[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 218 (Friday, November 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58611-58616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27328]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2009-0095]


Notice of Workshop on Product Testing

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission, we) 
is announcing a two-day workshop to discuss issues relating to the 
testing, certification, and labeling of certain consumer products 
pursuant to section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act. We invite 
interested parties to participate in or attend the meeting and to 
submit comments. The workshop will be held in Bethesda, Maryland on 
December 10 through 11, 2009.

DATES: The workshop will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, 
December 10, 2009, and Friday, December 11, 2009.
    Comments must be received by January 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at CPSC's headquarters building at 
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, 4th Floor Hearing 
Room. There is no charge to attend the workshop. Persons interested in 
attending the workshop must register online at  http://www.cpsc.gov and 
click on the link titled, ``CPSC Staff Workshop: Product Testing'' 
under the ``What's Hot'' portion of the website near the bottom of the 
CPSC's home page. This link also has more information about the 
workshop.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-0095, 
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no 
longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) except 
through http://www.regulations.gov.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted 
without change, including any personal identifiers, contact 
information, or other personal information provided, to  http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 58612]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Howell, Office of Hazard 
Identification and Reduction, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 
East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-7577 
or e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Does the Law Require?

    Section 14(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 
U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), establishes requirements for the 
testing and certification of products subject to a consumer product 
safety rule under the CPSA or similar rule, ban, standard, or 
regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission and which are 
imported for consumption or warehousing or distributed in commerce. 
Under section 14(a)(1)(A) of the CPSA, manufacturers and private 
labelers must issue a certificate which ``shall certify, based on a 
test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program, that such 
product complies with all rules, bans, standards, or regulations 
applicable to the product under the CPSA or any other Act enforced by 
the Commission.'' CPSC regulations, at 16 CFR part 1110, further define 
the certificate requirement as applying only to importers and domestic 
manufacturers. Section 14(a)(1)(B) of the CPSA further requires that 
the certificate provided by the importer or domestic manufacturer 
``specify each such rule, ban, standard, or regulation applicable to 
the product.'' The certificate described in section 14(a)(1) of the 
CPSA is known as a General Conformity Certification.
    Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)) establishes 
testing requirements for children's products that are subject to a 
children's product safety rule. (Section 3(a)(2) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 
2052(a)(2)) defines a children's product as a consumer product designed 
or intended primarily for children 12 and younger.) Section 14(a)(2)(A) 
of the CPSA also states that, before a children's product that is 
subject to a children's product safety rule is imported for consumption 
or warehousing or distributed in commerce, the manufacturer or private 
labeler of such children's product must submit sufficient samples of 
the children's product ``or samples that are identical in all material 
respects to the product'' to an accredited ``third party conformity 
assessment body'' to be tested for compliance with the children's 
product safety rule. Based on such testing, the manufacturer or private 
labeler, under section 14(a)(2)(B) of the CPSA, must issue a 
certificate that certifies that such children's product complied with 
the children's product safety rule based on the assessment of a third 
party conformity assessment body accredited to perform such tests.
    Section 14(d)(2)(A) of the CPSA requires the Commission to initiate 
a program by which a manufacturer or private labeler may label a 
consumer product as complying with the certification requirements. This 
provision applies to all consumer products that are subject to a 
product safety rule administered by the Commission.
    Section 14(d)(2)(B) of the CPSA requires the Commission to 
establish protocols and standards for:
     Ensuring that a children's product tested for compliance 
with a children's product safety rule is subject to testing 
periodically and when there has been a material change in the product's 
design or manufacturing process, including the sourcing of component 
parts;
     Testing of random samples;
     Verifying that a children's product tested by a conformity 
assessment body complies with applicable children's product safety 
rules; and
     Safeguarding against the exercise of undue influence on a 
third party conformity assessment body by a manufacturer or private 
labeler.

II. What Is the CPSC Considering With Regard to Testing and 
Certification?

    Although section 14 of the CPSA appears to impose the same testing 
and certification requirements for consumer products and for children's 
products, there are significant differences between consumer products, 
children's products, manufacturers, and even testing methods and 
sampling methods. These differences make it difficult to devise a 
regulatory approach that is:
     General enough to apply to most, if not all, consumer 
products subject to section 14 of the CPSA;
     Detailed enough so that interested parties know what tests 
need to be performed, how often those tests need to be performed, and 
how many samples need to be tested;
     Rigorous enough so that the test results provide 
confidence that all (rather than most or some) consumer products comply 
with consumer product safety rules; and
     Sensitive enough to the needs of small businesses and 
individuals, such that any regulatory program designed to implement 
section 14 of the CPSA does not prove so costly or so burdensome as to 
drive those small businesses and individuals out of business regardless 
of the quality or safety of the products they make.

    For example, one can imagine that the testing requirements that 
apply to a manufacturer who makes tens of thousands of electronic toys 
that will be sold at retail outlets throughout the world will and 
should differ from the testing requirements that apply to an individual 
who hand-carves ten wooden toys and sells them at local craft shows. 
Nevertheless, under section 14 of the CPSA, the electronic toys and 
wooden toys both may fit the definition of ``children's product'' and 
be subject to testing by a third party conformity assessment body. 
Similarly, one can imagine that a large manufacturer has the financial 
and technical resources and sophistication to devise testing programs 
and to source its products to ensure that the product and the 
components used to make the product comply with consumer product safety 
rules, whereas an individual might not. Nevertheless, under section 14 
of the CPSA, both the large manufacturer and the individual must test 
and certify their products and must specify each such rule, ban, 
standard, or regulation applicable to the product.
    The Commission, therefore, will conduct a two-day workshop to 
discuss possible options for implementing section 14 of the CPSA. We 
believe that a properly structured testing program will greatly reduce 
the likelihood of unsafe or otherwise non-compliant products entering 
the market. A properly structured testing and certification program 
also may result in fewer product recalls and CPSC enforcement actions, 
increased consumer confidence, and safer consumer products.

III. What Topics Will Be Addressed at the Workshop?

    In general, the workshop will focus on the following topics:
     Reasonable Testing Programs;
     Additional Third-Party Testing Requirements for Children's 
Products;
     Issues Affecting Importers and Small Businesses;
     The Consumer Product Labeling Program; and
     Certification.
    We address these topics in greater detail in parts III.A through 
III.E of this document.

A. Reasonable Testing Programs

1. What Is a ``Reasonable Testing Program?''
    As explained in part I of this document, section 14(a)(1)(A) of the

[[Page 58613]]

CPSA requires manufacturers and private labelers of a product which is 
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or similar 
rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the 
Commission to issue a certificate that is based on a test of each 
product or upon a reasonable testing program. Section 14(a)(1)(A) of 
the CPSA, however, begins with the phrase ``except as provided by'' 
section 14(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the CPSA. (Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA 
pertains to third party testing of children's products while section 
14(a)(3) of the CPSA establishes a schedule for third party testing.) 
While one might interpret the ``except for'' clause in section 14(a)(1) 
of the CPSA as not extending the ``reasonable testing program'' 
requirement to children's products, section 14(b) of the CPSA 
authorizes the Commission to prescribe reasonable testing programs for 
any product subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or 
a similar rule, regulation, standard, or ban under any other Act 
enforced by the Commission and for which a certificate is required 
under section 14(a) of the CPSA. Thus, because children's products are 
subject to a certificate requirement under section 14(a) of the CPSA, 
the Commission, by regulation, may prescribe a reasonable testing 
program for children's products.
    We envision a reasonable testing program as having five elements 
regardless of the quantity of product manufactured or the size of the 
importer or manufacturer. The five elements are:
     Product specifications that describe the consumer product 
and list the safety rules, standards, etc., with which the product must 
comply. The product specification should include a complete description 
of the product and any other information, including, but not limited 
to, a bill of materials, parts listing, raw material selection and 
sourcing, and/or model names or numbers of items necessary to describe 
the product and differentiate it from other products.
     Certification tests which are performed on samples of the 
manufacturer's consumer product to demonstrate that the product is 
capable of passing the tests prescribed by the standard.
     A production testing plan which describes the tests that 
must be performed and the testing intervals to provide reasonable 
assurance that the products as produced meet all applicable safety 
rules.
     A remedial action plan which must be employed whenever 
samples of the consumer product or results from any other tests used to 
assess compliance yield unacceptable or failing test results.
     Documentation of the reasonable testing program and how it 
was implemented.

These essential elements are intended to promote the use or 
consideration of proper product design and material specifications, 
adequate production and quality control processes, effective remedial 
action process, and proper records maintenance procedures to assure, 
with reasonable certainty, that all products entered into commerce 
comply with all safety rules, standards, bans, or regulations. Some 
elements may be procedural or process-control oriented. Some elements 
may involve reliance on test data from material or component suppliers, 
and some elements may be based on third party testing validation.
2. What Are the Issues Regarding a Reasonable Testing Program?
    We invite discussion and comment on the following issues pertaining 
to a ``reasonable testing program:''
     Certain CPSC regulations, such as 16 CFR 1203.33(b) 
(describing characteristics of a ``reasonable testing program'' for 
testing bicycle helmets) include product specifications, certification 
testing, production testing, and corrective action as elements of a 
``reasonable testing program.'' However, those other CPSC regulations 
tend to be specific to a single product type and affect a limited 
number of manufacturers. In part III.A.1 of this document, we described 
the five elements we believe should constitute a ``reasonable testing 
program'' for all manufacturers. Please discuss whether the five 
elements are appropriate for all manufacturers and whether additional 
requirements or modifications should be made. For example, we have 
heard about one testing program that evaluates hazards and risk 
assessment when the product is being designed; this step would occur 
before any testing is conducted, so one might consider whether 
additional requirements should be part of a reasonable testing program 
or modifications to the CPSC's five elements. Please identify any 
references, standards, and other regulatory approaches that may be 
helpful.
     What factors should be considered to determine a 
reasonable frequency for production testing? For example, should the 
frequency for testing product samples be determined by production 
volume, the amount of time that has elapsed since the product was last 
tested, or some combination of those two and/or other factors? How 
should the testing frequency be determined for very low volumes or 
seasonal production? What rationale should be used to determine the 
frequency of production testing? What references, standards, or models 
exist?
    [cir] Should the potential hazard (either the severity or the 
probability of occurrence) be considered in determining how frequently 
the testing is conducted? For example, should a product subject to a 
consumer product safety rule, where the potential hazard is death, be 
tested more frequently than a product where the potential hazard is 
some lesser degree of harm? If so, how might a rule incorporate 
potential hazard into testing frequency?
     How should a reasonable testing program requirement 
address the number of samples to be tested? Production volumes can vary 
tremendously among manufacturers; one manufacturer might make hundreds 
of thousands of the same item, whereas an individual who hand-weaves or 
carves a product might make only one item. Please identify any 
references, standards, and other regulatory approaches that may be 
helpful.
     How might component or batch testing be incorporated into 
a ``reasonable testing program?'' What circumstances would warrant new 
component or batch testing?
    [cir] Under what circumstances should component testing be 
permitted or not permitted?
    [cir] Are there particular types of component testing which should 
or should not be permitted?
    [cir] What are the potential problems in or obstacles to using 
component testing?
     Section 19(a)(6) of the CPSA makes it unlawful for any 
person to fail to furnish a certificate required by the CPSA or any 
other act enforced by the Commission or to issue a false certificate if 
such person ``in the exercise of due care has reason to know that the 
certificate is false or misleading in any material respect * * *.'' If, 
under a reasonable testing program, a manufacturer may rely on 
certificates provided by a component supplier, what criteria or factors 
should we consider in determining whether a manufacturer has exercised 
``due care?'' How might a reasonable testing program's results apply in 
determining whether a certificate is false or misleading?
     What problems (if any) will small manufacturers or 
manufacturers of low volume products encounter in establishing a 
reasonable testing program as described in part III.A.1 of this 
document? To what extent do small businesses or manufacturers of low 
volume products already have

[[Page 58614]]

procedures in place that are intended to ensure that their products 
meet the applicable product safety rules?
     What quality assurance procedures do manufacturers use now 
that might overlap with the reasonable testing program envisioned here?

B. What Are the Issues Regarding Additional Third-Party Testing 
Requirements for Children's Products?

    Section 14(d)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA requires the Commission to 
establish protocols and standards for ensuring that a children's 
product tested for compliance with a children's product safety rule is 
subject to testing periodically and when there has been a material 
change in the product's design or manufacturing process, including the 
sourcing of component parts.
     Should the potential hazard (either the severity or the 
probability of occurrence) be considered in determining how frequently 
the periodic testing is conducted? For example, should a product 
subject to a consumer product safety rule, where the potential hazard 
is death, be tested more frequently than a product where the potential 
hazard is some lesser degree of harm? If so, how might a rule 
incorporate potential hazard into testing frequency?
     What changes should constitute a ``material change'' in a 
product's design or manufacturing process? Are there criteria by which 
one might determine whether a change is a ``material'' change? For 
example, a material change in a product's design or manufacturing 
process could be described as a change that affects the product's 
ability to comply with a consumer product safety rule. However, as a 
practical matter, it may be difficult to determine what consumer 
product safety rules apply to the product and the extent to which 
compliance with those rules is affected by a change.
     Under what circumstances or conditions might the testing 
be limited to the change itself? For example, assume that a product is 
painted using paint made by Paint Company A, but then the product 
manufacturer changes to use paint made by Paint Company B. Would it be 
acceptable to test only the paint made by Paint Company B, under 
section 14(d)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA, rather than test the entire 
product?
     Section 14(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the CPSA refers to the 
``testing of random samples to ensure continued compliance.'' What 
constitutes a ``random sample?'' How should the sample be collected, 
and who should collect it? How should a regulation address the number 
of samples to be tested? Please identify any references, standards, and 
other regulatory approaches that may be helpful. For products that are 
arguably unique, such as hand-made or custom products, what would 
constitute a ``random sample?''
     Section 14(d)(2)(B)(iii) of the CPSA requires the 
Commission to establish protocols and standards for ``verifying that a 
children's product tested by a conformity assessment body complies with 
applicable children's product safety rules.'' What requirements or 
procedures are needed to verify compliance? Who conducts the 
verification process and how? For example, should verification be done 
by a different third party conformity assessment body and using the 
same tests that were applied to the children's product? How often 
should verification be conducted? Please identify any references, 
standards, and other regulatory approaches that may be helpful.
     Section 14(d)(2)(B)(iv) of the CPSA requires the 
Commission to establish protocols and standards for ``safeguarding 
against the exercise of undue influence'' on third party conformity 
assessment bodies.
    [cir] What specific requirements should a rule specify to ensure 
that a third party conformity assessment body is safeguarded against 
undue influence by a manufacturer or private labeler?
    [cir] What specific requirements should a rule establish to ensure 
that manufacturers and private labelers do not exercise or attempt to 
exercise undue influence on third party conformity assessment bodies?
    Currently, the notices of requirements we have issued for the 
accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies specify that 
``firewalled'' conformity assessment bodies (which are third party 
conformity assessment bodies that are owned, managed, or controlled by 
a manufacturer or private labeler) must submit to the Commission 
copies, in English, of their training documents showing how employees 
are trained to notify the Commission immediately and confidentially of 
any attempt by the manufacturer, private labeler, or other interested 
party to hide or exert undue influence over the third party conformity 
assessment body's test results. We have heard recommendations to 
strengthen or increase the evidence needed to protect against the 
exercise of undue influence and to apply such recommendations to all 
third party conformity assessment bodies and perhaps to manufacturers 
and private labelers. For example, individual employees could sign 
documents acknowledging that they are aware of and/or have received 
training pertaining to safeguards against undue influence. Please 
identify any references, standards, and other regulatory approaches 
that may be helpful.
     What provisions (if any) should be made for small 
manufacturers and manufacturers with low production volumes and why? 
For example, specifying the frequency of periodic testing or the number 
of random samples to be tested may be inappropriate where the volume of 
children's products being manufactured is low or where the children's 
product is one-of-a-kind.
     Although the enforcement of most third party testing 
requirements of the CPSA has been stayed at least until February 10, 
2010 (74 FR 6396 (February 9, 2009)), many manufacturers and importers 
have subjected their products to third party testing. We are interested 
in learning about:
    [cir] The experiences of firms in obtaining third party testing, 
including information on the actual testing costs, and the experiences 
of small firms and crafters, especially those with no more than a few 
employees or with low volume products (e.g., less than 10,000 units per 
year);
    [cir] Testing costs and the possible impacts of required periodic 
testing on the financial health of the businesses;
    [cir] The use of component testing to reduce the cost of testing or 
the potential for using component testing for lowering the cost of 
testing;
    [cir] The circumstances under which component testing should or 
should not be permitted. For example, component testing may be 
appropriate for testing parts for lead and for phthalates, but 
inappropriate for testing pursuant to 16 CFR part 1203 (Safety Standard 
for Bicycle Helmets). As another example, one might argue that 
component testing may be appropriate for raw materials under certain 
circumstances, but that certain items should not be considered to be 
``component'' and, therefore, are not appropriate for component 
testing. How might we define ``component?'' May the Consumer Product 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 be read to require foreign manufacturers 
of components meant for children's products to issue certifications?;
    [cir] Whether particular types of component testing should or 
should not be permitted. For example, assume that the product is a doll 
with painted eyes. If a manufacturer can develop a sample doll whose 
entire head is painted, using the same paint as used for the eyes, a 
testing laboratory would be able to

[[Page 58615]]

obtain a sufficient paint sample from a smaller number of sample dolls 
compared to the number of dolls that would need to be tested if the 
manufacturer's samples had to have the same sized painted eyes as the 
dolls to be sold on the market. As another example, assume that a 
product is assembled in pieces; if a manufacturer can test the pieces 
before assembling the product, a testing laboratory would not have to 
receive an assembled final product and then break the product down into 
pieces for testing; and
    [cir] The potential problems in or obstacles to using component 
testing.

C. What Are the Issues Pertaining to Importers and Small Businesses?

    We recognize that importers, small businesses, and others may 
operate in an environment that may differ significantly from that of 
large manufacturers. For example, importers may acquire their product 
from many sources, including manufacturing operations under their 
control and contract manufacturers or foreign wholesalers that are not 
under their control. If an importer is not directly involved in the 
manufacturing process, its ability to monitor and control the 
manufacturing process may be limited.
     How might an importer involved with a contract 
manufacturer ensure testing is conducted when the source of a component 
part changes? We seek information on approaches that will ensure that 
consumer products comply with consumer product safety rules and similar 
rules, bans, standards, or regulations under other acts enforced by the 
Commission while recognizing that importers and others may face 
constraints due to their lack of direct involvement in the manufacture 
and production of the consumer product.
     Many small businesses have expressed concerns about the 
implementation of section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, particularly small 
businesses importing or manufacturing children's products which require 
testing by a third party conformity assessment body. While we do not 
have sufficient information regarding the size or production volume of 
all children's product manufacturers, the information that is available 
suggests that, in 2006, 98 percent of domestic firms manufacturing 
toys, dolls, and/or games employed fewer than 500 employees, and 81 
percent employed fewer than 20 employees. (See Employer Firms, & 
Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes, 2006 (North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 33993 pertaining 
to the doll, toy, and game manufacturing industry), available on the 
Internet at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us06_n6.pdf.)
    [cir] There will be an economic impact on all parties required to 
obtain third party testing of children's products. Those dealing with 
higher volumes may be able to amortize the testing costs over a larger 
volume of product, thereby reducing the incremental per-piece testing 
cost. However, requiring all businesses to abide by the same protocols 
and standards, regardless of their size or methods of production, may 
burden the smallest volume businesses with significant testing costs. 
We seek a better understanding of the potential cost impact on these 
smaller businesses and how a testing program pursuant to section 
14(d)(2)(B) of the CPSA might be structured to minimize the cost burden 
while ensuring product safety.
    [cir] Small businesses producing a very small volume of children's 
products, often custom-ordered, present unique challenges. These small 
businesses often buy small quantities of components at retail 
establishments. These components often are not children's products when 
sold at retail and therefore are not subject to the third party testing 
requirements. However, when the components are used to manufacture a 
children's product, they must meet all applicable standards. For 
example, a plain button sold at retail is not a children's product and 
is not subject to third party testing. If the same button is used to 
manufacture a toy, the button becomes a component of a children's 
product and becomes subject to the third party testing requirement and 
to children's product safety rules. We invite comment on possible 
approaches for product testing, including component testing, in these 
situations.

D. What Are the Issues Pertaining to a Consumer Product Labeling 
Program?

    Section 14(d)(2)(A) of the CPSA requires the Commission to 
initiate, by regulation, a program by which a manufacturer or private 
labeler may label a consumer product as complying with the 
certification requirements in section 14(a) of the CPSA for consumer 
products and for children's products.
    We believe that the party certifying the consumer product is 
responsible for ensuring that the product complies with all applicable 
consumer product safety rules or similar rules, bans, standards, or 
regulations under any other act enforced by the Commission and that 
only the party certifying the product's compliance, or its authorized 
representative, may affix the label to the consumer product. We also 
believe that the label should be affixed before the consumer product is 
placed on the market and should be affixed to the product packaging or, 
if there is no packaging, to the product or on a tag or other material 
included with the product.
     What requirements, if any, should be specified as part of 
the label program? For example, should a rule specify the label's text 
or provide other specifications such as size, color, font, and 
location? Should a rule impose any restrictions on the label's use? If 
so, what should the specifications or restrictions be?
     What challenges, if any, would a label program present to 
manufacturers, such as manufacturers of certain products or small 
manufacturers, and how could such challenges be addressed?

E. What Are the Issues Pertaining to Certification?

    Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA states that every certificate required 
under section 14 of the CPSA ``shall accompany'' the product or 
shipment of products covered by the same certificate and that a copy of 
the certificate shall be furnished to each distributor or retailer. 
Section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA allows for electronic filing of 
certificates up to 24 hours before arrival of an imported product and 
directs manufacturers and private labelers to furnish a copy to the 
Commission and to the Commissioner of Customs upon request.
     What constitutes or should constitute ``accompanying'' the 
product or shipment?
     In the Federal Register of November 18, 2008 (73 FR 
68328), we issued a final rule discussing, among other things, the 
electronic certificate. The final rule allowed an electronic 
certificate to ``accompany'' the product or shipment if the certificate 
is identified by a unique identifier and can be accessed through a 
World Wide Web URL or other electronic means as long as the URL or 
other electronic means and the unique identifier are created in advance 
and are available to the Commission or to Customs and Border Protection 
when the product is available for inspection. The final rule also 
stated that importers and domestic manufacturers and private labelers 
satisfy the requirement of ``furnishing'' the certificate to 
distributors and retailers if they are given ``a reasonable means to 
access the certificate.'' (See 16 CFR 111.13, ``Availability of 
electronic certificate''.) The final rule, however, gave no specific 
details on what constitutes a ``unique identifier,'' ``other

[[Page 58616]]

electronic means,'' or ``reasonable means.'' What changes, if any, are 
needed to the rule regarding electronic certificates? Should foreign 
manufacturers be required to issue a certificate?

IV. Details Regarding the Workshop

    The workshop will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, 
December 10, 2009, and Friday, December 11, 2009 at the CPSC's 
headquarters building at 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 
20814, in the 4th Floor Hearing Room.
    The workshop will open with a review of CPSC staff's current work 
on sections 14(a) and 14(d)(2) of the CPSA, including a discussion of 
the factors involved in sampling and an overview of the economic 
issues, followed by break-out sessions on the following subjects:
     The Consumer Product Labeling Program;
     Reasonable Testing Programs;
     Sampling Plans;
     Safeguarding Against Undue Influence on Product Testing;
     Additional Third-Party Testing Requirements for Children's 
Products; and
     Verification of Children's Product Testing Results.

The panels at the break-out sessions will consist of Commission staff 
and invited members from the public. If you would like to make a 
presentation at the workshop or be considered as a panel member for a 
specific break-out session, please send, via electronic mail (e-mail), 
a note indicating your desire to participate and/or indicating which of 
the break-out sessions you wish to join. We ask that you limit the 
number of break-out sessions to no more than three. We will select 
panelists and persons who will make presentations at the workshop, 
based on considerations such as: The individual's familiarity or 
expertise with the topic to be discussed; the practical utility of the 
information to be presented (such as a discussion of specific 
standards, methods, or other regulatory approaches), and the 
individual's viewpoint or ability to represent certain interests (such 
as large manufacturers, small manufacturers, consumer organizations, 
etc.). The e-mail should be sent to Robert Howell at [email protected] 
no later than November 20, 2009. In addition, please inform Mr. Howell 
of any special equipment needs required to make a presentation. While 
an effort will be made to accommodate all persons who wish to make a 
presentation, the time allotted for presentations will depend on the 
number of persons who wish to speak on a given topic and the workshop 
schedule. We recommend that individuals and organizations with common 
interests consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request 
time for a joint presentation. If you wish to make a presentation and 
want to make copies of your presentation or other handouts available, 
you should bring copies to the workshop. We will notify those who are 
selected to make a presentation or participate in a break-out session 
panel at least 3 weeks before the workshop. Selections will be made in 
attempt to ensure that a wide variety of interests are represented.
    If you do not wish to make a presentation, you do not need to 
notify the CPSC, but please be aware that seating will be on a first-
come, first-served basis.
    If you need special accommodations because of disability, please 
contact Mr. Howell at least 7 days before the workshop.
    In addition, we encourage written or electronic comments to the 
docket. Written or electronic comments will be accepted until January 
11, 2010. Please note that all comments should be restricted to how the 
CPSC should interpret and implement the requirements found in sections 
14(a) and 14(d)(2) of the CPSA so as to promote increased product 
safety while minimizing possible adverse impacts or unintentional 
consequences of the implementing regulations to be developed.

    Dated: November 9, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-27328 Filed 11-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P