54564 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 

1On August 14, 2009, the 0.06 percent (600 ppm) 

lead limit is reduced to 0.009 percent (90 ppm). 

CPSIA § 101(a)(2)(B). 

2Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA as added by 

§ 102(a)(2) of CPSIA requires that certification be 

based on testing of sufficient samples of the 

product, or samples that are identical in all material 

respects to the product. 

3Of course, irrespective of certification, the 

children’s product in question must comply with 

applicable CPSC requirements. See, e.g., CPSA 

§ 14(h) as added by CPSIA § 102(b). 

4CPSA § 14(a)(3)(G) as added by § 102(a)(2) of 

CPSIA exempts publication of this notice from the 

rulemaking requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, and from the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

5A description of the history and content of the 

ILAC–MRA approach and of the requirements of the 

ISO 17025:2005 laboratory accreditation standard is 

provided in the CPSC staff briefing memorandum 

Accreditation Requirements for Third Party 

Conformity Assessment Bodies to Test to the Lead 

Paint Requirements of 16 CFR Part 1303, September 

2, 2008 available on the CPSC Web site at http:// 

cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia08/brief/thirdp.pdf. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 

465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22102 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Third Party Testing for Certain 

Children’s Products; Notice of 

Requirements for Accreditation of 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies To Assess Conformity With 

Part 1303 of Title 16, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Requirements for 

Accreditation of Third Party Conformity 

Assessment Bodies to Assess 

Conformity with part 1303 of Title 16, 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

Introduction: The Consumer Product 

Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’), at § 14(a)(3)(B)(i) 

as added by § 102(a)(2) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), Public Law 110–314, 

directs the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) to publish this notice of 

requirements for accreditation of third 

party conformity assessment bodies 

(‘‘third party laboratories’’) to test 

children’s products for conformity with 

the lead paint ban in the Commission’s 

regulations at 16 CFR part 1303 (the 

‘‘lead paint ban’’). Children’s products 

are those designed or intended for use 

primarily by children 12 years old and 

younger. Part 1303 bans paint and other 

surface coatings that contain more than 

0.06 percent lead as well as toys, other 

consumer products intended for use by 

children, and furniture bearing leadcontaining paint.1 Each manufacturer 

(including the importer) or private 

labeler of children’s products subject to 

the lead paint ban must have products 

manufactured more than 90 days after 

this notice tested by a laboratory 

accredited to do so and must issue a 

certificate of compliance with the lead 

paint ban based on that testing.2 3

The Commission is also recognizing 

limited circumstances in which testing 

performed by a laboratory on or after 

May 16, 2008, 90 days prior to the date 

of enactment of CPSIA (August 14, 

2008), but prior to Commission 

acceptance of the laboratory’s 

preexisting accreditation, provided that 

accreditation is accepted not later than 

November 26, 2008, may form the basis 

for the certificate of compliance with 

the lead paint ban required of the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

This notice provides the criteria and 

process for Commission acceptance of 

accreditation of ‘‘third party’’ 

laboratories for testing to the lead paint 

ban (laboratories that are not owned, 

managed, or controlled by a 

manufacturer or private labeler of a 

children’s product to be tested by the 

laboratory for certification purposes), 

‘‘firewalled’’ laboratories (those that are 

owned, managed, or controlled by a 

manufacturer or private labeler of a 

children’s product to be tested by the 

laboratory for certification purposes and 

that seek accreditation under the 

additional statutory criteria for 

‘‘firewalled’’ laboratories), and 

laboratories owned or controlled in 

whole or in part by a government. 

The requirements of this notice are 

effective upon its publication in the 

Federal Register and are exempted by 

CPSIA from the notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553.4

Baseline accreditation of each 

category of laboratory to the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) Standard ISO/ 

IEC 17025:2005—General Requirements 

for the Competence of Testing and 

Calibration Laboratories—is required. 

The accreditation must be by an 

accreditation body that is a signatory to 

the International Laboratory 

Accreditation Cooperation—Mutual 

Recognition Arrangement (‘‘ILAC– 

MRA’’) and the scope of the 

accreditation must include testing for 

compliance with the lead paint ban.5 A 

laboratory owned or controlled by a 

manufacturer or private labeler of 

products to be tested by the laboratory 

is subject to additional requirements 

intended to assure that the Commission 

is immediately and confidentially 

notified of any attempt by the 

manufacturer, private labeler or other 

interested party to hide or exert undue 

influence over the laboratory’s test 

results. A governmental laboratory may 

be accredited subject to additional 

requirements concerning independence 

of its relationship with the host 

government and freedom of 

manufacturers in the host country to 

elect to use accredited non-government 

laboratories for certification testing 

without suffering disadvantage. 

The Commission has established an 

electronic accreditation registration and 

listing system that can be accessed via 

its Web site. 

Although the accreditation 

requirements for testing to the lead 

paint ban in this notice are effective 

upon their publication in the Federal 

Register, the Commission solicits 

comments on the accreditation 

procedures as they apply to that testing 

and on the accreditation approach in 

general, since the Commission must 

publish additional testing accreditation 

procedures over the coming months. 

DATES: Effective Date: The requirements 

for accreditation of laboratories for 

testing to the lead paint ban are effective 

upon publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register, that is September 22, 

2008. 

Request For Comments: Please 

provide comments in response to this 

notice by October 22, 2008. Comments 

on this notice should be captioned 

‘‘Laboratory Accreditation Process for 

Lead Paint Ban Testing.’’ Comments 

should be submitted to the Office of the 

Secretary by e-mail at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, 

or mailed or delivered, preferably in five 

copies, to the Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 

Maryland 20814. Comments may also be 

filed by facsimile to (301) 504–0127. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert ‘‘Jay’’ Howell, Acting Assistant 

Executive Director for Hazard 

Identification and Reduction, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 54565 

6A laboratory that may ultimately seek 

acceptance as a firewalled laboratory could initially 

request acceptance as a third party laboratory 

accredited for testing of children’s products other 

than those of its owners. 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 

Maryland 20814; e-mail 

rhowell@cpsc.gov. 

I. Accreditation Requirements 

A. Baseline Third Party Laboratory 

Accreditation Requirements 

For a third party laboratory to be 

accredited to test children’s products for 

conformity with the lead paint ban, it 

must be accredited by an ILAC–MRA 

signatory accrediting body and the 

accreditation must be registered with, 

and accepted by, the Commission. A 

listing of ILAC–MRA signatory 

accrediting bodies is available on the 

Internet at http://ilac.org/ 

membersbycategory.html. The 

accreditation must be to ISO Standard 

ISO/IEC 17025:2005—General 

Requirements for the Competence of 

Testing and Calibration Laboratories 

and the scope of the accreditation must 

expressly include testing to the 

requirements of 16 CFR part 1303. A 

true copy of the accreditation and scope 

documents demonstrating compliance 

with these requirements must be 

registered with the Commission 

electronically. The additional 

requirements for accreditation of 

firewalled and governmental 

laboratories are described below in 

sections I.B and I.C. 

The Commission will maintain on its 

Web site an up-to-date listing of 

laboratories whose accreditations it has 

accepted and the scope of each 

accreditation. Subject to the limited 

provisions for acceptance of 

‘‘retrospective’’ testing performed by 

other than firewalled laboratories noted 

in Section III below, once the 

Commission adds a laboratory to that 

list, the laboratory may commence 

testing of children’s products to support 

certification by the manufacturer or 

private labeler of compliance with the 

lead paint ban. 

B. Additional Accreditation 

Requirements for Firewalled 

Laboratories 

In addition to the baseline 

accreditation requirements in section 

I.A, firewalled laboratories seeking 

accredited status must submit to the 

Commission copies of their training 

documents showing how employees are 

trained to notify the Commission 

immediately and confidentially of any 

attempt by the manufacturer, private 

labeler or other interested party to hide 

or exert undue influence over the 

laboratory’s test results. This additional 

requirement applies to any laboratory in 

which a manufacturer or private labeler 

of a children’s product to be tested by 

the laboratory owns a ten percent or 

more interest. While the Commission is 

not addressing common parentage of a 

lab and a children’s product 

manufacturer at this time, it will be 

vigilant to see if this issue needs to be 

dealt with in the future. 

The Commission must formally 

accept, by order, the accreditation 

application of a laboratory before the 

laboratory can become an accredited 

firewalled laboratory. 

C. Additional Accreditation 

Requirements for Governmental 

Laboratories 

In addition to the baseline 

accreditation requirements of section 

I.A, CPSIA permits accreditation of a 

laboratory owned or controlled in whole 

or in part by a government if: 

• To the extent practicable, 

manufacturers or private labelers 

located in any nation are permitted to 

choose laboratories that are not owned 

or controlled by the government of that 

nation; 

• The laboratory’s testing results are 

not subject to undue influence by any 

other person, including another 

governmental entity; 

• The laboratory is not accorded more 

favorable treatment than other 

laboratories in the same nation who 

have been accredited; 

• The laboratory’s testing results are 

accorded no greater weight by other 

governmental authorities than those of 

other accredited laboratories; and 

• The laboratory does not exercise 

undue influence over other 

governmental authorities on matters 

affecting its operations or on decisions 

by other governmental authorities 

controlling distribution of products 

based on outcomes of the laboratory’s 

conformity assessments. 

The Commission will accept the 

accreditation of a governmental 

laboratory if it meets the baseline 

accreditation requirements of section 

I.A and meets the conditions stated 

here. To obtain this assurance, CPSC 

staff will engage the governmental 

entities relevant to the accreditation 

request. 

II. How Does a Laboratory Apply for 

Acceptance of Its Accreditation? 

The Commission has established an 

electronic accreditation acceptance and 

registration system accessed via the 

Commission’s Internet site at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/businfo/labaccred.html. 

The applicant provides basic identifying 

information concerning its location, the 

type of accreditation it is seeking, and 

electronic copies of its ILAC-MRA 

accreditation certificate and scope 

statement and firewalled laboratory 

training document, if relevant. 

Commission staff reviews that 

information for accuracy and 

completeness. In the case of baseline 

third party laboratory accreditation and 

accreditation of governmental 

laboratories, when that review and any 

necessary discussions with the 

applicant are satisfactorily completed, 

the laboratory in question is added to 

the CPSC listing of accredited 

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

businfo/labaccred.html. In the case of a 

firewalled laboratory seeking accredited 

status, when the review is complete, the 

staff transmits its recommendation on 

accreditation to the Commission for 

consideration.6 If the Commission 

accepts a staff recommendation to 

accredit a firewalled laboratory, that 

laboratory will then be added to the 

CPSC list of accredited laboratories. In 

each case, the Commission will 

electronically notify the laboratory of 

acceptance of its accreditation. 

Subject to the limited provisions for 

acceptance of ‘‘retrospective’’ testing 

performed by other than accredited 

firewalled laboratories noted in Section 

III. below, once the Commission adds a 

laboratory to the list, the laboratory may 

then commence testing of children’s 

products to support certification of 

compliance with the lead paint ban by 

the manufacturer or private labeler. 

III. Limited Acceptance of Children’s 

Product Certifications Based on Third 

Party Laboratory Testing Prior to 

Commission Acceptance of 

Accreditation 

The Commission will accept a 

certificate of compliance with the lead 

paint ban for a children’s product based 

on testing performed by an accredited 

third party or governmental laboratory 

on or after May 16, 2008, 90 days prior 

to August 14, 2008 (the date of 

enactment of CPSIA) but prior to the 

Commission’s acceptance of the 

laboratory’s accreditation if: 

• The laboratory was ISO/IEC 17025 

accredited by an ILAC-MRA member at 

the time of the test; 

• The accreditation scope in effect for 

the laboratory at that time expressly 

included testing to 16 CFR part 1303; 

• The laboratory’s accreditation 

application is accepted by the 

Commission under the procedures of 

this notice not later than November 26, 

2008; and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
54566 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 

• The laboratory’s accreditation and 

inclusion of part 1303 in its scope 

remains in effect through the effective 

date for mandatory third party 

certification to the lead paint ban. 

Testing performed by a firewalled 

laboratory prior to Commission 

acceptance of its accreditation cannot be 

used as the basis for certification 

pursuant to CPSA § 14(a)(3)(B)(i) of 

compliance with the lead paint ban by 

a manufacturer or private labeler with a 

10 percent or greater ownership interest 

in the laboratory. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–22167 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

Notice of Cancellation of 

Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Department of Air Force, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air 

Force is canceling the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed Common Battlefield 

Airmen Training (CBAT) Program. The 

Air Force proposed implementing the 

CBAT Program at one of three Air Force 

installations: Moody Air Force Base 

(AFB), near Valdosta, GA; Barksdale 

AFB in Bossier City, LA; and Arnold 

AFB near Manchester, TN. 

The Air Force published two previous 

Federal Register notices on this 

proposal: 

• Notice of Intent (NOI)—FR 

November 14, 2006 (Volume 71, 

Number 219, pg. 66313–66314) 

• Notice of Availability (NOA)—FR 

June 28, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 110, pg. 

31822)—Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Weekly receipt of 

Environmental Impact Statements 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Debra Harkiewicz, HQ AETC/A7CVI, 

266 F Street W., Bldg 901, Randolph, 

AFB, TX 78150—(210) 652–3959. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–22046 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of the 

Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (SDEIS) for Military 

Training Activities at Makua Military 

Reservation (MMR), Hawaii 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Army proposes to 

conduct live-fire military training 

exercises at MMR, Oahu, Hawaii, for 

units assigned to the 25th Infantry 

Division (25th ID) and for other military 

components. Other military components 

that have used MMR in the past include 

the Marine Corps, Army Reserves, and 

the Hawaii Army National Guard. The 

training proposed for MMR includes 

company-level, combined arms live-fire 

exercises and convoy live-fire training. 

The SDEIS addresses, among other 

things, the potential direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts 

associated with the proposal to conduct 

military training activities at MMR. The 

Army has prepared the SDEIS pursuant 

to Section 102(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), the Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500– 

1 508), Environmental Analysis of Army 

Actions (32 CFR Part 651). 

DATES: The public comment period for 

the SDEIS will end 45 days after 

publication of the NOA in the Federal 

Register by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

ADDRESSES: Please send written 

comments on the SDEIS to: U.S. Army 

Garrison, Hawaii. ATTN: Public Affairs 

Office, 742 Santos Dumont, WAAF, 

Schofield Barracks, HI 96857. E-mail 

comments should be sent to: 

usaghipaomakuaEIS@hawaii.army.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. 

Army Garrison, Hawaii, at (808) 656– 

3152; or by facsimile at (808) 656–3162. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This EIS 

was originally published as a draft in 

2005. The Army made several changes 

to the EIS in response to public 

comments including the evaluation of 

an additional training alternative at the 

Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The 

Army is republishing the EIS as a 

supplemental draft to seek public 

comment. 

The SDEIS analyzes four alternatives 

to accomplish the proposed training in 

the State of Hawaii: MMR Alternative 1 

(Reduced Capacity Use with Some 

Weapons Restrictions), MMR 

Alternative 2 (Full Capacity Use with 

Some Weapons Restrictions), MMR 

Alternative 3 (Full Capacity Use with 

Fewer Weapons Restrictions), and PTA 

Alternative 4 (Full Capacity Use with 

Fewer Weapons Restrictions). 

Alternative 3 is the Army’s Preferred 

Alternative. A No Action Alternative, 

under which no live fire military 

training would be conducted at MMR, 

was also evaluated. 

For all alternatives (with the 

exception of No Action), the range 

would be used for 242 training days per 

year. MMR Alternative 1 (Reduced 

Capacity Use) involves conducting up to 

28 company-level combined arms livefire exercises (CALFEXs) per year and 

100 convoy live-fire exercises per year. 

MMR Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 (Full 

Capacity Use) involve conducting up to 

50 company-level CALFEXs per year 

and 200 convoy live-fire exercises per 

year. Weapon systems used for all 

training alternatives would be similar to 

those used during past training at MMR. 

MMR Alternative 2 incorporates the use 

of small arms tracer ammunition. MMR 

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) 

adds tracer ammunition; inert, tubelaunched, optically tracked, wire-guided 

(TOW) missiles; 2.75-inch rockets; and 

illumination munitions. PTA 

Alternative 4 would encompass training 

similar to that in Alternative 3. 

Some of the major potential impacts 

discussed in the SDEIS are associated 

with contamination of soil; surface 

water and groundwater quality; air 

quality; cultural sites; natural resources; 

endangered and threatened species; 

noise; recreational resources; wildfires; 

and the safety and transport of 

munitions through the Waianae 

community. The Army would phase in 

certain training activities and 

ammunition types as steps are taken to 

conserve endangered species. 

Copies of the SDEIS are available at 

the following libraries on the islands of 

Oahu and Hawaii: Hawaii State Library, 

478 South King Street, Honolulu; 

Wahiawa Public Library, 820 California 

Avenue, Wahiawa; Waianae Public 

Library, 85–625 Farrington Highway, 

Waianae; and the Pearl City Public 

Library, 1138 Waimano Home Road, 

Pearl City; Hilo Public Library, 300 

Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo; Kailua-Kona 

Public Library, 75–138 Hualalai Road, 

Kailua-Kona; Thelma Parker Memorial 

Public and School Library, 67–1209 

Mamalahoa Hwy. Kamuela. 

The Army invites the general public, 

local governments, other federal 

agencies, and state agencies to submit 

wriften comments or suggestions 

concerning the alternatives and analysis 

addressed in the SDEIS. An electronic 

version of the SDEIS is available for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES