GANA Reminds Fabricators New CPSC Requirements
Take Effect February 11
January 28, 2010
On February 9, 2009, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) postponed the date for compliance with a new set of certification
rules, applicable to architectural glazing materials installed in
hazardous locations, until February 11, 2010 (CLICK
HERE for related story). With that date drawing close, the Glass
Association of North America (GANA) organized a webinar this afternoon
explaining to temperers and laminators how they will be affected.
Simply put, the new rules require manufacturer certifications of
compliance with CPSC 16 CFR 1201the federal safety standard
for architectural glazing materialsto include several new
pieces of information.
Currently, a certificate of compliance requires:
- Manufacturers name;
- Date of manufacture;
- Place of manufacture;
- Safety standard; and
- Certification of compliance.
As of February 11, the certificate must include:
- Manufactures name, mailing address and telephone number;
- Month and year of manufacture;
- City and state where manufactured;
- Safety standard;
- Identification of the product by a unique identifier;
- Custodian of testing records name, e-mail address, mailing
address and telephone number;
- Date and place where the product was tested; and
- The third-party test laboratorys name, mailing address
and telephone number.
According to Kim Mann, legal counsel for GANA, who led todays
webinar, this enlarged list of requirements can take the form of
an electronic certificate or even a hybrid form, whereby
certain information is available via a website (such as contact
information, manufacturers statement of compliance, etc.),
while other required information is included on the lites
label or logo (such as date of manufacture, etc.). John Kent, administrative
manager of the Safety Glazing Certification Council (SGCC) and another
speaker on todays call, noted that the testing agencies such
as SGCC can provide about 90-percent of this information via its
testing records, but the manufacturer would still be responsible
for providing, for example, the date of manufacture and a certification
One listener on todays webinar questioned whether fabricators
would be required to provide the required materials to customers
not defined as a distributor or retailer. The answers indicated
just some of the unknowns coming with these new requirements. Mann
suggested that the CPSC could interpret those words to include any
customer, including glazing contractors, to whom the product is
There was also some confusion as to how to handle product manufactured
prior to February 11 but not yet distributed as of that time. Kent
comment that the requirements could feasibly refer to products manufactured
after February 11, while Mann suggested that it would have to comply
with any products distributed after that date.
The confusion exists because, Mann said, CPSC has, to date, offered
little or no guidance as to how these rules are to be interpreted
or how theyre to be applied, resulting in number of grey areas
for temperers and laminators.
Another grey area is the term unique identifier.
Kent points out this could be something as simple as a model number
or complex as a serial number; SGCC is interpreting this as the
former, since the council includes a unique ID for each thickness
of glass tested.
The bigger question refers to the reasonable testing
the requirement says a product must undergo. For manufacturers that
choose to self-certify, Kent said, We believe each manufacturer
has to take a position of what they believe is reasonable and defend
what they feel is reasonable because CPSC offers no guidance
on proper testingyet.
Going forward, Mann explained that Congress has directed CPSC to
create new testing regulations for childrens products. Mann
said that recent presentations on the subject have led him to believe
that new protocols on testing regulations likely will issue
very broad generic protocol that will apply to all consumer products
subject to safety standard requirements. However, GANA has
submitted comments to CPSC on this topic, urging the council to
confine any future regulations on testing protocols to childrens
products, or, at least, exclude architectural glazing materials
from its scope.
Because of the confusion, Mann reported that CPSC has made it clear
that its first priority will not be policing certification
and labeling requirements, but, rather, will try to ensure
these consumer products meet the safety requirements in these standards.
However, Mann added, Who knows when CPSC is going to abandon
this so-called leniency approach to certification? And when
they do, he cautioned, manufacturers not complying with the new
requirements could be subject to an up to $100,000 penalty for each
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
HERE to subscribe to USGlass magazine.