Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA): New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Congressional research reportApr 17, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

(CPSIA): New Requirements and

Emerging Implementation Issues

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

April 17, 2009

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R40527

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Summary

This report will present an overview of issues regarding the implementation of the Consumer

Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). In addition to strengthening the regulatory

and enforcement authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the new law established

new safety standards, such as those for lead content and phthalates, and testing and certification

requirements, focusing particularly on children’s products. A range of implementation issues have

arisen, including uncertainty about possible exemptions to and appropriate compliance with new

standards, compliance with testing and certification requirements, disputes about Commission

interpretation of new standards, and the particular concerns of small businesses and of non-profit

resellers.

For a summary of the provisions in the CPSIA, including those not described in this report, see

CRS Report RL34684, Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008: P.L. 110-314, by

(name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Definition of Consumer Product............................................................................................1

Definition of Children’s Product............................................................................................2

Certification and Testing .............................................................................................................2

General Conformity Certification ..........................................................................................3

Children’s Product Third-Party Testing and Certification.......................................................4

Stay of Enforcement of Certification and Testing...................................................................5

Applicability of Certain New Product Standards..........................................................................6

Lead .....................................................................................................................................6

Lead-Based Paint Standard and Inventory .......................................................................6

Lead Content/Substrate Standard.....................................................................................6

Phthalates ........................................................................................................................... 10

Inventory Manufactured Before Effective Date (Court Ordered Application) ................. 10

Standard Concerns Certain Children’s Toys and Children’s Products ............................. 10

Applicability to Specific Products ................................................................................. 11

California Phthalates Ban.............................................................................................. 12

Toy Safety Standard ............................................................................................................ 13

Implementation Concerns of Specific Stakeholders ................................................................... 13

Small Businesses ................................................................................................................ 13

Second-hand Resellers ........................................................................................................ 14

State Petitions for Exemption from Preemption ................................................................... 15

Legislative Proposals ................................................................................................................ 15

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 17

Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 18

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Introduction

In August 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) was enacted in

response to consumer alarm about the safety of toys and children’s products and concern about

the effectiveness of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and of the statutory and

regulatory framework for consumer product safety. Consumer attention and concern were roused

by several well-publicized national recalls of various toys and children’s products. In addition to

strengthening the regulatory and enforcement authority of the CPSC, the new law established new

safety standards, such as those for lead content and phthalates, and testing and certification

requirements, focusing particularly on children’s products.

A range of implementation issues have arisen. New safety standards and testing and certification

requirements have caused confusion and concern about possible exemptions to and appropriate

compliance with new standards, compliance with testing and certification requirements, and

disputes about CPSC interpretation of new standards. Despite the efforts of the CPSC to issue

implementing regulations and guidelines in a timely manner, a number of unanswered questions

and lack of clarity remain, particularly among small manufacturers, second-hand retailers, and

manufacturers/retailers of certain types of consumer products. Increased statutory penalties and

potential applicability of certain state laws have added to uncertainty about what constitutes

compliance with the new requirements of the CPSIA.

This report will describe the new requirements for certification and testing and the effect of the

stay of enforcement of these requirements announced by the CPSC, certain new safety standards

established by the CPSIA and related implementation actions and issues, implementation issues

faced by small businesses and second-hand retailers, and legislative proposals to amend the

CPSIA to provide for exemptions from certain requirements and for special consideration for

small businesses and second-hand retailers.

Definition of Consumer Product

An understanding of what products are covered by the CPSIA and other consumer product safety

statutes is necessary as context for consideration of the CPSIA implementation. The Consumer

Product Safety Act (CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§2051 et seq.) defines “consumer product” as “any article

or component part thereof, produced or distributed (i) for sale to a consumer for use in or around

a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, or (ii) for

the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a permanent or

temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise.”

Not all products that might be considered consumer products under the general definition are

subject to consumer product safety laws administered and enforced by the Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC). There are express exemptions for products covered under other

statutes, including tobacco and tobacco products, motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment,

pesticides, firearms/antique firearms and ammunition/supplies (except for fireworks), aircraft and

components, boats and other marine vessels, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, food, or any

article which is not customarily produced or distributed for sale to, or use or consumption by, or

CPSA §3(a)(5) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §2052(a)(5)).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

enjoyment of, a consumer. The CPSC also has jurisdiction over amusement rides that are not

permanently fixed to a site but rather are part of a travelling carnival or show, but does not have

jurisdiction over rides that are permanently fixed to a particular site.2 Furthermore, the CPSC has

no jurisdiction to regulate a particular consumer product if the risk of injury associated with that

product could be eliminated or sufficiently reduced by actions taken under the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), under the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Energy Research and Development Administration [now

Department of Energy] and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), or under the Clean Air Act (the

Environmental Protection Agency). The CPSC has no authority to regulate any risk of injury

associated with electronic product radiation emitted from an electronic product if such risk may

be regulated under the Public Health Act (the Food and Drug Administration).

Definition of Children’s Product

The CPSIA added a definition of “children’s product” to the CPSA.3 Before the CPSIA, the

various consumer product safety statutes made no distinction between children’s products and

other consumer products. Some of the new requirements established by the CPSIA necessitated a

definition of what constituted a “children’s product.” “Children’s product” is a consumer product

designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. Several factors are to be

considered in determining whether a product is primarily intended for a child 12 years of age or

younger, including:

•

a manufacturer statement or label about the intended use of the product;

•

whether the packaging, display, promotion, or advertising of the product

represents it as appropriate for use by children 12 years of age or younger;

•

whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for

use by children 12 years of age or younger; and

•

the Age Determination Guidelines issued by the CPSC in 2002.4

Certification and Testing

In light of the confusion and misunderstanding regarding the certification and testing

requirements of the CPSA as amended by the CPSIA, this section will summarize these

requirements and the CPSC’s limited stay of enforcement. There are two types of compliance

certification requirements: (1) a general conformity certification for consumer products, not just

children’s products, based on testing of each product or a reasonable testing program by the

manufacturer and (2) a certification for children’s products based on testing by a third-party

laboratory. Until a third-party testing requirement takes effect for a safety standard applying to

children’s products, a general conformity certification applies to that safety standard. The

certification requirement applies to products manufactured on or after November 12, 2008. The

State agencies have jurisdiction over fixed rides that are located in a park in their jurisdiction.

CPSIA §235(a) added CPSA §3(a)(16), codified at 15 U.S.C. §2052(a)(16).

Timothy P. Smith, ed., CPSC, Age Determination Guidelines: Relating Children’s Ages To Toy Characteristics and

Play Behavior (2002).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

third-party testing and certification requirements take effect at different times, on a rolling basis.5

Both types of certification are required of either the manufacturer (domestic product) or importer

(imported product), not of a retailer or distributor.

The CPSIA added a requirement that the certificates must ‘‘accompany’’ each product or

shipment of products subject to the certification requirements and be ‘‘furnished’’ to each

distributor or retailer of the product. In addition, a copy of the certificate must be ‘‘furnished’’ to

the CPSC upon request. Under the CPSA as amended by the CPSIA, the CPSC has the authority

to designate by rule whether the manufacturer or importer (or private labeler) must issue the

required certificate and to relieve the other parties from the requirement to furnish certificates. 6

General Conformity Certification

The CPSA requires all manufacturers and importers—not just those that manufacture or import

children’s products—to certify they have complied with all applicable safety rules, bans,

standards, and regulations under statutes enforced by the CPSC. Applicable safety rules do not

include voluntary safety standards, only mandatory standards, such as those in title 16 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, that have been promulgated under a statute enforced by the CPSC.

Aside from the CPSA, these include the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Flammable

Fabrics Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, and the Refrigerator Safety Act, miscellaneous

statutes providing for specific safety standards.7 The certification must assert compliance with all

standards that apply to a product and must be based on a test of each product or on a reasonable

testing program. The manufacturer or importer may conduct the test in-house and is not required

to have testing done by a third-party/independent laboratory. The manufacturer or importer may

determine for itself what constitutes a reasonable testing program. Generally, the CPSC does not

examine or investigate the testing program of a particular manufacturer or importer, although the

CPSC can prescribe what constitutes a reasonable testing program for a particular safety standard.

The third-party testing and certification requirement for the lead-based paint standard was the first to take effect, on

December 21, 2008. Thus, a general conformity certification for the lead-based paint standard (and other standards

applicable to a product) had to be issued between November 12, 2008, and December 21, 2008. Since the latter date, a

certificate based on third-party testing for the lead-based paint standard must be issued for a children’s product,

together with a general conformity certification for any standards applicable to that product for which third-party

testing and certification requirements have not taken effect.

In response to concerns about cost and efficiency raised by manufacturers and importers, the CPSC issued regulations

permitting general conformity certifications to be electronically submitted and limited submission of the certificates to

the U.S. importer or, in the case of domestically produced products, the U.S. manufacturer. It also specified the

requirements that an electronic certificate must meet. 73 Fed. Reg. 68328 (Nov. 18, 2008).

The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA, 15 U.S.C. §§1261 et seq.) provides for warning/informational

labeling of hazardous substances and for the banning of certain hazardous substances for which labeling would not

provide adequate protection for the public against the potential hazards posed by the substances. The Flammable

Fabrics Act (FFA, 15 U.S.C. §§1191 et seq.) provides for the establishment of safety standards regarding fabric

flammability. It also prohibits the manufacture, sale, importation, transportation, or delivery in commerce of a product,

fabric, or related material or of a product made of a fabric or related material that does not comply with the standards

and deems that such practices constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices under

the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA, 15 U.S.C. §§1471 et seq.) authorizes

the CPSC to establish special packaging standards for a household substance if such standards are required to protect

children from serious injury or illness from using, handling, or ingesting such substance, with exceptions for

noncompliant packages for elderly/handicapped persons and packaging at the direction of a licensed medical

practitioner. The Refrigerator Safety Act (RSA,15 U.S.C. §§1211 et seq.) prohibits the introduction into interstate

commerce of any household refrigerator that does not conform with certain safety standards.

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

The CPSC has not prescribed what constitutes a reasonable testing program for the any of the

new standards under the CPSIA.

The CPSIA did not establish the general conformity certification requirement, but expanded the

certification requirement’s scope to all safety standards under all statutes enforced by the CPSC.

Previously, the requirement only applied to safety standards under the CPSA. Because of the

expanded scope of this requirement and the new safety standards under the CPSIA, products that

previously were not subject to this requirement now are, to the surprise of some manufacturers

and importers. The CPSIA also added products imported for consumption and warehousing to the

list of products requiring general conformity certification.8 Previously, any products imported for

distribution in commerce were subject to general conformity certification; products imported

directly by the end consumer or imported for holding/storage in a warehouse (not for distribution

and sales) did not require general conformity certification.9

Children’s Product Third-Party Testing and Certification

Unlike the general conformity certification requirement, the requirement for testing and

certification of children’s products was newly established by the CPSIA. As noted in the previous

section, for the general conformity certification, determining and assuring compliance with safety

standards was largely left up to the manufacturer or importer. The Senate report for S. 2045, the

Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007 (originally the Senate counterpart to

H.R. 4040 which became the CPSIA), noted that “the [new third-party testing and] certification

requirement would likely impose new costs on all manufacturers of children’s products since

currently manufacturers either self-certify or do not certify products at all.”10

However, under the CPSIA, a manufacturer and/or importer must certify compliance of children’s

products with applicable safety standards based on testing by accredited third-party laboratories.

Testing may be done by in-house, proprietary laboratories of a manufacturer only under certain

conditions, such as firewalling (insulation and independence from influence and direction of the

manufacturer concerning testing) and appropriate accreditation. The CPSIA required the CPSC to

issue accreditation requirements for such laboratories and maintain a list of accredited

laboratories and set deadlines by which the CPSC was required to publish accreditation

requirements based on the type of product being tested by the laboratory. Specific, staggered

deadlines for publication of accreditation requirements were established for the testing of lead

paint (September 13, 2008, but actually published September 22, 2008), cribs and pacifiers

(October 13, 2008, but actually published October 22, 2008), small parts (November 12, 2008,

but actually published November 17, 2008), children’s metal jewelry (December 12, 2008, but

actually published December 22, 2008), and baby bouncers/walkers/jumpers (due March 12,

2009, but not published). The staggered deadlines facilitated gradual phasing in of the new

requirements. The CPSIA required the accreditation requirements related to the testing of other

children’s products to be published as early as practicable, but no later than June 14, 2009, or, for

safety rules established or revised on or after August 14, 2009, not later than 90 days before such

CPSIA §102(a)(1).

Import for testing, for demonstration at trade shows, or re-export would not require such certification unless later

distributed and sold for consumption.

S.Rept. 110-265, at 25 (2008).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

rules take effect. The accreditation guidelines for certain products have been completed and

testing and certification is already in effect for those safety standards.11

The CPSIA requires testing and certification for any children’s product manufactured more than

90 days after the laboratory accreditation guidelines are published for a safety standard. Based on

the actual publication date of the relevant accreditation guidelines, certification and testing is

required for lead paint on children’s products manufactured after December 21, 2008; for cribs

and pacifiers manufactured after January 20, 2009; for children’s products with small parts

manufactured after February 15, 2009; and for children’s metal jewelry manufactured after March

23, 2009.12 The accreditation guidelines and testing and certification requirements have not been

published nor implemented for baby bouncers/walkers/jumpers, apparently because the CPSC

would have to issue guidelines in accordance with current regulations that are outdated and are

not being followed instead of being able to issue guidelines in accordance with up-to-date

voluntary standards recognized by the CPSC.13 These guidelines may also have been delayed in

accordance with the stay of enforcement discussed in the next section.

Stay of Enforcement of Certification and Testing

The CPSC has announced a stay of federal enforcement for certain certification and testing

requirements for one year, effective February 10, 2009.14 Both general conformity and children’s

product third-party testing and certification are stayed for lead content (but not for lead-based

paint), phthalates standards, and mandatory toy standards. There is no stay of enforcement for

certification and testing that had already been implemented or for which the accreditation

guidelines had already been published as of the date of the stay.15 Nor did the CPSC stay the

safety standards themselves or the required compliance with such standards. Therefore, if a

product does not comply with a safety standard and such noncompliance is discovered, the

manufacturer and/or importer may be liable civilly and criminally for such noncompliance and

may be subject to private lawsuits.

The CPSC stay of enforcement also does not stay enforcement by state attorneys general, so

theoretically, a state could enforce the certification and testing requirement. For example, a state

could enjoin sales and distribution in that state of products that do not comply with this

requirement.

See accreditation guidelines available at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html#requirements.

The actual effective date should be March 22, 2009, but the extra day is not explained by the CPSC.

CPSC Staff responses to Rep. Dingell’s questions in an attachment to the Letter from Acting CPSC Chair Nord to

Rep. Dingell, dated March 20, 2009, at 4-5, available at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/dingell032009.pdf.

74 Fed. Reg. 6396 (Feb. 9, 2009).

The stay of enforcement does not apply to: (1) general certification required for mandatory safety standards under the

CPSA before the CPSIA and any other certifications expressly required by CPSC regulations; (2) third-party testing

and certification for lead-based paint in children’s products, cribs and pacifiers, small parts in children’s products, and

children’s metal jewelry; (3) certifications for pool-drain covers required under the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa

Safety Act; and (4) certifications required for the new ATV standard established by CPSIA §232 (not to be confused

with lead content standards that apply to ATVs).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Applicability of Certain New Product Standards

The implementation of new product standards for lead and phthalates in particular have caused

controversy. CPSC has no authority to delay or suspend the safety standards and on these grounds

has declined to stay effective dates.

Lead

CPSIA §101 established a lead safety standard for lead content in children’s products and

amended the safety standard for lead in paint or coatings for certain consumer products. The new

standard for lead content in children’s products has provoked consternation among manufacturers

of some products who assert that there should be an exemption for certain products presenting a

“low risk” of exposure to lead.16

Lead-Based Paint Standard and Inventory

Lead in paint standards have existed since the 1970s. The current regulatory standard prohibits

the use on children’s products and furniture of paint or other surface coatings with a lead content

exceeding 0.06 % by weight of the total nonvolatile content of the paint or the weight of the dried

paint film. 17 CPSIA §101(f) reduces the permissible trace amount of lead in paint to 0.009 % (90

ppm) from 0.06 % (600ppm), subject to subsequent periodic review and further reduction to the

lowest lead level technologically feasible. The more stringent standard will take effect August 14,

2009.18

A CPSC Office of General Counsel memorandum concerning the application of CPSIA lead

standards to inventory clarifies that inventory of noncompliant products may not be sold after the

new standard for lead in paint takes effect on August 14, 2009. Although the CPSIA does not

expressly ban such sale or distribution, the Office of General Counsel concludes that a reading of

the CPSIA as a whole indicates such an interpretation.

Lead Content/Substrate Standard

Inventory Manufactured Before Effective Date of New Standard

Under the CPSIA §101(a)(2), the permissible lead level in products for children aged 12 and

younger is being progressively reduced over three years: 600 parts per million (ppm) as of

February 10, 2009; 300ppm as of August 14, 2009; and 100ppm as of August 14, 2011. If

100ppm is not technologically feasible, the CPSC must set the lowest level that is technologically

See infra note 40.

16 C.F.R. §1303.1. This regulatory standard was issued by the CPSC pursuant to its authority under the CPSA and

§401 of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §4831(c)).

This is pursuant to CPSC amendment of the current regulatory standard at 16 C.F.R. §1303.1. 73 Fed. Reg. 77492

(December 19, 2008).

Cheryl A. Falvey, CPSC General Counsel, the CPSC Office of General Counsel, Memorandum on Retroactive

Application of CPSIA to Inventory (September 12, 2008).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

feasible. After promulgating either the 100ppm level or the lowest level technologically feasible,

the CPSC is required to review and lower the limit at least every five years.

The CPSC Office of General Counsel memorandum concerning lead standards and inventory

concluded that inventory of noncompliant products may not be sold after the effective dates of

each phase of the lead standard.20 After August 14, 2009, inventory of children’s products that

contain more than 300ppm cannot be sold and after August 14, 2011, inventory of children’s

products that contain more than 100ppm cannot be sold.

Statutory Exemptions and Implementing Regulations

The CPSIA §101(b) provides for several exemptions from the lead content/substrate standard.

The CPSC has issued several proposed and final regulations with regard to various authorized

exemptions.

Through a rulemaking with notice and opportunity for a hearing, the CPSC may exempt certain

noncompliant materials or products from being subject to the standard if it determines on the

basis of the best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that the lead in the

products or materials will not “result in the absorption of any lead into the human body ... nor ...

have any other adverse impact on public health or safety.”21 In considering whether any lead will

be absorbed, the CPSC must take into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse

of a product by a child, including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other activities, and the

aging of the product. The CPSC’s rules for requesting and determining such exemptions22

requires its Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction (EXHR) to make an initial

recommendation within 30 calendar days, to “the extent practicable”23 or to request an extension

from the Executive Director of the CPSC. The rule does not specify any timeline for a final

decision by the CPSC and provides that the filing of an exclusion request does not stay the lead

standard or related certification or other requirements for the subject of the request pending a

final decision by the CPSC.24 The exclusion request must include the best-available, objective,

peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that is unfavorable to the request and that is reasonably

available to the requestor, as well as evidence that supports the request.25 Any initial decision of

the CPSC to grant an exclusion request, whether upon or against the initial recommendation of

the EXHR, shall be published in the Federal Register for comment. 26 A requestor will be notified

of an exclusion denial; an exclusion grant will be published as a final rule in the Federal

The lead content standards under the CPSIA shall not apply to any inaccessible component parts

of a children’s product. A component part is not accessible if it is “not physically exposed by

Cheryl A. Falvey, CPSC General Counsel, the CPSC Office of General Counsel, Memorandum on Retroactive

Application of CPSIA to Inventory (September 12, 2008).

CPSIA §101(b)(1)(A) [15 U.S.C. §1278a(b)(1)(A)].

74 Fed. Reg. 10475 (March 11, 2009). The procedure is codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.90.

74 Fed. Reg. at 10481, codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.90(e).

74 Fed. Reg. at 10481, codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.90(h).

74 Fed. Reg. at 10481, codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.90(c)(6).

74 Fed. Reg. at 10481, codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.90(f ) and (g).

Id.

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

reason of a sealed covering or casing and does not become physically exposed through reasonably

foreseeable use and abuse of the product. Reasonably foreseeable use and abuse shall include to

[sic], swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children’s activities, and the aging of the product

to a child during normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the product.”28 Pursuant to

the CPSIA, the CPSC has proposed an interpretative rule to provide guidance with respect to

what product components or classes of components will be considered to be inaccessible. 29 The

preamble to the proposed rule describes an inaccessible component as one that is inside a product

which a child cannot touch and that may be encased in material such as plastic, rubber, or metal.30

The CPSC sought comments as to whether fabric should be considered a barrier rendering lead

inaccessible to a child;31 a final rule has not been issued, so it is unclear whether fabric will be

included as a barrier.32 Inaccessibility would be determined by the manufacturer using existing

use and abuse tests33 and accessibility probes34 required under current CPSC regulations.

If the CPSC determines that it is not technologically feasible for certain electronic devices to

comply with the lead standard, it must also issue requirements to minimize exposure or

accessibility to lead in those devices. Such requirements may include a child-resistant cover that

prevents exposure to and accessibility of the parts containing lead. The CPSC has issued an

interim final rule concerning certain electronic devices for which it is not technologically feasible

to meet the lead limits as required under CPSIA §101.35

For the purpose of the exemptions described above, paint, coatings, or electroplating are not

considered to be a barrier that would render lead in the substrate inaccessible to a child, or to

prevent absorption of any lead into the human body.36

The CPSC has proposed a list of inherently lead-free materials, including precious metals and allnatural-fiber textiles37 and has also issued a Statement of Commission Enforcement Policy on

Section 101 Lead Limits.38 A final list has not yet been promulgated. With regard to materials and

products not on this list, manufacturers and importers may request a CPSC determination that a

commodity or class of materials or a specific material or product does not exceed the lead content

limits specified under CPSIA §101(a).39 The procedure is similar to the one for determining

CPSIA §101(b)(2)(A) [15 U.S.C. §1278a(b)(2)(A)].

74 Fed. Reg. 2439 (Jan. 15, 2009). The rule would be codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.87.

74 Fed. Reg. at 2440.

Id.

Several comments advocated recognizing fabric as a barrier rendering lead-containing components inaccessible. See

comments available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/pubcom/Inaccessiblelead1.pdf. The comment period for

this proposed rule ended on February 17, 2009.

74 Fed. Reg. at 2442, codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.87(e) and (f).

74 Fed. Reg. at 2442, codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.87(d). The probes are currently used to determine whether sharp

points or edges in certain children’s products are accessible based on whether a probe can touch a component inside a

product.

74 Fed. Reg. 6990 (Feb. 12, 2009).

CPSIA §101(b)(3) [15 U.S.C. §1278a(b)(3)]; 74 Fed. Reg. at 2442, codified at 16 C.F.R. §1500.87(b); and

discussion at 74 Fed. Reg. at 2440.

74 Fed. Reg. 2433 (Jan. 15, 2009).

Available at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/101lead.pdf.

74 Fed. Reg. 10475 (March 11, 2009).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

exclusions of certain noncompliant products and materials, with similar deadlines and notice and

comment provisions.

Applicability to Specific Products

The CPSC General Counsel has issued opinions concerning the applicability of the lead standard

to books (and certain other paper-based products such as posters and games), apparel/shoes, AllTerrain-Vehicles (ATVs), bicycles, and small motorcycles/dirt bikes.

In its response to comments by ATV manufacturers on the rule regarding the procedure for

applying for and granting exclusions of noncompliant products from the standard, the CPSC

asserted that the pertinent statutory language does not allow it any discretion to grant the

requested exclusion. Specifically, the CPSC concluded that allowing exclusions where “no

meaningful increase” in lead levels in the human body could occur meant that exclusions would

be permissible only in cases where the lead in a product or material will not result in the

absorption of any lead into the human body.40 Thus, the CPSC implied that any exemption for

metal parts of products such as ATVs, bicycles, and small motorcycles/dirt bikes may require

legislation to amend the CPSIA’s exemption language41 requiring zero absorption of lead by a

person.

Since the CPSC issued the final rule regarding the procedure for applying for and granting

exclusions of noncompliant products from the standard or determinations that a material/product

is inherently compliant, there have been several applications for exemption or determination. The

CPSC has decided only one as of the date of this report, an application by several manufacturers

and industry groups with regard to ATVs, which the CPSC denied. 42 The exclusion was denied

because metal parts of ATVs are not covered by the statutory exclusion language, consistent with

the CPSC position asserted in the Federal Register notice for the final rule on the exclusion

procedure. However, the CPSC announced in the Commissioners’ statements accompanying the

vote that the Commissioners and staff were working to develop a plan to stay enforcement of lead

content standards as applied to ATVs.43 A CPSC vote on the stay of enforcement is scheduled for

April 24, 2009; the stay would cover ATVs manufactured before or on May 1, 2011, the date the

stay ends. 44 The stay for such ATVs would remain in effect for the life of the ATVs and any

replacement parts for those ATVs.45 Manufacturers seeking the protection of the stay would have

to submit a request specifying vehicles and parts covered by the stay within 45 days of the

issuance of the stay and explain why such vehicles and parts cannot be made inaccessible,

substituted with another material, or made compliant at this time.46

74 Fed. Reg. at 10476.

CPSIA §101(b)(1)(A).

The ballot vote and accompanying statements of Commissioners Nord and Moore with are available at

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot09/atvexclusion.pdf. The ATV application and CPSC staff

recommendation package is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/atvexclusion.pdf.

See the Commissioners’ statements and directions to CPSC staff to develop elements of a stay-of-enforcement plan

available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot09/atvexclusion.pdf.

Id.

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

In a letter to the CPSC, several Senators have expressed the opinion that the exclusion language

of the CPSIA §101(b)(1)(A) gives the CPSC the discretion to grant an exclusion for conditions

like that of the ATVs and to implement the CPSIA in a common-sense manner. 47 These opinions

echo those of a Senate conferee on the CPSIA cited by the ATV manufacturers in their comments

on the rule for the exclusion procedure.48

Phthalates

Inventory Manufactured Before Effective Date (Court Ordered Application)

In NRDC, Inc. v. United States Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n,49 a lawsuit filed by consumer

advocacy groups,50 a federal district court struck down an advisory opinion of the CPSC’s Office

of General Counsel (OGC) that interpreted the phthalates ban as applying only to products

manufactured after the effective date of the new ban (February 10, 2009) and thus effectively

permitted the continued sale of existing noncompliant inventory after February 10, 2009.51 Before

this court decision, the OGC interpretation had been criticized by congressional proponents of the

phthalates standard as being contrary to congressional intent.52 The court found that the text and

legislative history indicated clearly that the phthalates standard applied to products manufactured

before the effective date of the standard and criticized the OGC analysis, indicating that it was not

due deference because it was not thorough, well-reasoned, or substantiated, as required by caselaw precedents. The CPSC did not appeal the court’s decision.

Standard Concerns Certain Children’s Toys and Children’s Products

A phthalates safety standard for certain consumer products was established by §108 of the

CPSIA. Beginning 180 days after enactment, §108 permanently bans the three phthalates whose

toxicity is not disputed and temporarily bans three other phthalates pending a review by a Chronic

Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP).53 It prohibits children’s toys or child care articles that contain

Letter available at http://www.learningresources.com/text/pdf/LR/SignOnLettertoActingChairmanNancyNord4.9.09.pdf. See also Bureau of National Affairs, Nord ‘Open’ to Granting

Petition Request For Exclusion From Lead Rules, if Possible, 37 Product Safety Liability Reporter 412 (April 13,

2009).

Comments from American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., to the CPSC, dated Feb. 17, 2009, at 3 (citing letter from

Sen. Klobuchar to the CPSC, dated Jan. 26, 2009), available at

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/pubcom/leadexclusion.pdf.

597 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) [hereinafter NRDC lawsuit].

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Public Citizen, Inc.

Advisory Opinion dated November 17, 2008, from CPSC General Counsel Falvey to Ms. Ravitz and B. Cohn, Arent

Fox LLP, concerning the retroactive application of the phthalates ban of CPSIA §108 and of the lead content standard

of CPSIA §101 [hereinafter CPSC Phthalates Opinion], available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/320.pdf.

See Letter dated Nov. 24, 2008, from Senator Feinstein and Representatives Waxman, Schakowsky, and DeGette, to

the CPSC Commissioners Nord and Moore, available at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/

index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.Home, and Letter dated Nov. 21, 2008 from Senator Boxer to CPSC General

Counsel Falvey, available at http://boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=305227, both urging that the General

Counsel’s interpretation be changed to apply the phthalates ban retroactively to inventory of noncompliant products.

For more information on the scientific studies regarding phthalates and human health effects, see CRS Report

RL34572, Phthalates in Plastics and Possible Human Health Effects, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

more than 0.1 % DEHP, DBP, or BBP. The sale of children’s toys that can be placed in the mouth

or child care articles containing concentrations of more than 0.1 % of DINP, DIDP, or DnOP, is

prohibited on an interim basis until a review by a CHAP. After the CPSC receives the report from

the CHAP, it must determine, by rule, whether to continue the interim ban. It defines “children’s

toy” as “a consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age

or younger, for use by the child when the child plays.” “Child care article” is “a consumer product

designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep or the feeding of children age 3 and

younger or to help such children with sucking or teething.” The statute includes guidelines for

determining whether a product was intended or designed for use by children of the specified ages

and whether a toy can be placed in a child’s mouth. The provision does not restrict phthalate

alternatives.

Section 108 also clarified any preemptive effect these standards would have on state laws. Nonidentical provisions are preempted, unless a state applies for and the CPSC grants an exemption

for stronger protections under state laws, and the federal law would not preempt restrictions on

phthalate alternatives. The CPSIA standard differs somewhat from existing state laws. For

example, the federal law is not identical to the state laws with regard to the definitions of toys,

children’s products, or children’s articles, and the age group for which these consumer products

are intended. 54 It appears that the new federal phthalates safety standard preempts recent state

laws that were enacted in the absence of federal standards, to the extent that they do not provide

identical protection for the same risk of injury.

Applicability to Specific Products

The CPSC General Counsel has issued advisory opinions regarding the applicability of the

phthalates ban to apparel and shoes.55 The opinions note that under the phthalates ban, apparel

and shoes, except for sleepwear, would generally not be considered either toys or child care

articles as defined under the statute. Even shoes designed in a whimsical manner designed to

appeal to children, generally would not be considered toys. In public meetings conducted by the

CPSC staff with regard to the CPSIA implementation, the staff has also acknowledged the issues

posed by some home design items and sporting goods.56 For example, it may be unclear whether

certain home design products should be considered toys because of their toy-like appearance and

whether others are designed for use by the child or by the parent in caring for the child. With

regard to certain sporting goods, such as inflatable balls or wading pools, it may be unclear

whether the product, when deflated, can normally be mouthed by a child. In addition to the

advisory opinions, the CPSC has made available draft guidance regarding what children’s

products are subject to the phthalates ban; the guidance elaborates on what constitutes a toy, a toy

that can be placed in the mouth, or a child care article. 57

CPSIA §108(e) compared to Cal. Health & Safety Code §§108935-108939; 18 V.S.A. § 1511; Rev. Code Wash.

(ARCW) §§ 70.240.010- 70.240.020.

OGC Advisory Opinion on applicability of the phthalates standard to wearing apparel, dated Nov. 25, 2008, available

at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/321.pdf, and OGC Advisory Opinion on applicability of the phthalates

standard to shoes, dated Oct. 17, 2008, available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/318.pdf.

See information related to the CPSC public meeting on phthalates available at

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/phthalates.html.

74 Fed. Reg. 8058 (Feb. 23, 3009, available at

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/draftphthalatesguidance.pdf

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

California Phthalates Ban

Effective January 1, 2009, a California statute58 prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution in

commerce of any toy or child care article that contains DEHP, DBP, or BBP in concentrations

exceeding 0.1% and of any toy or child-care article, intended for use by children under three

years of age that can be mouthed, that contains DINP, DIDP, or DnOP in concentrations

exceeding 0.1%. The statute requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when

replacing phthalates in such products and also prohibits them from replacing phthalates with

certain carcinogens (including substances known, likely to be, or suggestive of being human

carcinogens) or reproductive toxicants identified in accordance with federal or California laws.

California defined “toys” as “all products designed or intended by the manufacturer to be used by

children when they play,”59 and “child care article” is defined as “all products designed or

intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, or to help

children with sucking or teething.”60

The Attorney General of the State of California sent a letter to the CPSC General Counsel setting

forth the State’s position with regard to how the federal and state phthalates laws interact.61 The

California Attorney General expresses concern that the CPSC Phthalates Opinion did not note the

effect of state laws. He asserts that: (1) to the extent the federal phthalates standard and the

California standard overlap, they are identical and thus the federal ban does not preempt the state

ban; (2) to the extent that the state law covers products that are not covered by the federal ban, the

federal ban does not preempt state law; (3) during the period between the effective date of the

state ban and the effective date of the federal ban, the federal ban does not preempt state law; and

(4) if the federal ban does not cover products manufactured before its effective date, it does not

preempt the California phthalates ban, which applies to products manufactured before its

effective date. The California Attorney General concludes,

As of January 1, 2009, it will be illegal to sell, distribute, or manufacture toys and child care

articles in California with greater than 0.1 percent of six specified phthalates, regardless of

when or where the products were manufactured. The effective date of the federal CPSIA

does not affect implementation of California’s phthalate restrictions. Because A.B. 1108 will

have been on the books for over 14 months before its phthalate limits take effect, we believe

that industry has had sufficient time to prepare to comply with the requirements that take

effect on January 1, 2009. The Attorney General, and other public enforcers, can and will

enforce California’s phthalate ban after that date.62

The CPSC Frequently Asked Questions for the CPSIA simply state that the new federal

provisions on phthalates preempt state laws,63 but with regard to the California laws and the

California Attorney General’s letter to the CPSC, a CPSC spokesperson reportedly stated, “The

Cal. Health & Safety Code §§108935-108939 (current on LexisNexis).

Cal. Health & Safety Code §108935(a).

Cal. Health & Safety Code §108935(b).

Letter dated December 3, 2008, from Attorney General Brown, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Weil, and

Deputy Attorney General Sullivan, State of California, to CPSC General Counsel Falvey, available at

http://caag.state.ca.us/prop65/pdfs/CA_phthalate_letter.pdf.

Id. at 5.

Available at http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/preemption.html.

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Consumer Product Safety Commission respects the law as passed in California, and its

implementation starting this week.”64

Additionally, California has petitioned for exemption of certain phthalates statutes from

preemption by the new federal toy safety standard, in accordance with CPSIA §106(h)(2). 65 This

provision permits state and local governments to petition for exemption of existing state and local

toy safety standards from preemption by federal toy safety standard when the state and local laws

protect consumers from the same risk of injury as the federal law.

Toy Safety Standard

CPSIA §106 mandated adoption of the ASTM International66 Standard F963–07 Consumer Safety

Specifications for Toy Safety within 180 days of the CPSIA enactment. Since the enactment of

the CPSIA, ASTM International has adopted a new revision to this standard, F963-08. Under the

CPSIA, this revision becomes effective as the new standard within 180 days of the ASTM

International notification of the revision to the CPSC. The revision is subject to review and

adoption (or partial adoption) by the CPSC. If the CPSC notifies the ASTM within 90 days of

receiving the revision notification that it will not adopt the ASTM revision, the older standard will

remain in effect for the United States.

The CPSIA permits certain departures from the ASTM toy standard. Specifically, CPSIA §101

provides that in any conflict with the lead standard under that section, the lead standard under

CPSIA §101 supersedes the ASTM toy standards. Also, states may petition the CPSC for

exemption from preemption of state standards. Several states have already done so.

Implementation Concerns of Specific Stakeholders

In addition to issues of exemption for specific product categories or the delay of certain

requirements of the CPSIA, small businesses and second-hand resellers have asserted that they

have particularly suffered a severe economic impact from the CPSIA.

Small Businesses

Small businesses have asserted that the CPSIA disproportionately affects them with regard to

inventory loss due to noncompliance with the new lead and phthalates standards and the costs of

third-party testing. They have sought relief, either administratively or legislatively, from the

application of the new requirements to small businesses. The CPSIA does not expressly permit

consideration of the needs of small businesses in the implementation or enforcement of the new

requirements, that is, there is no small-business exemption from the requirements. The CPSIA

focuses on the product and whether a product meets certain standards. Accordingly, the CPSIA

permits the consideration of exemptions based on the threat to public safety posed by types of

Susan Bohan, “Phthalate ban in children’s products now in force in California,” Contra Costa Times (January 1,

2009).

See petition package at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/california.pdf.

ASTM International is the standards-setting organization formerly named American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM).

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

products or product components, not based on the type of manufacturer or ability of the

manufacturer to comply with safety standards.

Some small businesses apparently have asserted that manufacturing does not include final

“assembling” of component parts, therefore, the work performed by certain small businesses is

not manufacturing because it only constitutes “assembling.” However, no distinction is made

between large-scale and small-scale manufacturers in either the CPSIA or the primary consumer

product safety statutes. The CPSA does not define manufacturers or consumer products subject to

consumer product safety laws in terms of the size of the manufacturer, production volume, or

method of manufacture (such as mass-production versus handmade production). It defines

“manufacturer” as “any person who manufactures or imports a consumer product”67 and defines

“manufactured” as “to manufacture, produce, or assemble.”68

The CPSC has asserted that it has no authority to stay the effective date of the actual safety

standards for anyone;69 therefore, there has been no stay of safety standards for small businesses

that might suffer a greater economic impact from the requirements of the CPSIA.

However, pursuant to existing laws, the CPSC generally considers the needs of small businesses

in promulgating regulatory standards pursuant.70 The CPSC issued guidelines for small

businesses in which it attempted to clarify the effect of the CPSIA on small businesses.71

Second-hand Resellers

Second-hand resellers are not satisfied with CPSC guidelines which advise resellers that they

have one of four choices for a product, as a practical matter: (1) test the product; (2) refuse to

accept or sell the product and discard any inventory; (3) use the reseller’s best judgment based on

knowledge of the product; or (4) contact the manufacturer about the product for information.72

Although the guidelines attempt to provide practical advice to resellers, resellers remain uncertain

as to what they are required to do. For example, exactly what constitutes knowledge that a

product complies with safety standards is unclear.

CPSA §3(a)(10) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §2052(a)(11)).

Statements of Commissioners Nord and Moore accompanying the denial of an emergency stay of the effective date

of lead limits under CPSIA §101(a)(2), available at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot09/nam.pdf.

See Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” August 13, 2002 and

§603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 603). On its website, the CPSC asserts that it “fully

considers the potential impact of its draft rules on small entities. The CPSC thoroughly reviews its draft rules to assess

and take appropriate account of their potential impact on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small

organizations. The CPSC ensures maximum notice to and participation by small entities in its rulemaking process.”

This statement is available at http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/smbusrm.html.

CPSC, Guide to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) for Small Businesses, Resellers, Crafters

and Charities, available at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/sbguide.pdf.

Id. Also see, e.g., Lorie Zapf, Unintended Consequences of Toy Safety Bill, San Diego Business Journal On the Web

(posted April 6, 2009) available at http://www.sdbj.com/

article.asp?aID=99856415.8540918.1765309.9471661.7601674.481&aID2=135784; Thomas L. Gallagher,

Manufacturers Urge Change in Product Safety Law, Journal of Commerce Online (posted April 3, 2009) available at

http://www.joc.com/node/410562; commentary generally at http://amendthecpsia.com/category/in-the-news/.

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

State Petitions for Exemption from Preemption

Several states have petitioned the CPSC for exemptions from preemption of state safety standards

by new standards under the CPSIA.73 Some of the petitions are pursuant to the preemption

exemption under CPSIA §106, the toy standard provision. Others have been filed under the

general preemption provisions under the CPSA or the FHSA. The CPSC has not yet acted on any

of these petitions.

Legislative Proposals

In letters to the CPSC, congressional committees and members have urged the CPSC to

expeditiously issue guidelines and exemption regulations, criticized the CPSC for problems with

implementation, and asked the CPSC to explain the implementation issues that have arisen. 74 The

CPSC responded with letters explaining these issues, how they are being handled, and the

CPSC’s views regarding potential solutions, including any need for additional legislation. 75 Relief

from the deadlines imposed for CPSC action and increased agency discretion to grant exemptions

are a couple of the proposed solutions that may entail legislation; component certification is one

of the administrative solutions being studied by the CPSC. Additionally, business stakeholders,

including manufacturers and second-hand resellers, have been vocal in demanding legislative

action to resolve problems businesses perceive in the CPSIA and its implementation. 76 Consumer

advocates generally appear to be pleased with the CPSIA implementation, with the exception of

the OGC memorandum permitting the continued sale of inventory that did not comply with the

new phthalates standard.77 They acknowledge the implementation issues that have arisen and the

exemptions permitted under the law and have urged the CPSC to issue appropriate guidance and

take appropriate steps in its discretion to address these issues.78 They have also urged the

President to appoint a new CPSC Chair.79

State preemption petition packages for Arizona, California, Illinois, and New York, available at

http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/preemption.html.

Letter from Sen. Rockefeller, Chairman of the Sen. Commerce, Science, and Transportation Comm., Rep. Waxman,

Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Comm., Rep. Rush, Chairman of the House Commerce, Trade, and

Consumer Protection Subcomm., and Sen. Pryor, to the CPSC, dated Feb. 4, 2009 (urging a timeline for expeditious

implementation of the CPSIA), available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090205/cpsc.pdf; Letter

from Rep. Dingell, Chairman Emeritus of the House Energy and Commerce Comm., to the CPSC, dated March 4,

2009, available at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/mi15_dingell/090305CPSC.shtml (asking the CPSC to explain

implementation issues); Letter from Sen. Durbin to Acting CPSC Chair Nord, dated March 27, 2009 (criticism of

Acting CPSC Chair Nord’s views and actions regarding implementation of the CPSIA) available at

http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=310660.

Letter from Acting CPSC Chair Nord to Rep. Dingell, dated March 20, 2009, available at http://www.cpsc.gov/

about/cpsia/dingell032009.pdf, and Letter from Commissioner Moore to Rep. Dingell, dated March 20, 2009, available

at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/dingell032009a.pdf.

See supra note 72 for links to commentary and reporting on the April 1, 2009 rally reflecting the business

constituency’s frustration.

CPSIA Fact Sheet, available at http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=18326; Statement from a Coalition of

Public Interest Organizations, dated Jan. 30, 2009, available at

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_product_safety/009325.html.

Id.

Letter to President Obama from the leaders of several consumer groups, dated Jan. 30, 2009, available at

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CPSC_leadership.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Some members have urged that hearings be held to consider implementation problems and

whether legislation may be appropriate.80 The congressional committees with jurisdiction over the

CPSC and consumer product safety issues have not yet held hearings with regard to CPSIA

implementation issues, apparently preferring to wait for the appointment of a new CPSC Chair81

and to allow time for the CPSC to address and resolve such issues administratively to the extent

feasible. The Chairmen of the congressional committees have urged President Obama to replace

Acting CPSC Chair Nord as soon as possible with his own designee. 82

The CPSC had been hampered by the absence of additional resources and staff needed to

implement the CPSIA effectively. The recent enactment of the Omnibus Appropriations Act,

Fiscal Year 2009, P.L. 111-8, provided $105,404,000 to the CPSC, which was acknowledged by

Acting CPSC Chair Nord as funds urgently needed to implement the CPSIA by hiring additional

staff and upgrading databases and technology infrastructure.83

Several bills have been introduced to mitigate the impact of new CPSIA requirements on small

businesses and second hand resellers (some of which are non-profit/charitable organizations);

delay the effective dates of requirements; and provide exemptions for ATVS, bicycles,

motorbikes, and books.

Proposed legislation to amend provisions established by the CPSIA include:

•

S. 374, A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide regulatory

relief to small and family-owned businesses, related to H.R. 968 and H.R. 1465

(sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint and introduced February 4, 2009);

•

S. 389, to establish a conditional stay of the ban on lead in children’s products,

and for other purposes (sponsored by Senator Robert F. Bennett and introduced

February 5, 2009);

•

H.R. 968, to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide regulatory relief

to small and family-owned businesses, related to S. 374 (sponsored by

Representative John B. Shadegg and introduced February10, 2009);

•

H.R. 1027, Thrift Store Protection Act (sponsored by Representative Bill Posey

and introduced February 12, 2009);

•

H.R. 1046, Children’s Product Safety Enhancement and Clarification Act of 2009

(sponsored by Representative Adam H. Putnam and introduced February 12,

2009);

Letter from Rep. Joe Barton, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Comm., and Rep. Radanovich to

Comm. Chairman Waxman, dated Jan. 21, 2009, available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/11063758/CPSIA-Letter-toHenry-Waxman.

Marcia Coyle, Consumer bill sets off furor, National Law Journal (April 13, 2009).

Letter from Sen. Rockefeller, Chairman of the Sen. Commerce, Science, and Transportation Comm., Rep. Waxman,

Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Comm., Rep. Rush, Chairman of the House Commerce, Trade, and

Consumer Protection Subcomm., and Sen. Pryor, to Pres. Obama, dated Feb. 3, 2009, available at

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090204/cpsc.pdf.

Statement of Acting CPSC Chair Nord, dated March 12, 2009, available at

http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/nord03122009appropriations.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

•

H.R. 1465, to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide regulatory

relief to small and family-owned businesses, related to S. 374 (sponsored by

Representative Brad Ellsworth and introduced March 12, 2009);

•

H.R. 1510, to amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain all-terrain

vehicles, and for other purposes, related to H.R. 1587 (sponsored by

Representative Denny Rehberg and introduced March 16, 2009);

•

S. 608, Common Sense in Consumer Product Safety Act of 2009 (sponsored by

Senator Jon Tester and introduced March 17, 2009);

•

H.R. 1587, to amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain off-highway

vehicles, and for other purposes (sponsored by Representative Denny Rehberg

and introduced March 18, 2009);

•

H.R. 1692, to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to exempt

ordinary books from the lead limit in such Act (sponsored by Representative Jeff

Fortenberry and introduced March 24, 2009);

•

H.R. 1815, to clarify the applicability of certain provisions in the Consumer

Product Safety Improvement Act, and for other purposes (sponsored by

Representative Joe Barton and introduced March 31, 2009);

•

S.Amdt. 964 to S.Con.Res. 13, to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to

protect small and home businesses from the burdensome and impractical

requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008

(sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint and introduced April 2, 2009). This

amendment not agreed to in the Senate by a Yea-Nay vote of 39 to 58 on April 2,

2009 (Record Vote No. 151).

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

CPSIA: New Requirements and Emerging Implementation Issues

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

Name

Consumer Product Safety Law

-name redacted-

Environmental Protection Agency and

Health Effects of Phthalates

-name redacted-

Congressional Research Service

Phone

7-....

E-mail

-redacted-@crs.loc.gov

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.