No Foolin’ Here – CPSC Issues Reasonable Definition of a “Children’s Product”

Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Anne M. Northup announced on her blog that the CPSC “adopted a rule that will become the only guidance companies will have (at least, in the form of an official rulemaking) in knowing whether the product they make is a ‘children’s product’ under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)—or more specifically, a product ‘primarily intended for a child 12 years of age or younger.’  If a product meets this definition, it will be subject to all of the CPSIA’s costly requirements.”  See Commissioner Northup’s statement on this new rule in which she says:

“The stakes are particularly high in fleshing out this interpretive rule, considering the costs companies must incur if their products fall under the requirements of the new law. Companies whose products meet the new definition of “children’s product” will have to: 1) reengineer non-compliant products to meet the law’s lead content requirements, moving to essentially lead-free parts (a maximum of 100ppm lead) by next August; 2) pay to have the product or its components tested in a third-party lab; 3) pay to certify to the lead content requirements; 4) third-party test and certify after any material change to a product; 5) pay to have the product retested periodically; 6) put tracking labels on each product, including any periodic change in cohort information, and; 7) face, potentially, the highest penalties in the Commission’s history for violating any of these rules. What’s more, products subject to these requirements (e.g. a child’s school desk, lunchbox, zippers, or buttons) may violate the law’s arbitrary lead content limits, even though they would not pose a lead risk to children. In other words, a child’s normal interaction with these products still would never cause any measurable increase in the child’s blood lead level.”