CPSC Workshop on Potential Ways To Reduce Third Party Testing Costs Through Determinations Consistent With Assuring Compliance, 11088-11091 [2014-04265]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11088-11091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04265]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081]


CPSC Workshop on Potential Ways To Reduce Third Party Testing 
Costs Through Determinations Consistent With Assuring Compliance

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Announcement of meeting and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission, or 
we) staff is holding a workshop on potential ways to reduce third party 
testing costs through determinations consistent with assuring 
compliance. We invite interested parties to participate in or attend 
the workshop and to submit written comments.

DATES: The workshop will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on April 3, 
2014. Individuals interested in serving on panels or presenting 
information at the workshop should register by March 13, 2014; all 
other individuals who wish to attend the workshop should register by 
March 27, 2014. The workshop will also be available through a webcast, 
but viewers will not be able to interact with the panels and 
presenters. Written comments must be received by April 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the CPSC's National Product 
Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850. 
There is no charge to attend the workshop. Persons interested in 
serving on a panel, presenting information, or attending the workshop 
should register online at: https://www.cpsc.gov/meetingsignup, and click 
on the link titled, ``Potential Ways to Reduce Third Party Testing 
Costs through Determinations Consistent with Assuring Compliance 
Workshop.''
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081, 
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept 
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through: https://www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic 
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier, 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 notice. All comments received may be posted 
without change, including any personal identifiers, contact 
information, or other personal information provided, to: https://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: https://www.regulations.gov, and insert the 
Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jacqueline Campbell, Directorate 
for Engineering Sciences, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 
telephone 301-987-2024; email: jcampbell@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. What does the law require?

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) 
established limits for the maximum lead content in substrate for 
accessible component parts of children's products and for the maximum 
content limit of six phthalates for children's toys and child care 
articles. Currently, the maximum lead content limit for accessible 
component parts of children's products is 100 parts per million (ppm), 
and the maximum phthalate content limit is 0.1 percent (1000 ppm). 
Additionally, the CPSIA made ASTM F963-07, Standard Consumer Safety 
Specification for Toy Safety, or any successor version of the standard 
that the Commission does not reject, a mandatory consumer product 
safety standard. Currently, ASTM F963-11 (Toy Standard) is the 
mandatory version of the standard. Table 1 of section 4.3.5 of ASTM 
F963-11 lists the limits for the soluble amounts of eight elements 
(antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and 
selenium) allowable in toy substrates.
    The CPSIA generally requires that children's products that are 
subject to a CPSC children's product safety rule

[[Page 11089]]

must be tested by a third party CPSC-accepted laboratory for compliance 
with applicable CPSC rules. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2).\1\ Public Law 112-28 
(August 12, 2011) (Pub. L. 112-28) directed the CPSC to seek comment on 
``opportunities to reduce the cost of third party testing requirements 
consistent with assuring compliance with any applicable consumer 
product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See also 16 CFR part 1107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What actions has the Commission taken?

    In response to Public Law 112-28, the Commission published in the 
Federal Register a Request for Comment (RFC) titled, Application of 
Third Party Testing Requirements; Reducing Third Party Testing 
Burdens.\2\ As directed by the Commission, staff submitted a briefing 
package \3\ to the Commission that described opportunities that the 
Commission could pursue to potentially reduce the third party testing 
costs consistent with assuring compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/103251/3ptreduce.pdf.
    \3\ https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/129398/reduce3pt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FY 2013, subsequent to fulfilling Public Law 112-28's 
requirement that the Commission solicit and review comments regarding 
potential opportunities to reduce the cost of third party testing 
requirements consistent with assuring compliance, the Commission chose 
to direct staff to develop a Request for Information (RFI) on four such 
potential opportunities, asking for information on the following 
issues:
     Are there materials that qualify for a determination, 
under the Commission's existing determinations process, that do not, 
and will not, contain higher-than-allowed soluble concentrations of any 
of the eight elements specified in section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963-ll?
     Are there materials that qualify for a determination, 
under the Commission's existing determinations process, that do not, 
and will not, contain any prohibited phthalates above their allowed 
content limit of 0.1 percent, and thus, would not be subject to third 
party testing?
     Are there any adhesives used in manufactured woods that 
can be determined not to contain lead in amounts above 100 ppm, and 
thus, would not be subject to third party testing?
     Can the process by which materials are determined not to 
contain lead in amounts above 100 ppm be expanded to include synthetic 
food additives?
    The RFI was published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013.\4\ 
The comment period for the RFI closed on June 17, 2013. The Commission 
received eight comments. The Commission's FY 14 Operating Plan directed 
staff to ``. . . undertake additional necessary research and/or 
necessary testing with priority given to those materials most likely to 
provide the widest scope of relief.'' To obtain information and 
evidence to further explore the possibilities for reducing the costs of 
third party testing through rulemaking, CPSC staff is conducting a 
workshop focusing on determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-16/pdf/2013-08858.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are we trying to accomplish with the workshop?

    The goal of the workshop is to provide CPSC staff with information 
and evidence concerning possible determinations that certain materials, 
irrespective of their manufacturing origin or manufacturing process, 
comply with the applicable content or solubility limits of applicable 
children's product safety rules with a high degree of assurance,\5\ 
without requiring third party testing.\6\ Staff seeks information 
concerning the factors relevant to demonstrating a high degree of 
assurance of compliance to the applicable children's product safety 
rules, including consideration of raw material sourcing, the 
manufacturing processes used, whether recycled materials are or may be 
included, and the potential for contamination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ High degree of assurance means an evidence-based 
demonstration of consistent performance of a product regarding 
compliance based on knowledge of a product and its manufacture. 16 
CFR 1107.2.
    \6\ Regardless of any third party testing relief provided, 
compliance with the applicable children's product safety rules, 
including those for lead and phthalates content, is always required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What topics will the workshop address?

    We plan to discuss the three areas in which determinations may be 
made: Lead content, phthalate content, and the solubility of the eight 
elements listed in the Toy Standard.
    In each case, staff is interested in obtaining information 
regarding worldwide production of materials used in children's 
products, including current and past approaches, rather than 
attestations that a particular manufacturer or brand does not include 
the chemical of interest. Because determinations encompass all 
production of a material (which may include future production by new 
entrants), an attestation by a current manufacturer is likely to be of 
limited utility in supporting a staff recommendation of a determination 
that must apply to all current and future manufacturers.
    CPSC staff is interested in obtaining information on the following 
topics:

A. Phthalates Content

    Should staff consider a determination recommendation regarding the 
six prohibited phthalates, such a determination would identify 
materials that do not, and will not, contain the prohibited phthalates 
in concentrations above 0.1 percent (1000 ppm). Phthalates, unlike 
naturally occurring elements, are man-made chemicals, and are used 
intentionally in specific applications. Additionally, certain materials 
or processing conditions (such as extremely high temperatures) 
inherently may preclude or eliminate the presence of phthalates. These 
factors might be used as part of a method to identify materials that do 
not, and will not, contain the banned phthalates, regardless of the 
manufacturer or manufacturing process used. Additional information is 
sought on this issue.
    A determination that a material does not, and will not, contain the 
prohibited phthalates above 0.1 percent could be similar to the lead 
determinations in 16 CFR 1500.91. Such a determination would identify 
materials that intrinsically do not contain the prohibited phthalates 
or are subject to some factor in their manufacture, such as high 
temperatures or a deleterious effect on the performance of the material 
that precludes the presence of the prohibited phthalates above 0.1 
percent. To consider this possibility, staff is interested in learning:
     What specific data should staff consider when deciding 
whether to recommend that the Commission make a determination?
     How can staff be assured that a material, regardless of 
its origin, manufacturing process, potential for contamination or any 
other factor, would continue to comply with the phthalates limit 
indefinitely into the future as the material continues to be produced?
     What kind of follow-up activities should be required to 
assure continued compliance of a material?
     What other technical, practical, or implementation issues 
should CPSC staff consider before possibly making recommendations to 
the Commission regarding phthalates determinations?
     What materials would provide the greatest cost savings if 
the Commission made a determination that the material

[[Page 11090]]

did not contain the prohibited phthalates above 0.1 percent? Why?
    The 2009 Statement of Policy \7\ listed examples of materials that 
may contain phthalates. Those materials are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/126588/componenttestingpolicy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and related polymers, such as 
polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), and polyvinyl acetate (PVA);
     Soft or flexible plastics, except polyolefins;
     Soft or flexible rubber, except silicone rubber and 
natural latex;
     Foam rubber or foam plastic, such as polyurethane (PU);
     Surface coatings, non-slip coatings, finishes, decals, and 
printed designs;
     Elastic materials on apparel, such as sleepwear;
     Adhesives and sealants; and
     Electrical insulation.
    Other materials, such as other plastics, inks, air fresheners, and 
scented products, may contain phthalates.
    To identify materials that could contain phthalates, and thus, 
cannot meet the requirements for a determination, staff is interested 
in learning:
     What materials should always require third party testing 
because of potential phthalate content above 0.1 percent? Why?
     What specific data or other information should be 
sufficient to characterize a material as potentially containing one or 
more of the prohibited phthalates, and thus, always require third party 
testing for compliance to the phthalates limit?
    Phthalates are added to plastics to make the resulting material 
more flexible. We are seeking information and evidence regarding 
whether phthalates are uniformly excluded from specific plastics such 
that the plastic has no application involving the addition of 
phthalates at levels approaching 0.1 percent, even considering any 
potential recycled or reclaimed materials. Staff seeks information and 
evidence relating to a potential recommendation that specific plastics 
that potentially meet these requirements do not, and will not, contain 
the prohibited phthalates above 0.1 percent. Staff is interested in 
learning:
     What raw materials are used, could be used, or may be used 
to create plastics that meet these requirements, as well as information 
about the possibility of those materials containing or being exposed to 
any prohibited phthalate?
     Information about the potential use of recycled content in 
these plastics, and the possibility that phthalates may be included at 
noncompliant levels?
     Information about the possibility or likelihood of 
contamination of the component part or finished product with a 
prohibited phthalate?
     How or why continued manufacture, regardless of origin, 
would continue to be compliant with the phthalates limit?
     How the Commission might effectively address new 
applications or methods of production of plastics that may include the 
addition of phthalates or otherwise result in unacceptable levels of 
phthalates?
     What other technical, practical, or implementation issues 
should CPSC staff consider before possibly making recommendations to 
the Commission regarding a phthalates determination for a plastic?
     What would be the potential cost savings if such a 
determination were recommended and adopted, especially considering that 
compliance with the underlying standard(s) would still be required?

B. Lead Content

    Third party testing requirements impose a burden on certifiers of 
children's products to assure that certifiers' products comply with the 
applicable children's product safety rules. However, testing might not 
be required if the Commission has evidence that establishes with a high 
degree of assurance that the material does not, and will not, contain 
lead in substrate in amounts above 100 ppm. The lead determinations in 
16 CFR 1500.91 list materials that the Commission has determined do not 
exceed 100 ppm lead content, and thus, are not subject to third party 
testing. The procedures and requirements for determinations regarding 
lead content of materials are listed in 16 CFR 1500.89.
    If the Commission could identify additional materials that do not, 
and will not, contain lead in amounts above 100 ppm, the Commission 
could add these materials to the list in 16 CFR 1500.91. Staff is 
interested in learning:
     For manufactured materials, what specific information and 
data should staff assess in considering a recommendation that the 
material's production does not, and will not, result in a lead content 
above 100 ppm?
     How lead in the recycling stream can be kept from 
rendering a material noncompliant?
     How the potential for contamination is addressed by all 
manufacturers of a material?
     What specific information and data staff should obtain to 
be assured that continued production of a material, regardless of its 
origin, will continue to be compliant with the lead content limit 
without requiring third party testing?
     What other information the staff should consider before 
potentially making recommendations to the Commission regarding a 
determination for lead content?
     What changes would you recommend to improve the procedures 
of 16 CFR 1500.89 in furtherance of the Commission's specific 
determinations-related direction to staff? What additional specific 
information and data should staff assess in considering a 
recommendation that a determination be made that a material 
intrinsically does not, and will not, contain lead above 100 ppm? Is 
this information obtainable?
     What additional lead determinations would provide the 
greatest cost savings, assuming that the determinations have a 
satisfactory legal and evidentiary basis and are adopted by the 
Commission?

C. The Eight Elements Listed in the Toy Standard

    A possible determination could identify materials that do not, and 
will not, contain the eight elements listed in the Toy Standard, either 
with respect to chemical content or to solubility of the elements at 
levels that do not exceed the allowable limits. Because the Commission 
intends any additional determinations to reduce the testing costs 
consistent with assuring compliance, a candidate material for a 
determination must comply with the limits for all eight elements. The 
testing costs may not be reduced substantially if content or solubility 
testing is still required for one or more of the eight elements.
    Regarding the eight elements listed in the Toy Standard, staff is 
interested in learning:
     Which materials, by their nature, do not, and will not 
contain any of the eight elements in content above their solubility 
limits?
     Which materials have a solubility of all seven elements 
other than lead that is low enough for a determination to possibly be 
recommended that the material will comply with ASTM F963-11, regardless 
of the elements' content levels (lead content must not exceed 100 ppm 
for substrates, and 90 ppm for surface coatings)?
     How can compliance with the solubility limits of the 
elements other than lead be inferred from content measurements, 
irrespective of the shape or other physical characteristics of the 
material as a component part of a toy?

[[Page 11091]]

     Which materials would present the greatest cost reduction 
if the Commission determined that third party testing is not required, 
especially considering that compliance with the underlying standard(s) 
would still be required?
     What other information staff should consider before 
potentially making recommendations to the Commission regarding a 
determination of compliance with the limitations on the eight elements 
listed in the Toy Standard?

IV. What topics will not be discussed in the workshop?

    This staff workshop will focus exclusively on potential ways to 
reduce third party testing costs through determinations consistent with 
assuring compliance as described in this announcement. Other matters, 
such as certification issues, test methods, statutory content limits, 
or definitions will not be discussed at this workshop, nor are comments 
on these other topics appropriate in response to this announcement. 
Staff will not make recommendations for determinations at the workshop. 
The purpose of the workshop is to collect specific and potentially 
actionable information and evidence to be considered by staff for any 
potential future determinations.

V. Details Regarding the Workshop

A. When and where will the workshop be held?

    CPSC staff will hold the workshop from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on April 3, 
2014, at the CPSC's National Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 
Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850. The workshop will also be 
available through a webcast, but viewers will not be able to interact 
with the panels and presenters.

B. How do you register for the workshop?

    If you would like to make a presentation at the workshop or be 
considered as a panel member for a specific topic or topics, you should 
register by March 13, 2014. (See the ADDRESSES portion of this document 
for the Web site link and instructions on where to register.) We also 
ask that you indicate whether you would like to serve on a panel or 
make a presentation, and indicate each topic for which you wish to be 
considered. We ask that you limit the number of topics to no more than 
three. We will select panelists and individuals who will make 
presentations at the workshop, based on considerations such as the 
individual's demonstrated familiarity or expertise with the topic to be 
discussed, the practical utility of the information to be presented 
(such as a discussion of specific methods), and the individual's 
viewpoint or ability to represent certain interests (such as large 
manufacturers, small manufacturers, consumer organizations). We would 
like the presentations to represent and address a wide variety of 
interests.
    Although we will make an effort 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 
agenda. 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 panel at least two 
weeks before the workshop. Please inform Ms. Jacqueline Campbell, 
jcampbell@cpsc.gov, 301-987-2024, if you need any special equipment to 
make a presentation.
    If you would like to attend the workshop but do not wish to make a 
presentation or participate on a panel, we ask that you register by 
March 27, 2014. Please be aware that seating will be on a first-come, 
first-served basis.
    If you need special accommodations because of disability, please 
contact Ms. Jacqueline Campbell, jcampbell@cpsc.gov, 301-987-2024, at 
least 10 days before the workshop.
    In addition, we encourage written or electronic comments. Written 
or electronic comments will be accepted until April 17, 2014. Please 
note that all comments should be restricted to the topics covered by 
the workshop as described in this Announcement.

C. What happens if no one registers for the workshop?

    If no one registers for the workshop, we will cancel the workshop. 
If we decide to cancel the workshop, we will post a cancellation notice 
by March 28, 2014, on the registration Web page for the workshop https://www.cpsc.gov/meetingsignup and send an email to all registered 
participants who provide their email address when they register.

    Dated: February 24, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-04265 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P