment period for the workshop was 

the latest opportunity for interested 

parties to submit comments, and 

because the comments received cover 

the issues raised by previous comments, 

we now address only the comments 

received between November 13, 2009 

(the date on which we issued a Federal 

Register notice announcing the 

workshop) and January 11, 2010 (the 

closing date of the comment period for 

the workshop). To make it easier to 

identify comments and responses, the 

word ‘‘Comment’’ will precede each 

topic addressed by the comments, and 

the word ‘‘Response’’ will precede each 

response to a topic. We also have 

numbered each topic to make it easier 

to identify and distinguish comments. 

The number assigned to each topic is for 

organizational purposes and does not 

signify the comment’s value, 

importance, or order in which it was 

received. 

Comment 1—Almost all persons who 

commented on component part testing 

favored it. Many commenters 

acknowledged the benefit of component 

part testing to small businesses. The 

commenters cited component part 

testing as a way to reduce redundant 

testing when a particular component 

part is used in multiple products. They 

also wanted the option of component 

part testing when the amount of the 

component part in the finished product 

is small and testing of the finished 

product requires destruction of a large 

number of units to collect a sufficient 

quantity of the component part to be 

tested. Several commenters indicated 

that testing at the component part level 

may reduce costs associated with 

reworking products that do not meet 

safety standards due to a noncompliant 

component part. 

Response—We view component part 

testing, when appropriate, as a costeffective option to facilitate assurance of 

compliant consumer products. A 

certifier may choose testing of a 

component part, which by its construct 

or materials is subject to a consumer 

product safety rule under the CPSA, or 

a similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation under any other act enforced 

by the Commission, when the 

component part is not altered during the 

manufacturing process. Tested 

component parts must be identical in all 

material respects to those used in a 

finished product, and certified 

component parts in a finished product 

must be able to be traced back to their 

certificates. 

Comment 2—Commenters had 

different opinions concerning who 

should conduct component part testing 

and whether a certification provided by 

a supplier can be used. One commenter 

suggested that component part testing 

be limited to the finished product 

manufacturer, and not be available to 

component part suppliers, many of 

whom, according to the commenter, are 

located in foreign countries. The 

commenter’s concern is that supply 

chain integrity might not always be 

maintained and untested or counterfeit 

component parts could be introduced 

into a manufacturer’s production. Other 

commenters suggested that product 

manufacturers should be able to use 

testing results obtained from component 

part suppliers or manufacturers, rather 

than requiring the product manufacturer 

to test each component part separately. 

Three commenters indicated that the 

supplier who certifies a component part, 

and not the manufacturer that uses the 

supplier-certified component part, 

should be held liable for 

noncompliance. 

Response—Excluding the option of 

using supplier-provided component part 

certificates may unduly burden some 

manufacturers or importers. Where 

appropriate, certifiers may rely on 

component part certificates received 

from suppliers of component parts as 

the basis for issuance of their own 

certificates for the component part or 

the finished product. However, under 

section 19(a)(6) of the CPSA, certifiers 

may be charged with issuing a false 

certificate if, in the exercise of due care, 

they would have had reason to know 

that a certificate upon which they relied 

was false or misleading in any material 

respect. Therefore, certifiers who rely on 

a certification from a component part 

supplier should use due care when 

electing to use the component part 

suppliers’ certification. Ultimately, the 

domestic manufacturer or importer is 

responsible for compliance of its 

finished product. 

Comment 3—Other commenters 

suggested that, to protect against 

counterfeit supplier component part 

certifications, CPSC should set up an 

annual review process of the 

laboratories that it recognizes to prevent 

such falsifications. 

Response—We disagree with the 

commenters. Neither the CPSA nor this 

rule requires a certifier to accept a 

component part certification provided 

by a supplier. A certifier is always free 

to have the component part or the 

product tested and then issue a 

certificate for the product based on tests 

conducted by the certifier (in the case of 

nonchildren’s products) or by a third 

party conformity assessment body (in 

the case of children’s products). 

If the concern is whether 

manufacturers will be unable to 

distinguish between genuine and 

counterfeit component part certificates 

purporting to come from a specific 

component part supplier, we note that 

suppliers themselves can take steps to 

deter or reduce counterfeiting. For 

example, a supplier concerned about 

counterfeit certificates could add 

various security features, such as colorshifting ink, microprinting, and 

holograms, to its certificates to make 

counterfeiting more difficult. 

Comment 4—One commenter 

suggested that we establish different 

requirements for different component 

parts based on their inherent safety 

risks. Component parts presenting the 

least risk would be exempt from 

mandatory third party testing. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Response—In the CPSIA, Congress set 

the chemical content levels applicable 

to children’s products. The CPSIA does 

not provide that component parts 

presenting a real, albeit low, risk can be 

exempted from the requirements for 

third party testing. 

Comment 5—Many commenters 

stated that reliance on component part 

testing requires that the tested 

component parts be representative of 

those used in the finished product and 

that adequate traceability of component 

parts is maintained. One commenter 

stressed the need to prepare component 

part samples (such as a large paint 

sample substituted for a sample 

obtained by scraping paint from a large 

number of products, each with only a 

tiny amount of paint) using the same 

technique and equipment that is used 

for the products. Some commenters 

were concerned that, subsequent to 

testing, raw materials (e.g., premolded 

plastic pellets or wet paint in the can) 

could be contaminated in the 

production process, resulting in the 

manufacture of noncompliant products. 

If, for example, wet paint is found to be 

compliant, the commenter stated, the 

drying process could evaporate enough 

solvent to raise the concentration above 

the allowable limit. Another commenter 

stated that compositing of similar 

materials should be valid, so long as the 

acceptance limit for the test is adjusted 

downward to account for multiple 

materials being tested. 

Response—Under the proposed rule, 

testing of component parts is an option 

when the component part is not altered 

during the process of assembling the 

finished product. If, during processing 

or assembly of the component part into 

the finished product, there is a chance 

that the component part could be 

contaminated or changed in such way 

that it is no longer compliant with the 

applicable safety rule(s), the 

manufacturer or importer should test 

the finished product, or its component 

parts, for compliance. Component part 

samples must be identical in all material 

respect to the component parts that will 

be used in the finished product. 

Component part testing of composited 

samples is acceptable provided the 

subsequent procedures will ensure that 

no failure to comply with a limit will go 

undetected. An example of an 

acceptable procedure is provided in 

CPSC–CH–E1003–09, Standard 

Operating Procedure for Determining 

Lead (Pb) in Paint and Other Similar 

Surface Coatings (available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/CPSC-CHE1003-09.pdf). We note that the criteria 

for lead content refer to the percentage 

of lead (calculated as lead metal) by 

weight of the total nonvolatile content 

of the paint or the weight of the dried 

paint film. Thus, the commenter’s 

concern about evaporation of solvents 

from the paint increasing the lead 

concentration is unwarranted. 

Additionally, under the proposed 

rule, finished product certifiers would 

have to maintain documents that 

demonstrate the traceability of certified 

materials in their products. 

Comment 6—Several commenters 

noted that many component parts are 

not children’s products until they are 

actually incorporated into a completed 

product. To these commenters, 

mandatory third party testing of all 

component parts that might be used in 

a children’s product would be 

inefficient and wasteful. The 

commenters added that component part 

suppliers often do not know whether 

their component part will be used in the 

manufacture of other products. 

Response—Under the proposal, a 

component part supplier may, but is not 

required to, subject its component part 

to third party testing and/or certification 

(assuming that the component part 

becomes part of a children’s product). 

Similarly, manufacturers may, but are 

not required to, decide whether to 

purchase third party certified 

component parts from a supplier or 

whether to conduct third party testing 

and certification at the component part 

or finished product level. The proposed 

rule would not require third party 

testing or certification of component 

parts that are not used in children’s 

products. 

Comment 7—One commenter 

suggested that reasonable attestations 

from raw material manufacturers should 

be used in determinations on whether or 

not to test for phthalates. The 

commenter contended that third party 

tests by an accredited third party 

conformity assessment body should not 

be required. The commenter argued 

that, as part of a reasonable testing 

program, assurances provided by 

suppliers that plastic resins meet Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) 

requirements should be considered as a 

basis to reduce the amount of periodic 

testing of toys or children’s products, or 

component parts thereof, made from 

food-grade plastics. Further, the 

commenter suggested excluding the 

limits or requirement for testing for 

inaccessible component parts that may 

contain phthalates, similar to the 

exclusion for lead. 

Response—We will consider these 

comments as part of any rulemaking 

activity for phthalates. However, neither 

section 14 of the CPSA nor section 108 

of the CPSIA contains an exclusion for 

products that happen to meet FDA 

requirements. 

Comment 8—Many commenters 

mentioned that manufacturers with very 

small production quantities would not 

be able to afford the destructive testing 

of a significant percentage of their 

production. Another commenter 

mentioned that destructive testing of 

gold jewelry is very expensive and that 

component part testing would alleviate 

that situation. 

Response—The concerns of these 

commenters are addressed by the 

proposed rule, since component part 

testing can eliminate or reduce the need 

to test the finished product. 

Comment 9—One commenter stressed 

that some component parts require 

testing of the completed product to 

evaluate compliance to the applicable 

rules. 

Response—We agree with the 

comment. Many CPSC rules may require 

testing of a finished product. The 

proposed rule would not disturb any 

preexisting regulation that requires 

testing of a finished product. 

Comment 10—One commenter said 

that precertified component parts also 

should be allowed as part of a 

reasonable testing program. The 

supplier would undertake third party 

testing and supply a copy of its 

certificate to the manufacturer. No 

additional testing on the component 

parts should be required. 

Response—A manufacturer may rely 

upon a supplier’s certification of a 

component part, provided that the 

component part is not altered during the 

assembly of the finished product. The 

manufacturer must exercise due care to 

determine that the supplier’s 

component part certificate is not false or 

misleading in any material respect and 

must maintain traceability of 

component parts. The person required 

to issue a product certificate under 

section 14(a) of the CPSA for the 

finished product is ultimately 

responsible for the finished product’s 

compliance to CPSC’s safety rules. 

Comment 11—One commenter stated 

that component part testing with 

production process control measures 

should be acceptable as verification to 

issue a general certificate of conformity. 

Response—Proposed part 1109 would 

allow component part testing in 

appropriate circumstances. 

Requirements for a reasonable testing 

program sufficient to support a general 

certificate of conformity are addressed 

in the proposed rule titled ‘‘Testing and 

Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification,’’ which is published 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28217 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register as proposed 16 CFR part 1107. 

V. Environmental Considerations 

Generally, the Commission’s 

regulations are considered to have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment, and environmental 

assessments and impact statements are 

not usually required. See 16 CFR 

1021.5(a). The proposed rule contains 

the Commission’s conditions and 

requirements for testing of component 

parts of consumer products to support, 

in whole or in part, a finished product 

certificate that a consumer product 

complies with all applicable rules, bans, 

standards, and regulations, pursuant to 

section 14(a) of the CPSA and to ensure 

continued compliance pursuant to 

section 14(d) of the CPSA. As such, the 

proposed rule is not expected to have an 

adverse impact on the environment. The 

rule falls within the categorical 

exclusion in 16 CFR 1021.5(b)(2) for 

product certification rules. Accordingly, 

no environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, generally requires 

that agencies review proposed rules for 

their potential economic impact on 

small entities, including small 

businesses. The RFA calls for agencies 

to prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis describing the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

identifying impact-reducing 

alternatives. 5 U.S.C. 603. The proposed 

rule defines conditions upon which the 

finished product certifier (currently the 

manufacturer or importer) can rely upon 

tests conducted on component parts of 

the product, rather than on the whole 

product, as the basis for the 

certification. This section discusses the 

impact that the draft proposed rule 

would have on small businesses. 

In the absence of component part 

testing, certifiers of children’s products 

would have to obtain test results for 

each component part of a consumer 

product even if the same component 

part were used in more than one 

consumer product. Component part 

testing will allow certifiers to rely upon 

tests conducted on the component part 

to certify that the finished product 

meets the applicable safety rules. 

Because testing costs are relatively 

fixed, component part testing allows the 

cost of the testing to be spread over 

more units of finished goods. This can 

significantly reduce the cost of testing 

and certifying products. 

For example, a manufacturer that uses 

the same paint on five different 

products could obtain test results for the 

paint and use those results to certify 

that the same paint, when used on each 

of the five products, complies with the 

applicable safety rules (provided that 

nothing is added to the paint after the 

testing or during the application 

process). Without component part 

testing, the manufacturer would have to 

test the paint on each product on which 

it is used, which would increase the 

costs of testing by a factor of about 5. 

Because component part testing can 

significantly reduce the cost of testing, 

the proposed rule would reduce, but not 

eliminate, the economic impact that the 

testing and certification requirements of 

the CPSIA may have on manufacturers 

and importers of consumer products 

subject to consumer product safety 

rules. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). We describe the provisions in 

this section of the document with an 

estimate of the annual reporting burden. 

Our estimate includes the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing each 

collection of information. 

We invite comments on: (1) Whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the CPSC’s functions, including whether 

the information will have practical 

utility; (2) the accuracy of the CPSC’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the method and assumptions 

used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques, when appropriate, and other 

forms of information technology. 

The proposed rule would require 

certifiers to maintain records of the 

source of component parts tested for 

compliance to ensure traceability of 

component parts. If a component part is 

tested for certification by a party other 

than the manufacturer or importer of the 

finished product (the finished product 

certifier), the proposed rule would 

require that the testing party provide 

certain documentation or records to the 

certifier. These records include 

identification of a lot or batch number 

for which the testing applies; what 

applicable rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations it tested for on each 

component part tested; what testing 

methods and sampling protocols were 

used; the date or date range the 

component part was tested; the results 

of each test on a component part; if the 

product was tested by a third party 

conformity assessment body, 

identification of such third party 

conformity assessment body, and a copy 

of the original test results; and a 

certification that all testing was 

performed in compliance with section 

14 of the CPSA and part 1107 of this 

title, as applicable. 

These records are similar to the 

records that a manufacturer would be 

required to develop and maintain under 

the proposed rule on ‘‘Testing and 

Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification’’ (which appears elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register). 

Most of the records concern the 

documentation of the test plan and test 

results for the component part, which 

would be required whether the 

component part was tested as part of the 

finished product or apart from the 

finished product. Even without 

component part testing, certifiers would 

be expected to maintain records 

regarding the lot, batch, or other 

information identifying the component 

parts used, since changes in the 

component part or the sourcing of the 

component part would constitute a 

material change and trigger 

requirements for additional testing. 

The proposed component part testing 

rule may shift the responsibility for 

preparing the records, especially those 

documenting the test results, in some 

cases, from the manufacturer or 

importer of the consumer product to the 

manufacturer or supplier of the 

component part. 

We do not know how many 

manufacturers or wholesalers will 

voluntarily test component parts for 

manufacturers of children’s products. 

Component part manufacturers that are 

not themselves manufacturers of 

children’s products could voluntarily 

obtain the required third party testing 

for children’s product manufacturers 

who use their component parts. Such 

manufacturers might include textile 

manufacturers, paint and coating 

manufacturers, manufacturers of buttons 

and other fasteners, and manufacturers 

of plastics material and resin. The 2007 

Economic Census showed that there 

were 5,220 establishments that were 

engaged in manufacturing these 

materials or component parts. However, 

the number who would actually obtain 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

third-party testing will probably be a 

small subset of these establishments. 

At this time, there is no clear basis for 

estimating the recordkeeping burden on 

component part suppliers that 

voluntarily obtain the third party 

testing. We note that, in the proposed 

rule titled, ‘‘Testing and Labeling 

Pertaining to Product Certification’’ 

(which appears elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register), we tentatively 

estimated that the total recordkeeping 

burden for that proposal with respect to 

the continued testing requirements of 

the CPSIA would be 200,000 to 300,000 

hours annually. Some of this burden 

cannot be shifted to the component part 

suppliers because some tests must be 

performed on the whole product. In 

other cases, the burden will not be 

shifted because the component part is 

unique to the product or the 

manufacturer or because the component 

part supplier declines to obtain the third 

party testing. However, if we assume 

that eventually 10 percent of the total 

testing were ultimately shifted to the 

component part suppliers, then the 

recordkeeping burden shifted would be 

approximately 20,000 to 30,000 hours. 

The total cost of the burden shifted 

would be $0.9 million to 1.5 million. 

This estimate was obtained by 

multiplying the total hour burden 

estimates by $48.91, which is the total 

hourly compensation for private sector 

workers in management, professional, 

and related occupations. The actual cost 

burden would depend upon the extent 

to which component suppliers are 

willing to voluntarily obtain the third 

party testing. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the CPSC has submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to OMB for review. Interested 

persons are requested to fax comments 

regarding information collection by June 

21, 2010, to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see 

ADDRESSES). 

VIII. Executive Order 12988 

(Preemption) 

According to Executive Order 12988 

(February 5, 1996), agencies must state 

in clear language the preemptive effect, 

if any, of new regulations. Section 26 of 

the CPSA only addresses the preemptive 

effect of consumer product safety 

standards under the CPSA. The current 

rule is not a consumer product safety 

standard under the CPSA. Accordingly, 

this rule does not fall within the scope 

of any provision of any act enforced by 

the Commission that grants preemptive 

effect to rules. 

IX. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of a final rule. 5 

U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission intends 

that any final rule based on this 

proposal would become effective 180 

days after the date of publication of a 

final rule in the Federal Register. This 

should allow time for any product 

changes needed for testing of 

component parts and for 

implementation of the component part 

testing requirements. 

X. Request for Comments 

Although the CPSC has, on several 

occasions, invited and received 

comments on component part testing, 

the issuance of this proposed rule 

begins a rulemaking proceeding under 

sections 3 and 102 of the CPSIA which 

will establish the conditions and 

requirements for testing of component 

parts of consumer products to 

demonstrate, in whole or in part, 

compliance of a consumer product with 

all applicable rules, bans, standards, 

and regulations. We invite interested 

persons to submit comments on any 

aspect of the proposed rule. Comments 

should be submitted in accordance with 

the instructions in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1109 

Business and industry, Children, 

Consumer protection, Imports, Product 

testing and certification, Records, 

Record retention, Toys. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes to add 16 CFR part 1109 to 

read as follows: 

PART 1109—CONDITIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING 

COMPONENT PARTS FOR 

COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE 

RULES, BANS, STANDARDS OR 

REGULATIONS 

Subpart A—General Conditions and 

Requirements 

Sec. 

1109.1 Scope. 

1109.2 Purpose. 

1109.3 Applicability. 

1109.4 Definitions. 

1109.5 Conditions, requirements, and 

effects generally. 

Subpart B—Conditions and Requirements 

for Specific Consumer Products, 

Component Parts, and Chemicals 

1109.11 Component part testing for paint 

and other surface coatings. 

1109.12 Component part testing for lead 

content of children’s products. 

1109.13 Component part testing for 

phthalates in children’s toys and child 

care articles. 

1109.14 Composite testing. 

Authority: Secs. 3 and 102, Pub. L. 110– 

314, 122 Stat. 3016; 15 U.S.C. 2063. 

Subpart A—General Conditions and 

Requirements 

§ 1109.1 Scope. 

This part applies to all tests of 

component parts of consumer products 

where the test results are used to 

support a certificate of compliance 

issued pursuant to section 14(a) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) or 

where the tests are otherwise required 

or permitted by section 14 of the CPSA. 

The requirements of this subpart A 

apply to the consumer products, 

component parts, and chemicals subject 

to subpart B of this part. 

§ 1109.2 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to set forth 

the conditions and requirements under 

which the Commission will require or 

accept the results of testing of 

component parts of consumer products, 

instead of the entire consumer product, 

to meet, in whole or in part, the testing 

and certification requirements of 

sections 14(a), 14(b), and 14(d) of the 

CPSA. 

§ 1109.3 Applicability. 

The provisions of this part apply to all 

manufacturers, importers, and private 

labelers, and to the manufacturers and 

suppliers of component parts who are 

responsible for certifying consumer 

products under section 14(a) of the 

CPSA and continued compliance under 

section 14(d) of the CPSA or who are 

responsible for testing component parts 

of consumer products to support a 

certificate of compliance under section 

14(a) of the CPSA or to comply with 

continuing testing requirements under 

section 14(d) of the CPSA. 

§ 1109.4 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply to 

this part: 

(a) Certifier means a firm that is either 

a finished product certifier or a 

component part certifier as defined in 

this section. 

(b) Component part means any part of 

a consumer product, including a 

children’s product, that either must or 

may be tested separately from a finished 

consumer product to assess the 

consumer product’s ability to comply 

with a specific rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation enforced by the CPSC. Within 

the same consumer product, which 

component parts will have to be tested 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28219 

may vary, depending on the test being 

conducted. 

(c) Component part certifier means a 

firm that certifies component parts to be 

used in consumer products as 

complying with one or more rules, bans, 

standards, or regulations enforced by 

the CPSC pursuant to part 1109. 

(d) CPSA means the Consumer 

Product Safety Act. 

(e) CPSC means the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. 

(f) CPSIA means the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008. 

(g) Due care means the degree of care 

that a prudent and competent person 

engaged in the same line of business or 

endeavor would exercise under similar 

circumstances. 

(h) Finished product certifier means a 

firm responsible for certifying 

compliance of a consumer product with 

all applicable rules, bans, standards, 

and regulations enforced by the CPSC, 

pursuant to part 1110 of this chapter. 

(i) Identical in all material respects 

means there is no difference with 

respect to compliance to the applicable 

rules between the samples and the 

finished product. 

(j) Paint means any type of surface 

coating that is subject to part 1303 of 

this chapter or section 4.3.5.2 of ASTM 

F 963. 

(k) Testing party means the firm 

(including, but not limited to, domestic 

manufacturers, foreign manufacturers, 

importers, private labelers, third party 

conformity assessment bodies, or 

component part suppliers) who tests a 

consumer product, or any component 

part thereof, for compliance, in whole or 

in part, with any applicable rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation enforced by the 

CPSC. 

(l) Third party conformity assessment 

body means a third party conformity 

assessment body recognized by the 

CPSC to conduct certification testing on 

children’s products. 

(m) Traceable means the ability of a 

certifier to identify the source of a 

component part of a consumer product, 

including the name and address of the 

supplier of the component part and, if 

different, the manufacturer of the 

component part. 

§ 1109.5 Conditions, requirements, and 

effect generally. 

(a) Component part testing allowed. A 

certifier may certify compliance of a 

consumer product with all applicable 

rules, bans, standards, and regulations 

as required by section 14(a) of the 

CPSA, and may ensure continued 

compliance of children’s products 

pursuant to section 14(d) of the CPSA, 

based, in whole or in part, on testing of 

a component part of the consumer 

product conducted by the certifier and/ 

or a testing party if the following 

requirements are met: 

(1) Testing of the component part is 

required or sufficient to assess 

compliance, in whole or in part, of the 

consumer product with the applicable 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation. Any 

doubts about whether testing one or 

more component parts of a consumer 

product can help to assess whether the 

entire product complies with applicable 

rules, bans, standards, and regulations 

should be resolved in favor of testing 

the entire product; and 

(2) The component part tested is 

identical to the component parts used in 

the finished consumer product in all 

material respects. To be identical in all 

material respects to a component part 

for purposes of supporting a 

certification of a children’s product to 

the applicable content limit, a sample 

need not necessarily be of the same size, 

shape, or finish condition as the 

component part of the finished product; 

rather, it may consist of any quantity 

that is sufficient for testing purposes 

and in any form that has the same 

content as the component part of the 

finished product. A certifier must 

exercise due care to ensure that no 

change in the component parts after 

testing and before distribution in 

commerce has occurred that would 

affect compliance, including 

contamination or degradation. 

Manufacturers of finished consumer 

products must exercise due care in the 

proper management and control of all 

raw materials, component parts, 

subassemblies, and finished goods for 

any factor that could affect the finished 

product’s compliance with all 

applicable rules. The manufacturer must 

exercise due care that the manufacturing 

process does not add a prohibited 

chemical from an untested source, such 

as the material hopper, regrind 

equipment, or other equipment used in 

the assembly of the finished product. 

(b) Limitation. A certifier must not 

rely on testing of a component part of 

a consumer product for any rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation that requires 

testing the entire consumer product to 

assess compliance. 

(c) Test method and sampling 

protocol. Regardless of which entity 

performs component part testing or 

selects samples for component part 

testing, both certifiers and testing 

parties must ensure that the required 

test methods and sampling protocols, as 

set forth in part 1107 of this chapter, as 

well as any more specific applicable 

rules, bans, standards, regulations, or 

testing protocols, are used to assess 

compliance of the component part. 

(d) Timing. Subject to any more 

specific rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation, component part testing may 

occur before final assembly of a 

consumer product provided that 

nothing in the final assembly of the 

consumer product can cause the 

component part or the final consumer 

product to become noncompliant. 

(e) Traceability. Certifiers must not 

rely on component part testing 

conducted by another testing party 

unless such component parts are 

traceable. 

(f) Documentation by testing party. 

Unless the testing party is the finished 

product certifier, a testing party must 

provide the following documentation to 

a certifier either in hard copy or 

electronically: 

(1) Identification of the component 

part tested; 

(2) Identification of a lot or batch 

number for which the testing applies; 

(3) Identification of the applicable 

rules, bans, standards, and regulations it 

tested for on each component part 

tested; 

(4) Identification of the testing 

methods and sampling protocols used; 

(5) The date or date range when the 

component part was tested; 

(6) The results of each test on a 

component part; and 

(7) If the product was tested by a third 

party conformity assessment body, 

regardless of whether it was required 

because the product is a children’s 

product or whether the testing party 

chose to use such third party conformity 

assessment body, identification of such 

third party conformity assessment body, 

a copy of the original test results, and 

a certification that all testing was 

performed in compliance with section 

14 of the CPSA and part 1107 of this 

chapter. 

(g) Effect of Voluntary Certification by 

Component Part Certifiers. (1) The 

Commission will consider any 

certificate issued by a component part 

certifier in accordance with this part to 

be a certificate issued in accordance 

with section 14(a) of the CPSA. A 

component part certificate must contain 

all of the information required by part 

1110 of this chapter. 

(2) Any person who elects to certify 

compliance of a component part with an 

applicable rule must assume all 

responsibilities of a manufacturer under 

part 1107 of this chapter with respect to 

that component part’s compliance to the 

applicable rule. 

(h) Certification by Finished Product 

Certifiers. (1) A finished product 

certifier must exercise due care in order 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to rely, in whole or in part, on a 

component part certificate issued by a 

component part certifier or on 

component part testing by a testing 

party as the basis for a finished product 

certificate. If a finished product certifier 

fails to exercise due care in its reliance 

on a certificate for a component part, 

then the Commission will not consider 

the finished product certifier to hold a 

component part certificate issued in 

accordance with section 14(a) of the 

CPSA. Exercising due care in this 

context means taking the steps a 

prudent and competent person would 

take to conduct a reasonable review of 

a component part certificate and to 

address any concern over its validity. 

Such steps may vary according to the 

circumstances. 

(2) A finished product certifier must 

not rely on component part testing by a 

testing party or component part certifier 

unless it receives the documentation 

under paragraph (f) of this section from 

the component part certifier or testing 

party. The Commission may consider a 

finished product certifier who does not 

obtain such documentation before 

certifying a consumer product to have 

failed to exercise due care. 

(3) Any certification of a finished 

product based, in whole or in part, on 

component part testing performed by a 

component part certifier or a testing 

party must: 

(i) Identify both the corresponding 

documentation required in paragraph (f) 

of this section and any report provided 

by a third party conformity assessment 

body on which the consumer products 

certification is based; and 

(ii) Certify that no action subsequent 

to component part testing, for example, 

in the process of final assembly of the 

consumer product, changed or degraded 

the consumer product such that it 

adversely affected the product’s ability 

to comply with all applicable rules, 

bans, standards, and regulations. 

(i) Recordkeeping requirements. All 

testing parties must maintain the 

documentation required in paragraph (f) 

of this section for 5 years. Additionally, 

all certifiers must maintain records to 

support the traceability of component 

part suppliers for as long as the 

corresponding product is produced or 

imported by the certifier and for 5 years 

thereafter. Test records must be 

maintained for 5 years. All records must 

be available in the English language. 

Finished product certifiers must 

maintain the records at the location 

within the United States specified in 

§ 1110.11(d) of this chapter or, if the 

records are not maintained at the 

custodian’s address, at a location within 

the United States specified by the 

custodian. The finished product certifier 

must make these records available, 

either in hard copy or electronically, for 

inspection by the CPSC upon request. 

Subpart B—Conditions and 

Requirements for Specific Consumer 

Products, Component Parts, and 

Chemicals 

§ 1109.11 Component part testing for paint 

and other surface coatings. 

(a) Generally. The Commission will 

permit certification of a product as 

being in compliance with the lead paint 

limit of part 1303 of this chapter or the 

content limits for paint on toys of 

section 4.3.5.2 of ASTM F 963 if, for 

each paint used on the product, the 

party that certifies the product either 

has obtained a test report or holds a 

paint certificate as described below and 

the following requirements are met: 

(1) All testing must be performed on 

dry paint that is scraped off of a 

substrate for testing (the substrate used 

need not be of the same material as the 

material used in the finished product or 

have the same shape or other 

characteristics as the part of the finished 

product to which the paint will be 

applied); 

(2) The tested paint is identical in all 

material respects to that used in 

production of the consumer product. 

The paint samples to be tested must 

have the same composition as the paint 

used on the finished product. However, 

a larger quantity of the paint may be 

tested than is used on the consumer 

product, in order to generate a sufficient 

sample size. The paint may be supplied 

to the testing laboratory either in liquid 

form or in the form of a dried film of 

the paint on any suitable substrate; and 

(3) Documentation required by a 

testing party pursuant to § 1109.5(f) and 

the certificate required of certifiers 

under section 14(a) of the CPSA and 

§ 1109.5(g) identifies each paint tested 

by color, location, formulation, or other 

characteristic, the supplier of the paint 

and, if different, the manufacturer of the 

paint. 

(b) Test reports. As part of its basis for 

certifying a children’s product to the 

lead in paint limit, or other paint limit, 

a finished product certifier may rely on 

a test report showing passing test results 

for one or more paints used on the 

product, based on testing it 

commissioned from a third party 

conformity assessment body. The 

finished product certifier of the 

children’s product must ensure that 

each paint sample sent to a third party 

conformity assessment body is identical 

in all material respects to that used on 

the finished product. Test reports must 

identify each paint tested by color, 

specification number, or other 

characteristic, as well as the 

manufacturer of the paint and the 

supplier of the paint (if different). 

(c) Paint certificates—(1) Children’s 

products. As part of its basis for 

certification of a children’s product to 

the lead in paint limit or other paint 

limit, a finished product certifier may 

rely on a certificate from another person 

certifying that the paint complies with 

the lead limit. The paint certificate must 

be based on testing by a third party 

conformity assessment body of sample 

of one or more paints that are identical 

in all material respects to the paint used 

on the finished product. The paint 

certificate must identify all test reports 

underlying the certification. 

(2) Nonchildren’s products. For 

consumer products that are not 

children’s products but are subject to 

paint limits (such as certain furniture 

items), a finished product certifier may 

base its certification on its own testing 

of each paint used on the product, on 

testing by any third party conformity 

assessment body, on paint 

certification(s) from any person, or on a 

combination of these methods. 

(3) Traceability. Any person who 

certifies a product as complying with 

the lead paint limit or other paint limit 

must be able to trace each batch of paint 

that is used on the product to the paint 

supplier and, if different, the paint 

manufacturer. 

(4) Prevention of contamination 

subsequent to testing. The finished 

product manufacturer must ensure that 

paint meeting the applicable limits 

when tested and certified is not later 

contaminated with lead from other 

sources before or during application to 

the product. 

§ 1109.12 Component part testing for lead 

content of children’s products. 

(a) Generally. A certifier may rely on 

component part testing of each 

accessible component part of a 

children’s product for lead content, 

where such component part testing is 

performed by a third party conformity 

assessment body, provided that: 

(1) The determination of which, if 

any, parts are inaccessible pursuant to 

section 101(b)(2) of the CPSIA is based 

on an evaluation of the finished 

product; and 

(2) For each accessible component 

part of the product, the certifier either 

has a component part test report or a 

component part certificate. 

(b) Component part test reports. As 

part of its basis for certification of a 

children’s product to the lead content 

limit, a finished product certifier may 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28221 

rely on a test report showing passing 

test results for one or more component 

parts used on the product, based on 

testing by a third party conformity 

assessment body. Component part test 

reports must identify each component 

part tested, by part number or other 

specification, and the manufacturer and 

the supplier of the component part (if 

different). 

(c) Component part certificates. As 

part of its basis for certifying that a 

children’s product complies with the 

applicable lead content limit, a finished 

product certifier may rely on a 

certificate from another person 

certifying that a component part 

complies with the lead limit. The 

component part certificate must be 

based on testing by a third party 

conformity assessment body of a sample 

that is identical in all material respects 

to the component parts used in the 

finished product. The certificate 

pertaining to the component part must 

identify all test reports underlying the 

certification consistent with section 14 

of the CPSA. 

(d) Certificates for the finished 

product. The certificate accompanying 

the children’s product must list each 

component part that was tested, by part 

number or other specification, and, for 

each such component part, identify the 

corresponding test report, paint 

certificate, or component part certificate 

on which a certification for the finished 

children’s product is based. 

§ 1109.13 Component part testing for 

phthalates in children’s toys and child care 

articles. 

(a) Generally. A finished product 

certifier may rely on component part 

testing of appropriate component parts 

of a children’s toy or child care article 

for phthalate content if the finished 

product certifier is provided with a copy 

of the original test results obtained from 

the third party conformity assessment 

body or a component part certificate. 

(b) Component part test reports. As 

part of its basis for certification of a 

children’s product to the phthalate 

content limit, a finished product 

certifier may rely on a test report 

showing passing test results for one or 

more component parts used on the 

product, based on testing by a third 

party conformity assessment body. 

Component part test reports must 

identify each component part tested, by 

part number or other specification, and 

the component part’s supplier and, if 

different, the component part’s 

manufacturer. 

(c) Component part certificates. As 

part of its basis for certification of a 

children’s product to the phthalate 

content limit, a finished product 

certifier may rely on a certificate from 

another person certifying that a 

component part complies with the limit. 

The component part certificate must be 

based on testing by a third party 

conformity assessment body of a sample 

that is identical in all material respects 

to the component part used in the 

finished product. The component part 

certificate must identify all test reports 

underlying the certification consistent 

with section 14 of the CPSA. Any 

person who certifies a children’s 

product as complying with the 

phthalate content limits must be able to 

trace each component part of the 

product to the component part’s 

supplier and, if different, the 

component part’s manufacturer. 

(d) Certificates for the finished 

product. The certificate accompanying 

the children’s product must list each 

component part required to be tested by 

part number or other specification and, 

for each such part, must identify the 

corresponding test report from a third 

party conformity assessment body on 

which the product’s certification is 

based. 

§ 1109.14 Composite part testing. 

(a) Paint and other surface coatings. 

In testing paint for compliance with 

chemical content limits, testing parties 

may test a combination of different 

paint samples so long as they follow 

procedures ensuring that no failure to 

comply with the lead limits will go 

undetected (see paragraph (c) of this 

section). Testing and certification of 

composite paints must comply with 

§ 1109.11. 

(b) Component parts. Third party 

conformity assessment bodies may test 

a combination of component parts so 

long as they follow procedures ensuring 

that no failure to comply with the 

content limits will go undetected (see 

paragraph (c) of this section). Testing 

and certification of composite 

component parts for lead content must 

comply with § 1109.12. Testing and 

certification of composite component 

parts for phthalate content must comply 

with § 1109.13. 

(c) How to evaluate composite part 

testing. When using composite part 

testing, only the total amount or 

percentage of the target chemical is 

determined, not how much was in each 

individual paint or component part. 

Therefore, to determine that each paint 

or component part is within the 

applicable limit, the entire amount of 

the target chemical in the composite is 

attributed to each paint or component 

part. If this method yields an amount of 

the target chemical that exceeds the 

limit applicable to any paint or 

component part in the composite 

sample, additional testing would be 

required to determine which of the 

paints or component parts, if any, fail to 

meet the applicable limit. 

Dated: May 7, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11370 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Parole Commission 

28 CFR Part 2 

Paroling, Recommitting, and 

Supervising Federal Prisoners: 

Prisoners Serving Sentences Under 

the United States and District of 

Columbia Codes 

AGENCY: United States Parole 

Commission, Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Parole Commission 

proposes to amend a rule that 

implements its authority under the 

District of Columbia Youth 

Rehabilitation Act to set aside a 

conviction for a youth offender. The 

proposed rule specifies the 

Commission’s authority to set aside a 

youth offender’s misdemeanor 

conviction and describes the 

information the Commission examines 

in making such a determination, given 

that the misdemeanant only served a jail 

term for the offense without subsequent 

community supervision on parole or 

supervised release. In addition, the rule 

clarifies the Commission’s policy for 

issuing a set-aside certificate for a youth 

offender who was formerly on 

supervised release and who was not 

reviewed for the set-aside certificate 

before the offender’s sentence expired. 

The proposed rule adopts the 

Commission’s established criteria for 

conducting set-aside reviews when a 

youth offender’s parole term ends before 

such a review has been held. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

June 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification 

number USPC–2010–02 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Mail: Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1