Archive for the ‘Lead and Phthalates’ Category

CPSC Postpones Testing and Certification Requirements for Some

Friday, January 8th, 2010

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently voted to extend the stay of enforcement of certification and testing requirements for certain children’s products.  The stay is extended differently depending upon how the CPSC viewed the ability to comply and whether the CPSC is still in the process of issuing requirements and rules.  For some children’s products, the stay will not be extended.  As before, companies are still required to comply with the new safety regulations; the stay only applies to third party testing and certification.

Because of the recent meeting and vote, there will not be another vote to lift the stay on or prior to February 10, 2010.  To understand why the stay was originally put in place read our earlier blog post about the January 2009 stay and what it means to manufacturers and retailers.

Lead-Content Testing and Certification Stay Extended One Year
The CPSC commissioners voted to extend the stay of enforcement on testing and certification requirements for lead content in children’s products one more year until February 10, 2011.  This is in contrast to the earlier deadline proposed in the staff briefing package, which called for the stay to be lifted August 10, 2010.1  Despite the August date in the briefing package, the Commissioners settled on a later date after the lead content vote was delayed one day and decoupled from other issues.

Chairman Inez Tenenbaum said she voted to extend the stay on lead content testing and certification to February 10, 2011 “in order to allow component testing adequate time to develop and to give our stakeholders adequate notice of new requirements.”  On Commissioner Nancy Nord’s blog, she wrote that the stay was needed “because the deadlines set out in the CPSIA were wildly unrealistic and their enforcement would have resulted in even more chaos in the marketplace than we have already seen over the past year, without increasing safety.”

This stay does not alter the fact that products must comply with lead limit rules, it only relates to certification and testing requirements.  As stated in our earlier article explaining the Lead and Phthalate Bans, as of August 14, 2009 products intended for children twelve and under cannot contain lead (in paint or otherwise) in excess of 300ppm (parts per million) and for paint or surface coatings (on children’s product and, for example, furniture) products cannot contain paint in excess of 90ppm.  There are some exceptions, like for electronics components, such as cathode ray tubes, and some electronics components of children’s products.

Bicycles Testing and Certification Stay Extended Six Months
For both children’s and non-children’s bicycles the stay on third party testing and certificates will remain in effect until May 17, 2010 due to insufficient testing capacity at accredited labs.  The stay may be extended again for bicycles if manufacturers and labs request additional relief by April 1, 2010.

Certain Other Products Stay Extended for Unknown Period
The following children’s products will have a stay of enforcement on third party testing and certification in effect while the CPSC continues to review labs and rule on further regulations:

  • Baby walkers
  • Bath seats
  • Caps and toy guns
  • Carpets and rugs
  • Children’s sleepwear (the stay does not extend to guarantees under the Flammable Fabrics Act)
  • Children’s toys and child care articles with banned phthalates
  • Children’s toys subject to ASTM’s F-963 toy safety standard
  • Clacker balls
  • Durable infant products
  • Electrically operated toys
  • Vinyl plastic film
  • Wearing apparel (the stay does not extend to guarantees under the Flammable Fabrics Act)
  • Youth all-terrain vehicles (ATVs)
  • Youth mattresses

The following non-children’s products will continue to have a stay of enforcement on general certificate of conformity (GCC) requirements in effect until further notice:

  • Carpets and rugs
  • Vinyl plastic film
  • Wearing apparel

The stay may be lifted for these products on a rolling basis.  If the stay extension is predicated on current lack of accreditation requirements, as is the case for youth ATVs and youth mattresses, importers and domestic manufactures will have 90 days to comply upon the publication of such requirements.  Additionally, importers and domestic manufacturers are reminded that any testing and certification still is required for the above products to the extent that such testing and certification were required prior to the CPSIA, or for which accreditation requirements had been established before the stay of August 9, 2009.

Various Products Stay NOT Extended
In addition to any testing and certification that was required prior to the CPSIA, third party testing by a CPSC recognized laboratory and certification will be required for the following children’s products manufactured after February 10, 2010:

  • Bicycle helmets
  • Bunk beds
  • Dive sticks
  • Rattles

A general certificate of conformity (GCC) that shows CPSC compliance will be required for the following non-children’s consumer products manufactured after February 10, 2010 (in addition to any certifications related to preexisting requirements):

  • Architectural glazing materials
  • ATVs
  • Candles with lead wicks
  • CB antennas
  • Cellulose insulation
  • Cigarette lighters
  • Contact adhesives (subject to ban on “extremely flamable”)
  • Fireworks
  • Garage door openers
  • Household furniture subject to lead paint regulations
  • Lawnmowers
  • Matchbooks
  • Mattresses
  • Multipurpose lighters
  • Paint
  • Portable gas containers
  • Products subject to regulations under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA)
  • Refrigerator door latches
  • Swimming pool slides
  • Unstable refuse bins

Watch the briefing and meeting held on December 16, 2009.

  1. The briefing package no longer appears available on the CPSC website.  The ballot vote sheet appears to have replaced the briefing package, using the same web address. If we are able to locate a copy of the original brifing in the future, we will include a link here. []

CPSC Approved Interim Enforcement Policy for Component Testing

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

According to Chairman Inez Tenenbaum’s December 17 statement, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) “voted unanimously to approve an interim enforcement policy that allows component testing as a basis to demonstrate compliance with the new lead paint and lead content limits” to help solve the certification issues around the new lead limits, especially for small businesses.  The policy went into effect on December 16, 2009.

Commissioner Robert Adler’s statement
said this policy “will address the largest set of concerns raised by the manufacturing community regarding testing and certification.”

The CPSC press release says domestic manufacturers and importers have a choice to either test and certify the entire, final product OR test and certify each individual component.  Similarly, a domestic manufacturer can rely on certificates obtained by its parts suppliers as long as those certificates meet all specifications and the associated tests were conducted by a CPSC recognized lab.  Similarly, a retailer or seller that has  received certificates based on component testing from its suppliers can rely on them in the same way that they would a certificate based on testing of a final product.

The Federal Register notice titled “Interim Enforcement Policy on Component Testing and Certifications of Children’s Products and Other Consumer Products to the August 14, 2009 Lead Limits” includes further stipulations. The manufacturer or importer that certifies the compliance related to lead paint or lead components of a children’s product would have to ensure:

  • Appropriate and sufficient samples are given to the lab and conform to related requirements.
  • Each batch of paint or each component associated with the product can be traced to the specific component manufacturer.
  • All test reports underlying the certification are included with the certificate.
  • In the case of lead content (not paint), the components must be drawn from a random sample from the batch used to make the final product.
  • All paints or components are identified with various attributes listed for each.

Among these requirements, the product manufacturer would also have to ensure paints and components that were tested and certified are not later contaminated with lead from other sources before or during the manufacturing process.

The CPSC intends to issue rules addressing various aspects of component testing, at which time the interim policy may no longer be in effect.

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

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

071709 Confused 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

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

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

Friday, March 13th, 2009

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

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009
022409 definition of toys and childcare articles

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

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

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

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

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

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

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?

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

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