PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 8, 2009
Amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), by regulation, to: (1) initiate a program by which a manufacturer or private labeler of a toy or durable nursery product shall label a product as complying with third party testing requirements; and (2) base certification labeling requirements for toys and durable infant and toddler products, at minimum, upon specified product safety design analysis and testing standards (including randomness and frequency standards).
Repeals the general product conformity certification requirements of the Act.
Delays until August 14, 2010, the effective date of requirements that a manufacturer place permanent, distinguishing marks on a children's product and its packaging that enable the manufacturer to ascertain the product's specific source and the ultimate purchaser to ascertain its production date, location, and cohort information.
People & committees
Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3533 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3533 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3533 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3533 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.