Safety Matters

Does the CPSC Intend to Enforce the CPSIA Lead Limits on Children's Products or Not?

Those who read this blog regularly, know that I generally post the facts with little added commentary.  However, a few of the Commissioners’ statements with regard to their votes on whether to exclude crystal and glass beads from lead limits left me quite confused over the stand the CPSC is taking, and will take, with regard to enforcing the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA of 2008) under its new leadership.

At the end of her explanation for denying the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association (FJTA) exemption request, Tenenbaum states:

“There is a wide range of children’s products that contain crystal and glass beads that are subject to the 101(a) lead limits and, as the Commission staff recognized, many of these products do not present an immediate danger of harmful lead exposure to children.  Consequently, we will focus our enforcement activities on crystal and glass bead products designed and intended primarily for children six years of age and younger, the population most at risk of mouthing and swallowing small objects.”

What, exactly, is she saying – although you will still be breaking the law if you make or sell products that have crystal or glass, lead-containing beads for children aged seven to twelve, we will look the other way?

She goes on to state, “While this approach does not provide the exact relief that the FJTA seeks through this request, I urge manufactures and retailers of crystal and glass beads to remember that, especially during the implementation period of the CPSIA, the agency’s primary enforcement focus will remain on noncomplying lead products that present serious health risks to children.”

Huh?  So there is some relief being provided.  Again, is that because the CPSC will not enforce the law, or because they will grant an exclusion for these products if they are intended for children aged seven to twelve?  Although the latter could make sense given that, under normal use and abuse, older children are less likely to put the beads in their mouth, the statements left me confused – if  I make or sell children's products, can I or cannot I use crystal and glass beads that contain lead above the legal limits in items intended for children under 12?

Moore’s statement may be even more confusing.  “I am voting today to direct our enforcement staff to focus their activities on these products [intended for children six and under].”

Um, was that up for a vote?  Clearly, I’m missing something.  I understand the CPSC has and always has had limited resources, forcing it to focus its attention on the most pressing dangers, but to me, these statements send a very mixed message.  Will the rules change when the CPSC does have the funds to enforce the law?

Whether or not I agree with Nord’s vote to stay the lead limit restrictions for crystal and glass jewelry, she makes a statement that is more in line with my understanding of the law:

“The CPSIA does not recognize that risks impact children of different ages in different ways and instead takes a “one size fits all” approach.  This is unfortunate, yet this is reality.”

In other words, the CPSC does not have the power to split the CPSIA in half, applying it to only some the children for which the laws were written, regardless of whether it would be "common sense" to do so.  Again,what are we to make of these statements on enforcement?  Is this not like saying, “The speed limit is 60 mph, but don’t worry, we don’t have enough police officers to enforce it.”

I am officially joining the ranks of the bewildered on this one.

Lead in Beaded Jewelry for Children: The CPSC Votes are In

The Fashion Jewelry Trade Association (FJTA) asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission for an exclusion on lead limits for glass and crystal beads used in children’s jewelry and other products.  The vote came in late today:

1.    Tenenbaum:     Denied
2.    Moore:             Denied
3.    Nord:               Stay of Enforcement

Although the glass and crystal breads tested at levels 900 ppm to 23,000 ppm, much higher than the current limit of 600 ppm, the FJTA argues that the amount of lead that could leach from and be absorbed into the body of a child who mouthed or swallowed a bead would be too small to be hazardous.  The FJTA further says that the amount of lead exposure would be below that of any metal jewelry that is in compliance with the 300 ppm limitation, which goes into effect in August of this year.

Tenenbaum and Moore based their decisions on one main fact - the law is written such that exemptions can be granted only in the case that no lead would be absorbed into the body under foreseeable use and abuse, not simply that the amount of lead absorbed is too small to be hazardous.  Tenenbaum adds that, given the wide variability in lead content of the glass and crystal beads, it is not accurate to say that in every case the beads would present less lead-risk than compliant, metal jewelry.

Nord agrees with Tenenbaum and Moore’s conclusion that an exclusion cannot be granted.  However, she states that it is one of the “unintended consequences of the CPSIA” and, because of the impact on small businesses and consumers who want to purchase the products, the only choice is to impose a stay of enforcement until Congress can review the issue.   Although, as Nord points out, Congress has said they would consider adjustments to the CPSIA, there is not any indication that this particular issue would be on their list of considerations at all, let alone any time soon.  Nord does not suggest a length of time for the stay she proposes.

Here are links to statements by Tenenbaum, Moore and Nord.

Videos of CPSC Meetings Regarding Phthalates, ATVs and Bicycles Available Online

The CPSC is holding a series of public meetings to address issues related to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA of 2008).  Some of the meetings are presentations designed to clarify finalized, or nearly final rules, others are roundtable discussions in which the CPSC has asked the public to participate, providing input and data to consider when drafting final rules.

This week, three meetings were held – a presentation on phthalates, a roundtable discussion regarding ATVs and a roundtable discussion regarding bicycles.  If you missed the meetings, you can watch videos of them them online by following links provided here:

Phthalates Meeting, March 12, 2009

ATVs Meeting, March 11, 2009

Bicycles Meeting, March 11, 2009

CPSC Seeks Help from the Public in Determining What Products to Exempt from Phthalate Bans

Limits on phthalates in certain child care articles and toys became effective on February 10, 2009.  To address confusion over exactly what products qualify as “child care articles” or “toys,” the CPSC staff recently issued proposed guidelines to define both terms.  In addition, the proposed guidelines provide guidance on how to determine whether a product can be mouthed by a child, a modified restriction on the use of some phthalates. Although these sound like simple enough terms to define, there is still considerable ambiguity.  As such, the CPSC is turning to the public for help.

In general, the CPSC seeks comments as to whether their methodologies for defining “child care article” and “toy” are sound.  The CPSC also asks commenters to discuss why or why not specific products should or should not be exempted from the phthalate ban.  Products in question include:

• Art materials, model kits, and hobby items in which the finished products is not primarily of play value
• Athletic equipment
• Baby bouncers
• Baby swings
• Baby walkers
• Bibs
• Bicycles
• Camping goods
• Costumes and masks
• Crib and toddler bed mattresses
• Crib sheets
• Cribs and crib components such as rails
• Decorated swimming goggles
• Furniture
• Infant sleep positioner
• Kites
• Mattress covers
• Musical instruments
• Non-powder guns
• Pajamas
• Play sand
• Playground equipment
• Powered models of aircraft, rockets, boats, and land vehicles
• Promotional items
• Shampoo bottles in animal or cartoon character shapes
• Sharp-pointed darts
• Sling shots
• Sporting goods
• Strollers
• Toy versions of actual athletic equipment
• Tricycles
• Various types of balls
• Wading pools
• Water wings
• Wheeled ride-ons

The full proposal and list of questions can read here:
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/draftphthalatesguidance.pdf 

If you would like to provide information as to why any of these, or other products, ought to be excluded (or not) from the phthalate ban, you are encouraged to do so via any of the following methods:

E-mail: section108definitions@cpsc.gov.
Telefacsimile: (301) 504-0127
Mail:    Office of the Secretary,
            Consumer Product Safety Commission,
            4330 East West Highway,
            Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Telephone: (301) 504-7530

Please include in the subject-line of written correspondence: “Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance Regarding Which Children’s Products are Subject to the Requirements of CPSIA Section 108; Request for Comments and Information.”

Comments are due to the Commission by March 25, 2009.

New Rules: Phthalates, Lead Ban Exemptions and Prosecution for Violators

The number of rulings and interpretations that have been handed down from the CPSC over the last few days is enough to make anyone’s head spin.  For manufacturers and retailers who must understand and comply with these rules, many of which go into effect in just two days on Tuesday, February 10th, the confusion has become overwhelming.  Key issues around which rulings have been recently updated include:

Phthalates in Children’s Products – Ban Applies to Current Inventory:

02/05/09:  A court ruling determined that the CPSC’s earlier guidance with regard to phthalates is incorrect; current inventory that violates the phthalates ban cannot be sold, manufactured, imported or distributed on or after February 10, 2009.  

The CPSC had previously said that items affected by the phthalates ban could be sold as long as they were manufactured and imported before February 10, 2009.

Children’s Electronics – Ruling on Components Exempt from Lead Ban:

02/05/09: In order to issue exemptions on certain electronics and component parts of electronics intended for children before the lead ban goes into effect on February 10, 2009, the Commission withdrew its proposed ruling and issued an interim final ruling with regard to the exemptions.  The interim final ruling is largely similar to the proposed ruling, except that it spells out the uses of lead that will be exempted.  More information on the electronic device exemptions here.

While the Commission is not required to conduct a comment period for exemptions, it has stated that it will review comments for thirty days, at which time it will finalize the rule.  As before, comments can be sent via email to: Sec101ElectronicDevices@cpsc.gov.
http://cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/leadwithdrawal.pdf

Additional Proposed Lead Exemptions for Certain Children’s Books and Textiles:

02/05/09: The Commission has added two classes of products to the list of proposed products or materials to be exempted from the lead ban: 1) Regular books printed after 1985, and 2) dyed or undyed fabrics, provided that they have not undergone processes that may impart lead and they do not have added parts, such as decorations or fasteners that could contain lead. 
http://cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/101lead.pdf

Violation of Lead Bans – Limits on Prosecution:

02/05/09: The CPSC issued a statement clarifying that any person who has, in good faith, relied on the Commission’s proposed and interim rulings until final rulings can be made, will not be prosecuted for violation of the lead limits unless 1) the person had actuall knowledge that the product violated the lead limits OR 2) the person was put on notice to stop manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling the product but did not do so.

Any manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer who gains knowledge that a product or material contains lead in violation of the lead limits is still required to report the finding(s) to the CPSC.  The Commission may require a product to be recalled regardless of whether or not the person(s) involved will be prosecuted.
http://cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/101lead.pdf

Disclaimer:  Rules are changing daily.  While I follow consumer product safety issues closely and do my best to update posts accordingly, I cannot guarantee that this blog will reflect the most recent happenings.  Readers are reminded that content on this site is not to be considered legal advice and is offered for information purposes only, and that the terms and conditions of this site apply. 

Court Reverses CPSC Interpretation on Phthalates in Children’s Products – Ban Applies to Current Inventory

Previously, the CPSC General Counsel advised that, based on its interpretation of the CPSIA, the banned phthalates only applied to designated products manufactured or imported on or after February 10, 2009, but that any products already produced and in the US could still be sold.  In a recent suit filed against the CPSC claiming that this interpretation of the CPSIA is incorrect, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that “the phthalate prohibitions unambiguously apply to existing inventory.”

 As it stands now (as of 02/05/09), it will be illegal to sell, as well as manufacture and import, any of the designated children’s products which include the banned phthalates on or after February 10, 2009.  More information on the phthalates ban can be found here.

Which Electronic Children’s Products are Exempted from the Lead Ban: Commission Rules

The Commission published a proposed rule with regard to lead in electronics intended for children on January 15. 2009.  The proposal suggested that a number of uses of lead in electronic products for which it is “technically infeasible” to meet the lead limits would be exempted from the lead ban, but the final ruling could not take place until after the close of the public comment period on February 17, 2009.   Without an exemption in place, all manufacturers - whether it is likely their products will be exempted or not - are required to comply with lead bans as of February 10, 2009.

To address this lag time between when manufacturers of electronic devices must comply with the lead ban (02/10/09) and when they will know which products are exempt from the lead ban (after 02/17/09), the Commission announced that it is withdrawing the proposed rule.  In its place, the Commission has posted an “interim” final rule which spells out exactly which electronic products, or components of electronic products will be exempted.

“Based on staff’s review, the Commission has determined that the following exemptions for lead as used in certain components parts in children’s electronic devices that do not meet the lead content limits under the CPSIA are currently necessary:

1. Lead blended into the glass of cathode ray tubes, electronic components and fluorescent tubes.


2. Lead used as an alloying element in steel.  The maximum amount of lead shall be less than 0.35% by weight (3500 ppm).


3. Lead used in the manufacture of aluminum.  The maximum amound of lead shall be less than 0.4% by weight (4000 ppm). 


4. Lead used copper-based alloys.  The maximum amound of lead shall be less than 4% by weight (40,000 ppm). 


5. Lead used in lead-bronze bearing shells and bushings.


6. Lead used in compliant pin connector systems.


7. Lead used in optical and filter glass.


8. Lead oxide in plasma display panels (PDP) and surface conduction electron emitter displays (SED) used in structural elements; notably in the front and rear glass dielectric layer, the bus electrode, the black stripe, the address electrode, the barrier ribs, the seal frit and frit ring as well as in print pastes.


9. Lead oxide in the glass envelope of Black Light Blue (BLB) lamps.”

Any electronic product or component part of an electronic product that is intended for children aged twelve and under and that does not fall into one of the above categories of exemption must comply with the ban on lead limits as of February 10, 2009.  If the lead-containing component cannot be made inaccessible, it must meet the lead limits.  Comments are open for thirty days. 

The complete interim final rule can be found here: http://cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/leadwithdrawal.pdf

Until finalized, the above exemptions and rules could change.  Indeed, as we have seen recently with the reversal of the Commission opinion on phthalates inventory, rules may continue to evolve even after they have been “finalized.”   While I will continue to follow closely the news of the CPSC, I cannot guarantee that all changes will be reflected in this blog.  As always, my opinions and understandings are offered as information only and not as legal advice.  Readers are advised to be aware of this website’s terms and conditions and to contact a competent, licensed attorney with experience in the relevant area before making decisions that could affect their business or the safety of their customers.

CPSC Stay on Testing and Certification Requirements: What Does it Mean to Manufacturers and Retailers?

As news broke Friday afternoon that the CPSC has granted a one year stay on certain product testing and certification requirements, manufacturers breathed a collective sigh of relief.  But what does the stay really mean?  How much relief can manufacturers expect?  And, what about the retailers, will this stay hurt more than help?  Let’s take a look at some of the key issues and how they are affected by the stay.

General Conformity Certificates (GCC):

Before the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), GCCs were required for products with mandatory standards in place, including bike helmets, automatic garage door openers, lawnmowers, swimming pool slides, mattresses, candles with metal core wicks and lighters.  The CPSIA expanded the requirement of GCCs to include all products subject to any consumer product safety “rules, bans, standards and regulations.”  As before, the GCCs called for under the CPSIA require that, for each product, manufacturers and importers must list all of the applicable rules, and certify by means of reasonable testing that the product complies with each.

According to the CPSIA, GCCs must include certification of compliance with any new, applicable rules imposed by the CPSIA by November 12, 2008, or by the time an applicable rule goes into effect. 

The stay granted Friday effectively reverts US Code Title 15, Section 2063, as it pertains to GCCs, back to the pre-CPSIA state for one year. 

Third-Party Testing for Certification of Children’s Products:

The CPSIA imposed a new rule stating that GCCs alone are not enough for products intended for children aged twelve and under, and that third-party testing would be required for certification.  For children's products, certificates of compliance by accredited third-party testing facilities are required for each applicable rule.  Because accreditation guidelines for testing facilities are to be rolled out over the course of a year from the time the CPSIA was enacted, manufacturers and importers must continually update their testing and certificates to include new rules as the accreditation guidelines become available.

With the stay in place, certificates of compliance by third-party testing facilities are not required until February 10, 2010, but it only applies to rules for which the Commission has not already established third-party accreditation guidelines.  Accordingly, under Section 2063, as amended by the CPSIA, manufacturers and importers of children’s products are still expected to certify by accredited third-party testing that products comply with rules for lead paint and surface coatings, full size and portable cribs, pacifiers, small parts, and lead content of metal jewelry.*

What it Means:

For manufacturers of products not intended for children aged twelve and under, and that were not previously required to provide General Conformity Certificates (GCC), GCCs will not be required until at least February 10, 2010. 

For manufacturers of children's products, the stay means that neither GCCs nor third party testing certificates will be required to prove compliance with new laws regarding baby bouncers, walkers, lead content, phthalates or any other children’s product safety rule for which third-party accreditation requirements have not yet been published, for at least one more year, until February 10, 2010. 

Importantly, although manufacturers and importers may not be required to certify that their products comply with these “rules, bans, standards and regulations,” they are still required to be certain that they do, in fact, comply.  In other words, it is still against the law to violate any rule, ban, standard or regulation imposed by the CPSIA or otherwise, and doing so will result in civil and criminal penalties, which were dramatically increased by the CPSIA.  Therefore, the question remains, how does one know for certain that a product complies with laws, especially hazardous substance bans, without testing?

Some products, such as items made of fabric or printed paper like books, are likely inherently free of lead and phthalates, and those manufacturers will probably take their chances and continue to make and sell products after the bans go into effect on February 10th, 2009.  However, for makers of products that require metal components, for example, the risk of selling a product with lead content exceeding the new limits is much higher.  Those manufacturers will still need to either test products or product-components themselves, or request certification from their suppliers.

Furthermore, retailers, especially large retailers with significant buying power, are unlikely to accept products from any manufacturer, large or small, without some sort of certification that the products are in compliance, regardless of what proof is required by the law.  In addition, many retailers may holdup future orders until manufacturers certify the retailer’s current inventories, produced before February 10, 2009, are also in compliance.  For the same reasons, we can expect to see small retailers joining forces to pressure manufacturers into providing proof of compliance.  In both cases, retailers will incur some costs in both labor and delayed orders while working with manufacturers to solve the problem.  Of course, retailer costs will be much higher if manufacturers are unwilling or unable to cooperate, forcing retailers to either test on their own or simply not sell current inventories.  (More on the effect of the lead ban on retailers here.)

Overall, for small manufacturers and crafters who make and sell products directly to the public - and those products are not painted, are not cribs, are not pacifiers, do not contain small parts and are not metal jewelry - the stay lifts a huge burden for at least one year.  For most other manufacturers, whether because their products fall into one of the categories unaffected by the stay, or because retailers are unwilling to sell their products without them, certificates of some sort are still going to be a requirement.

*New rules regarding ATVs, Pool and Spa Safety and voluntary guarantees under the Flammable Products Act, also are not included the stay.

Full Text of CPSC Stay Announcement

Lead, Phthalates and Sellers of Children’s Products – What’s All the Fuss? An Explanatory Overview for Consumers

 

While retailers struggle to comply with new laws imposed by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), consumers struggle to understand what all the fuss is about.  “They need to simply stop selling products with lead in them,” one person commented.  It sounds easy enough, but determining which products can and cannot be sold under the new laws is far from simple.

The following overview was drafted with consumers in mind to help explain why retailers, even those who support the new laws, are particularly worried about complying with the new lead limits – more so than other new laws, including those limiting phthalates, which are often lumped in with lead when discussing banned substances in children’s products.

UPDATE 02/05/09:  As of today, new rulings will cause phthalates to be treated the same as lead with regard to inventory.  This article has been edited accordingly.

Background –Summary of the Lead and Phthalate Bans

Lead Paint Ban: Paint or surface coatings, as well as paint on furniture and children’s products, cannot exceed 90ppm (parts per million) as of August 14, 2009. (previous limits were 600ppm)

Lead Content Ban: Products intended for children twelve and under cannot contain lead (in paint or otherwise) in excess of 600ppm as of Feb 10, 2009, 300ppm as of August 14, 2009 and 100ppm as of August 14, 2011.

Permanent Phthalates Ban:  Toys for children twelve and under, and child care articles (feeding, sleeping, sucking and teething aids) for children three and under, cannot contain certain phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP) in amounts over 0.1 percent as of February 10, 2009. 

Interim Phthalate Ban (until further research): Toys for children twelve and under that can be put in a child’s mouth (sucked or chewed), and child care articles (feeding, sleeping, sucking and teething aids) for children three and under, cannot contain certain phthalates (DINP, DIDP, DnOP) in amounts over 0.1 percent as of February 10, 2009.

Banned Hazardous Substance vs. Safety Standard:  Lead is considered a banned hazardous substance and is governed by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).  Under the FHSA, once a substance is effectively banned it can no longer be manufactured, imported or sold in the US.  Phthalates are banned via a Safety Standard. Safety Standards are governed by the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).  Under the CPSA, Safety Standards only apply to products manufactured after the standard goes into effect. 

Therefore, as of February 10, 2009 it is against the law to manufacture or sell any children’s product over the then-current lead or phalate limits.  However, phthalate bans apply only to products manufactured on or after February 10, 2009.  Products containing the banned phthalates can still be sold if they were manufactured before February 10, 2009.  http://cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/320.pdf

UPDATE 02/05/09:  In a recent lawsuit filed against the CPSC, the Court ruled that the CPSC's interpretation of the CPSIA with regard to phthalates was incorrect and that, even with the above distinction between banned hazardous substances and safety standards, there was a clear intent by Congress to prohibit the sale of products containing the banned phthalates as of Februrary 10, 2009, not just the manufacturer and import of such products. More information about the phthalates ruling here.

Why retailers, even those who support the lead ban, are worried:

Typically, unless products are made to order, there is a lag between when a product is manufactured and when it is sold to the consumer.  This lag can be significant, with products remaining in the distribution channel up to several months or even several years.  Consider a product that is manufactured outside the US.  After the product is imported, the importer may provide the product to a distributor, who then sells the product to a retailer, who may then hold the product in inventory before placing it on the store shelf.  The product then sits on the shelf until a consumer decides to purchase it.  If the product is seasonal, such as a holiday item, the retailer may put unsold items back into storage until the following year.

In the case of phthalates products that are only regulated by safety standards, the new laws stop the manufacture and import of products on February 10, 2009, but allow the items already in the distribution channel to continue through the sales cycle.   In the case of lead and phthalates, the entire system freezes on February 10th; products already in the channel are not allowed to move forward.  Hence, retailers who purchase inventory before February 10, 2009 are prohibited from selling those items unless they are certain the products do not contain lead or the prohibited phthalates.

The problem is, retailers have no way to be certain that children’s products manufactured or imported before February 10, 2009 do not contain lead or phthalates unless they 1) test each product themselves, which is time-consuming and often cost-prohibitive, or 2) ask manufacturers to certify that the products do not contain lead the banned substances, which manufacturers are only required by law to do for products manufactured or imported on or after February 10th, 2009, and are not required to do so until at least Februrary 10, 2010.*

Large retailers with significant power in their manufacturer relationships will likely not have a problem demanding that manufacturers certify products produced before February 10, 2009 meet the new laws.  Smaller retailers, however, are finding manufacturers to be less willing (or able) to test older products.  Retailers are therefore left with inventory that they are afraid sell even if they believe the products are unlikely to contain lead because they cannot be absolutely sure.  Selling a relavent product that is later found to contain lead or phthalates above the designated limits carries hefty civil and criminal penalties.

*CPSC General Counsel recently clarified that General Conformity Certificates, which require only “reasonable testing” rather than third-party testing, will be allowed until third party accreditation guidelines go into effect in August.

*UPDATE 01/30/08:  CPSC Grants one year stay, until February 10, 2010, on certain certification and third party testing requirements.  A summary of the stay and what it means to manufacturers and retailers can be found here.

Commission Accepts Staff's Lead Exemption Proposals

All four of the CPSC staff’s proposals on exemptions to the lead limits established by the CPSIA were approved by the Commission and were printed in the Federal Register (FR) today, January 15, 2009.  You can find links to the specific FR pages and summaries of the lead-exemption proposals here.

Before finalizing their ruling, the Commission will consider public comments received by February 17, 2009.  If you or your company would like to provide information for the CPSC to review, you can do so via email.  Separate email address for each section are listed below.

Though you are encouraged to comment on any portion of the proposed rules, the Commission has specifically asked for feedback on these issues:

Exemption from Lead Testing for Children’s Products or Materials that Inherently Do Not Exceed Lead Limits (email comments to: Sec101Determinations@cpsc.gov.)

• Whether test results exist suggesting that any of the materials proposed for exemption may contain lead over the limits specified by the CPSIA.  (provide data)
• Whether there are any more materials that ought to be included in the exemption because they do not, by their nature, exceed the lead limits.

Procedures for Seeking Formal Determination that a Particular Product is Exempt from Lead Testing (email comments to: Sec101Determinations@cpsc.gov)

• General comments on the proposed procedures and the data that will be required for requesting an exemption.

Inaccessibility of Lead-Containing Components in Children’s Products (email comments to: Sec101InaccessibleRule@cpsc.gov)

• Whether fabric should be allowed as a barrier that would render a lead-containing component inaccessible.
• What effect a product’s aging may have on the use and abuse tests needed for establishing whether a lead-containing component might become accessible.

Lead Exemptions for Electronic Devices Intended for Children (email comments to: Sec101ElectronicDevices@cpsc.gov)

• What components listed in the EU Directive 2002/95/EC, other than cathode ray tubes, cannot currently be made inaccessible to a child and why.  (Note, the link provided in the Federal Register is incorrect or the page is currently down; however the staff provided this version of EU Directive 2002/95/EC with their proposal – see appendix A)

To add comment deadlines and other important dates to your own calendar, visit the Product Safety Information Calendar, click on the event, then select "Add to my calendar" at the bottom of the page.