Showing posts with label Lead Limits/Bans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lead Limits/Bans. Show all posts

July 21, 2011

CPSC announces lead limit on childrens products will be reduced from 300ppm to 100ppm effective August 14, 2011


Update to this story posted August 2, 2011

Unfortunately the CPSC decided to move forward and reduce the lead content in products intended for "children" from 300ppm to 100ppm (parts per million) effective August 14, 2011. (Originally it was 600ppm when the law first took effect) This unfortunately was required by Congress, provided the CPSC in its rulemeaking function determined that it was "technologically feasible" to get the lead down to 100ppm. As the bicycle industry indicated in testimony before the CPSC this effectively eliminates the use of all recycled steel frames, most of which are used to make low cost children's bikes (low cost is helpful here as the children quickly outgrow the bikes). The bicycle industry also indicated that at this point in time lead testing results were not very reliable when you try to reach below 300ppm. Ahh..but its "technologically" feasible with NASA level equipment. Well sure, but we are not building a space shuttle and the recreational sports industry does not have NASA's "budget" (tax dollars).

The CPSC of course focused on "technologically" feasible, not "economically" or "reasonably" feasible. Thank you congressional staffer that used a poor choice of words. (see definition in bold below which was what the CPSC was using as guideance).

The bigger point here is that this law was flawed from the start. No children in the USA are dying or  getting sick from lead poisoning in toys, bicycles or motorcycles. The biggest "lead" threat to children does not come from consumer products. The law should only have applied only to specific items likely to go in a child's mouth (shown by empirical evidence). Bicycles, motorcycles and most recreational products don't. Unfortunately Congress chased lead (and a few select phthalates) as the only bogeyman (thanks to misled consumers and the media) and did not even focus on the most plentiful sources of lead to kids. We need to focus on what is really harming kids in the US. Lead is not in the top 20. The bigger problem is the whole race to go from 600ppm to 100pm is futile and will not insure any greater safety, but will incur exponentially more costs for small businesses. This is the problem with regulation. "Regulation" always looks and sounds good from 20,000 feet up until people that really have to make the widgets take a close look at it and what will really be required to implement it. Then you see the nightmare train wreck. But people with lifetime jobs in Government could care less about your small business job. And we wonder why unemployment is still so stubbornly high.

We all thought the CPSC would do the right thing in implementing the law via regulations, but the fact is that no one is willing to stick their neck out in government and declare the "emperor has no clothes" (or that this law and the 100ppm standard really does nothing at all to protect children and just harms US small businesses). The same is true in Congress. If a legislator came out and said reducing lead 600ppm to 100ppm means nothing to children's safety the "children's lobby" would accuse then of "wanting to harm children and puppy dogs". Some have come out and been bold but were outnumbered and outvoted.

There have been numerous bills to address some of the problems in the CPSIA since 2008. None really have moved thru Congress which in the last two years has been in a state of panicked deadline gridlock. Now with the debt crisis coming to a head on August 2, 2011 there are very few days to deal with this issue before the August 14, 2011 deadline. The National Association of Manufacturers is taking their best shot in an ad campaign here:


National Association of Manufacturers Ad Campaign regarding HR 1939


The only thing on the table now with any hope of passing (any time this summer) is HR 1939 which has been stalled in "mark up" since Mid May 2011.


So starting on August 14, 2011 manufacturers and distributors of children's products must comply with the new 100 ppm federal limit for total lead content. CPSC will not enforce the CPSIA's independent third party testing requirement for total lead content until December 31, 2011, due to a stay of enforcement that is already in place. There are some legitimate questions and ambiguities regarding how the new 100 ppm requirement interacts with the latest "bicycle-motorcycle stay" thru December 31, 2011.


The first is whether or not your company complied with the stay's initial requirements (which required some onerous reporting) and if you failed to do that whether or not you can take advantage of the stay thru December 31, 2011.


The second is to keep in mind that as to bicycles the stay only deals with components made with metal alloys, including steel containing up to 0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, and copper with up to 4.0 percent lead. (see 74 FR at 31257 for all details)


Finally there is a question as to how the stay thru December 31, 2011 interacts with the current 100 ppm lead requirement. One could argue that you have to make sure lead is below 100 ppm in your children's product but you don't have to "test and certify". Apparently this sort of "catch 22" makes sense to people in government. The reality is that the CPSC likely will not be chasing down manufactures of bicycles and motorcycles on the 100 ppm requirement until after December 31, 2011, but I would not want to bet my company on that or anything the CPSC may or may not do. They are just too unpredictable these days.


Finally, to add to the confusion, lead content levels for children's products (the base material) are different than the so called "lead paint/coatings standard" which has been .009 percent since August 14, 2009.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 15, 2011
Release #11-278
CPSC Announces New, Lower Limit for Lead Content in Children’s Products

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted (3-2) that there was insufficient evidence to make a determination that manufacturers of children’s products sold in the United States could not meet a total lead content limit of 100 parts per million (ppm) for a product or product category. The new total lead content limit, which is called for in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), goes into effect on August 14, 2011 for manufacturers, importers, retailers and distributors of children’s products.

Through the CPSIA, Congress set tough new levels for lead content in products designed or primarily intended for children 12 and younger. Lead is a heavy metal that is toxic for children, and associated with lowered levels of learning, impaired hearing, brain damage and, at high levels, can be fatal.

Congress directed CPSC to phase in the reduced levels for lead content over a three year period, starting with 600 ppm on February 10, 2009. The level dropped to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009. Finally, Congress directed the total lead content limit be set at 100 ppm, unless the Commission determined it was not technologically feasible for a product or product category.

The Commission was not able to determine that 100 ppm total lead content is not technologically feasible, as staff found that materials containing less than 100 ppm total lead content are commercially available in the marketplace for manufacturers. CPSC staff also found many products currently on the market, that have been tested by CPSC or other organizations, that are already in compliance with the new 100 ppm total lead content limit.

Starting on August 14, 2011, manufacturers, importers, retailers and distributors of children’s products must comply with the new 100 ppm federal limit for total lead content. CPSC will not enforce the CPSIA’s independent third party testing requirement for total lead content until December 31, 2011, due to a stay of enforcement that is already in place.

The stay of enforcement does not apply to children’s metal jewelry, which currently must undergo independent third party testing.

The new 100 ppm lead content limit does not apply to inaccessible (internal) parts of children’s products and certain component parts of children’s electronic devices, like electronic connectors and plugs, including headphone plugs.

Lead content levels for children’s products are different from the levels Congress set for lead in paint or surface coatings. The limit for lead in paint or surface coatings is .009 percent. The .009 percent level has been in place since August 14, 2009 and independent third party testing is required for all paints or surfaces coatings used on children’s products.

Commissioner's Statements: Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Nancy Nord (both PDF).

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 12944-12945] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2011-5231]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[Docket No. CPSC-2010-0080]

Children's Products Containing Lead; Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm for Lead Content; Notice, Reopening of the Hearing Record

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice, reopening of the hearing record.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Section 101(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (``CPSIA'') provides that, as of August 14, 2011, children's products may not contain more than 100 parts per million (``ppm'') of lead unless the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC,'' ``Commission,'' or ``we'') determines that such a limit is not technologically feasible. The Commission may make such a determination only after notice and a hearing and after analyzing the public health protections associated with substantially reducing lead in children's products. On February 16, 2011, the Commission conducted a public hearing to receive views from all interested parties about the technological feasibility of meeting the 100 ppm lead content limit for children's products and associated public health considerations. Individual Commissioners requested at the hearing that certain participants respond to additional questions in writing, as well as submit relevant studies and additional data referenced in oral presentations. Accordingly, through this notice, the Commission is reopening the hearing record until March 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Supplemental Materials identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010- 0080 may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

Supplemental Materials may be submitted to the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.

Written Submissions

Submit written submissions in the following way: Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All materials received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning submission of materials: Rockelle Hammond, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-6833; e-mail: cpscos@cpsc.gov. For all other matters: Dominique Williams, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7597; e-mail: dwilliams@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 101(a)(2)(C) of the CPSIA (15 U.S.C. 1278a(a)(2)(C)) provides that, as of August 14, 2011, children's products may not contain more than 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead unless the Commission determines that such a limit is not technologically feasible. The Commission may make this determination only after notice and a hearing and after analyzing the public health protections associated with substantially reducing lead in children's products. Section 101(d) of the CPSIA (15 U.S.C. 1278a(d)) provides that a lead limit shall be deemed technologically feasible with regard to a product or product category if:

(1) A product that complies with the limit is commercially available in the product category;

(2) Technology to comply with the limit is commercially available to manufacturers or is otherwise available within the common meaning of the term;

(3) Industrial strategies or devices have been developed that are capable or will be capable of achieving such a limit by the effective date of the limit and that companies, acting in good faith, are generally capable of adopting; or

(4) Alternative practices, best practices, or other operational changes would allow the manufacturer to comply with the limit.

In the Federal Register of January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4641), we published a notice (``hearing notice'') announcing that the Commission would hold a public hearing pursuant to section 101(a) of the CPSIA. The hearing notice stated that the Commission was seeking information on specific issues, such as whether any product or product category already complies with the 100 ppm limit and what factors or considerations we should evaluate in deciding whether a technology is ``commercially available.''

We held the hearing on February 16, 2011. We heard presentations by and received comments from consumer groups, manufacturers, associations, and laboratories regarding the technological feasibility of meeting the 100 ppm lead content limit. At the hearing, individual Commissioners requested that certain participants respond to additional questions in writing and submit relevant studies and additional data. Through this notice, we are announcing that we have placed individual Commissioner's additional questions into the docket and will place any responses into the docket. The questions submitted and responses that are received will be made available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. CPSC-2010-0080, Supporting and Related Material. The Commission will consider any additional material received during the reopening of the hearing record, in addition to information collected at the hearing, in the course of evaluating its response. The Commission is reopening the hearing record to add individual Commissioner's questions to the docket and allow for responses to those questions, and so the hearing record will remain open until March 24, 2011.

Dated: March 3, 2011. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 2011-5231 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

May 25, 2011

Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA) assigned bill number HR 1939 and set for further markup on May 26, 2011

The full Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a markup on Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. On Wednesday, the Committee will convene to conduct opening statements only. It will then reconvene on Thursday, May 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The markup will include H.R. 1939, Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA). Read the Background Memo on H.R. 1939.  H.R. 1939, introduced by Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), would revise the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) and allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission greater authority and flexibility to regulate based on risk. Once the bill is out of this Committee it should be available for a complete review here. The May 24, 2011 version is here


Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

May 13, 2011

Attempts to amend or "fix" CPSIA move forward in Congress under HR __ “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA).”

Things move pretty slowly in congress. This has been about the 15th "bill" (or attempted bill or amendment or other "maneuver") to try an amend/fix the dreaded Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act "CPSIA" which quite frankly looked much more harmless in 2008. That was before the recession and before the Consumer Product Safety Commission "CPSC" started taking a close look at CPSIA and spitting out thousands of pages of regulations and other documents in trying to wrestle with its draconian requirements. This is just the latest attempt to ameliorate some of the more problematic provisions of the 2008 CPSIA. As you can well imagine trying to get the attention of Congress these days is not too easy. And it's a very hostile political environment these days. News of increased regulation usually sounds good in TV sound bites by politicians, but when you get down to the really ugly nitty gritty its not very pretty (especially if you are the company that has to comply). And worse, you end up with hundreds of laws and regulations with huge penalties...all of which can be applied (or interpreted) in an "uneven" fashion to say the least by some regulatory bureaucrat who decides he or she does not like your company's attitude. You see the problem. And its really hard on "small" businesses. Companies like Mattel and Wal Mart hire teams of people to assist with regulatory compliance work and have the clout to force their smaller suppliers to bear the risk of non compliance. Small(er) businesses do not.

Hats off to the Bicycle Products Suppliers Association (BPSA) for really trying to stay on top of this. Without a full time lobbyist in congress its really hard to know when things are going to happen or not happen on a given day. And unfortunately, to be effective, you have to know before Congress acts not after. The motorcycle / ATV industry is also working hard on this as are a number of other industries heavily impacted by CPSIA. The fact is these days if you don't work really hard at getting your voice heard in Congress (and that means yelling really loud with lots of well reasoned voices) you are going to get rolled over. Its unfortunate that more attention was not paid to this law well before it passed in August 2008.

The April 7, 2011 testimony before The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade by the BPSA is good to read first just as background for what we were seeking. And this is the the May 10, 2011 version of the “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA)” along with some opening comments, markups and amendments made May 12, 2011. Obviously you don't get everything you ask for. Section 9 is of interest as it affects the now infamous "consumer products safety information database" which just rolled out in March 2011. Some of these fixes will be helpful but I fear we will need to go a year or so with the database before we begin to see even more problems that need fixing once again via Congress of course. I had to chuckle a bit when I read this article dealing with the new "CPSC like" agency regulating banks. Apparently banks don't like public complaint databases either. I guess misery loves company.

Press Release
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Votes to Improve Consumer Product Safety Law

May 12, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC – The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade took an important step to improve consumer product safety protections today by approving the discussion draft of H.R. ___,(bill number yet to be attached) “Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA).”

The draft legislation, which passed the subcommittee by voice vote, would revise the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), seeking to reduce the regulatory burdens of the current law while maintaining consumer protection. The proposal calls for greater flexibility for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate based on risk.

“While CPSIA has many virtues, there are some unintended consequences of the law as well. Our common sense reforms will help to make a good law even better, saving thousands of American jobs in the process and providing our children with the important protections they need,” said Subcommittee Chairman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA). “This was a careful balancing act, but even the Consumer Product Safety Commission has recognized the problems with CPSIA and requested greater flexibility in implementing the new law.”


Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

May 10, 2011

CPSC stay pertaining to lead content in youth ATV's, bicycles and Related Products extended until December 31, 2011.

Below is a rather lengthy and confusing document released by the CPSC on February 8, 2011. It pertains to the stay regarding bicycle lead testing that was set to expire July 1, 2011. Basically by the extension below the July 2011 expiration date has been extended to December 31, 2011. I have to admit is very difficult for anyone to keep up with the flurry of paper that comes out of the CPSC these days. Again with respect to exactly what requirements are being stayed you will need to refer back to the stays themselves. The bicycle stay effective until July 1, 2011 (extended below) is avaialble for viewing here

[Federal Register: February 8, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6765-6766]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[DOCID:fr08fe11-31]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Consumer Product Safety Act: Notice of Commission Action on the
Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirements

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Revision of terms of stay of enforcement.

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC'' or
``Commission'' or ``we'') is announcing its decision to revise the
terms of its stay of enforcement of certain testing and certification
provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA'')
as amended by section 102 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (``CPSIA''). Through this notice, the Commission announces
an extension of the stay of enforcement pertaining to total lead
content in children's products (except for metal components of
children's metal jewelry), and certain related products, until December
31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: The stay of enforcement pertaining to total lead content in
children's products (except for metal components of children's metal
jewelry), and certain related products, is extended until December 31,
2011, upon which date the stay will expire.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert ``Jay'' Howell, Acting
Assistant Executive Director for the Office of Compliance and Field
Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; e-mail rhowell@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 14 of the CPSA requires that every manufacturer of a
product (and the private labeler, if the product bears a private label)
that is subject to a consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or
regulation enforced by the Commission certify, based on testing, that
its product complies with the applicable safety rule, ban, standard, or
regulation. For nonchildren's products, the certification must be based
on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program. For
children's products, the certification must be based on testing
conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body
(laboratory).

On February 9, 2009, the Commission published a notice in the
Federal Register, staying enforcement of many of the testing and
certification requirements, including the requirements related to total
lead in children's products (other than the lead content of metal
components of children's metal jewelry). 74 FR 6396, 6397. The
Commission committed to the stay for one year, explaining that the stay
was necessary to ``give us the time needed to develop sound rules and
requirements as well as implement outreach efforts to explain these
[new] requirements of the CPSIA and their applicability.'' 74 FR at
6398. With regard to lead content in metal components of children's
metal jewelry, the Commission stated that certifications based on third
party testing would be required for such products manufactured after
March 23, 2009. 74 FR at 6397.
On December 28, 2009, the Commission published a notice in the
Federal Register, revising the terms of the stay. 74 FR 68588. In that
notice, the Commission lifted the stay for some CPSC regulations and
extended the stay for other CPSC regulations. Relevant for present
purposes, the Commission stated that it ``plans to keep the stay in
effect for total lead content in metal children's products and in non-
metal children's products * * * (section 101 of the CPSIA) until
February 10, 2011.'' 74 FR at 68591. The December 28, 2009, notice did
not affect certifications and testing of lead content in metal
components of children's metal jewelry; the stay pertaining to those
products had expired on March 23, 2009. 74 FR at 68589.
The Commission also published two notices concerning discrete stays
of enforcement related to lead content. On May 12, 2009, the Commission
published a notice staying enforcement with regard to the lead content
in certain parts and youth motorized vehicles that contain those parts.
74 FR 22154. The notice announced that the stay would remain in effect
until May 1, 2011. Id. Specifically, the Commission stayed enforcement
of the specified lead level as it pertains to certain parts of youth
all-terrain vehicles, youth off-road motorcycles, and youth snowmobiles
(``Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles'' or ``Vehicles''),
specifically battery terminals containing up to 100 percent lead, and
components made with metal alloys, including steel containing up to
0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, and copper
with up to 4.0 percent lead, and the vehicles that contain them. Id.
On June 30, 2009, the Commission published a notice staying
enforcement with regard to the lead content in certain parts of
bicycles, jogger strollers, and bicycle trailers (``Bicycles and
Related Products'') designed or intended primarily for children 12
years of age or younger. 74 FR 31254. In brief, the stay applied to
components made with metal alloys, including steel containing up to
0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, and copper
with up to 4.0 percent lead. 74 FR at 31257. The Commission stated the
stay would remain in effect until July 1, 2011. 74 FR at 31254.

II. Extension of Stay of Enforcement

We have received several requests for an extension of the stay of
enforcement related to lead testing and certifications. After
considering these requests and other matters, the Commission has
decided to extend the existing stay of enforcement on testing and
certifications of the total lead content in children's products (except
for metal components of children's metal jewelry) until December 31,
2011, at which time the stay will expire. This action by the Commission
encompasses the stays described above, pertaining to lead content in
Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles and Bicycles and Related
Products; those stays are hereby extended until December 31, 2011.
The Commission notes that there remains in effect a stay of
enforcement on testing and certification for children's products
subject to those children's product safety rules for which a notice of
requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment
bodies (laboratories) has not published yet, including testing of
children's toys and child care articles for banned phthalates, and
testing of children's toys for compliance with the mandatory toy safety standard ASTM F-963 (which includes caps and toy guns). The Commission's current action does not affect that stay of enforcement; accordingly, and as described in the December 28, 2009, notice (74 FR 68591-68592), such
stay will continue until the respective notices of requirements for
laboratory accreditation are published.

\1\ The Commission voted 4-1 to approve publication of this
notice. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum, Commissioner Thomas H. Moore,
Commissioner Nancy Nord, and Commissioner Anne M. Northup voted for
the publication of the notice with changes. Commissioner Robert S.
Adler voted against publication of the notice. Chairman Tenenbaum,
Commissioner Northup, and Commissioner Adler filed statements
concerning this vote. The statements may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html.


Dated: February 1, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-2704 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

June 21, 2010

CPSC Response to April 2010 BPSA Petition for Extension of Stay Regarding CPSIA Testing and Certification Requirements for Bicycles

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
4330 EAST WEST HIGHWAY BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20814-4408
Todd A. Stevenson Tel: 301-504-6836
Office of the Secretary Fax: 301-504-0127
Email: tstevenson@cpsc.gov

Draft Response
June__, 2010

To: Erika Z. Jones Counsel to Bicycle Product Suppliers Association

Dear Ms. Jones, This responds to your petition, dated April 1 2010 on behalf of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA). The petition requested an extension of the stay of enforcement of the testing and certification requirements related to 16 CFR part 1512 imposed by section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended by the Consumer Product Safely Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA).

The Consumer Product Safety commission has decided to extend the stay related to 16 CFR part 1512 (other than 16 CFR sec. 1512.16, as discussed below) until August 14, 2010. Manufacturers and importers of products subject to 16 CFR part 1512 that arc manufactured on or after August 14, 2010 will need to certify that their product complies with 16 CFR part 1512. Certifications of bicycles intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger must be based on tests conducted by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the CPSC. As you are aware the CPSC maintains a list of third party conformity assessment bodies on its website. Certifications of non-children's bicycles must be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program.

The commission is aware that there are currently no CPSC·accepted conformity assessment bodies accredited to test reflectors for compliance with 16 CFR 1512.16 Commission staff will be discussing this issue with conformity assessment bodies in the coming weeks. We encourage BPSA members to work diligently to inform the conformity assessment body industry of the bicycle industry's need for CPSC accepted third party conformity assessment bodies that will be capable of testing reflectors. Nevertheless, because there are not currently any CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies accredited to perform reflector tests, a stay related solely to 16 CFR 1512.16 will remain in effect until November 14, 2010. Reflectors on children's bicycles manufactured on or after November 14, 2010, must be third-party tested, absent a finding by the Commission that conformity assessment body capacity remains insufficient.

The Commission is aware that bicycles with non-quill-type stems may not be able to comply with the insertion mark requirement of 16 C.F.R. § 1512.6(a). Until this issue can be addressed by revision of the regulations, therefore, the insertion mark requirement for non-quill-type stems is hereby excluded from the certification requirement.

Thus, with respect to 16 CFR part 1512, the Commission expects that, for children's bicycles, the requirements of 16 CFR part 1512 that do not pertain to reflectors Will be tested by CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies. For non-children's products, the requirements of 16 CFR part 1512 that do not pertain to reflectors will be subject to either a test of each product or a reasonable testing program. For reflectors, the Commission. will continue the stay until November 14,2010. Additionally, as stated in the previous paragraph, for all bicycles with non-quill-type stems, the insertion mark requirement is excluded from the certification requirement.

The Commission is also aware that part 1512 does not address the technologies and designs used in conjunction with today's bicycles. The Commission is beginning the process of reviewing its regulations to determine what revisions are necessary. The compliance staff requests that manufacturers who believe they are unable to certify current designs to part 1512 provide, no later than June 4, 2010, specific information as to which provisions of the current regulation are problematic, which models or classes of bicycles are affected, and an explanation of the issue. The staff will provide guidance on these issues as soon as feasible thereafter.

The Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register that Will communicate to the public the decision expressed in this letter. BPSA meeting.With Commission staff on May 3, 2010, to discuss the issues we look forward to continuing to work with the BPSA


April 1, 2010 letter to CPSC from BPSA counsel
Re: Petition for Extension of Stay of Enforcement of the Requirement for a General Certificate of Conformity for Bicycles to the Requirements of16 C.F.R. Part 1512, 74 Fed. Reg. 68588 (December 28. 2009)

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am writing on behalf of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association, ("BPSA") which is an association of suppliers of bicycles, parts, accessories and services who serve the specialty bicycle retailer. On December 28,2009, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission published a . decision to stay enforcement of certain testing and certification provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act ("CPSA") as amended by section 102(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ("CPSIA"). 74 Fed. Reg. 68588. Specifically, the decision stayed enforcement of the requirement to issue a General Certificate of Conformity (GCC) certifying compliance with certain identified CPSC rules, bans, regulations and standards, including the safety standard for bicycles, 16 C.F.R. Part 1512.

Regarding the bicycle standard, the Commission decision noted:

The Commission plans to keep the stay in effect for the bicycle regulations (16 CPR part 1512) as applicable to all bicycles, both non children's and children's, until May 17, 2010. With regard to bicycles, the Commission has determined that there is insufficient laboratory capacity for third-party testing of bicycles at this time despite the fact that the notice of accreditation of laboratories issued more than 90 days ago. The Commission understands that the laboratories are communicating with staff about their applications, capabilities and related timing issues. Should the extension of this stay until May 17, 2010 prove insufficient, the bicycle manufacturers and laboratories must petition the Commission for additional relief no later than April 1, 2010. 74 Fed. Reg. at 68590.

In accordance with the December decision, the BPSA is petitioning for a one year extension of the stay of the requirement to issue a GCC for compliance with Part 1512 because the facts supporting the December 2009 decision to extend the compliance date have not materially changed, and there is still insufficient laboratory capacity for third-party testing of bicycles at this time.

1. There are only four certified laboratories for Part 1512 testing, only one of which is certified to test for compliance to the entire standard.

At the time of the December 2009 decision, the Commission determined that the small number of accredited laboratories was "insufficient laboratory capacity for third-party testing of bicycles". In April 2010, the situation is still inadequate. The CPSC website now lists four certified laboratories capable of performing some third-party testing for Part 1512 compliance, and only one laboratory is certified to test for compliance to the entire standard. Each of the other three are only partially accredited (meaning that one or more provision of Part 1512 is excluded from the accreditation). The one laboratory that appears to have unconditional accreditation received its approval approximately two weeks ago. Clearly, the availability of only a single third-party laboratory to handle all of the GCC requirements for the entire children's bicycle sector is inadequate.

2. Part 1512 is out of date in many respects, and may be scheduled for revision in the near future.

In the December decision, the CPSC noted that a pending rule making proceeding affecting the product is one factor that supported extending the GCC stay for products in certain categories (such as baby walkers and bath seats, for which the CPSC had issued proposed rules to revise the standards).

BPSA understands that the CPSC may intend to commence rule making to revise Part 1512 in the near future, and urges the Commission to do so. As BPSA has noted in previous communications with the Commission, Part 1512 is out of date in many respects, and requires modernization to reflect contemporary bicycle designs. It has not been substantively revised since 1976, and bicycle technology and design have changed substantially since that time. Several provisions of the current Part 1512 need to be revised to reflect modern adult bicycles. Until that rule making is completed, a requirement for a GCC for Part 1512 compliance raises interpretation questions that are unresolved. For example, how does Section 1512.6(a) (relating to the stem minimum insertion mark) apply to adult bicycles that use threadless headsets that have no stem to be inserted? Or, how does Section 1512.16(e) (related to pedal reflectors) apply to adult bicycles that use clipless pedals that have no surfaces available to attach reflectors?

As the CPSC noted with re~pect to other products that are subject to pending rule making or for which rule making was planned, it is sensible to stay the requirements for testing and certification until after the rule making proceeding is complete. BPSA urges the CPSC to apply the same factor to the bicycle industry, if Part 1512 is scheduled for revision in the near future, and to defer the requirement for a GCC for Part 1512 compliance for one year, or if necessary, until that proceeding is concluded.

3. The bicycle industry has a good record of Part 1512 compliance.

Despite our observations above regarding the obsolescence of portions of Part 1512, the core requirements of the standard are well understood to the industry, and there are not recurring compliance issues in this industry. Bicycles are a safe, healthy and environmentally sensitive form of transportation and recreation. There will be no degradation to the public interest by granting this petition, nor any increased risk to public health and safety. By contrast, granting this petition will relieve administrative burdens (including third-party testing costs) for members of the bicycle industry and allow time for the orderly evolution of the third-party testing market to a position where there is more than one laboratory fully accredited to test for Part 1512 compliance.

We appreciate your consideration of this petition

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones
Counsel to Bicycle Product Suppliers Association


 

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

June 18, 2010

CPSC extending the CPSIA stay for certain testing and certification provisions for bicycles under 16 CFR part 1512 until August 14, 2010

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1512
Consumer Product Safety Act: Notice of Commission Action on the Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirements

34360 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Limited extensions of stay of enforcement.

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is extending its stay of enforcement of certain testing and certification provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) as amended by section 102 of the Consumer Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The Commission is extending the stay for products under 16 CFR part 1512 (bicycles) until August 14, 2010, with two exceptions. First, the Commission is extending the stay related to 16 CFR 1512.16 (reflectors) until November 14, 2010. Second, bicycles with non-quill-type stems are excluded from certifying compliance to 16 CFR 1512.6(a) (handlebar stem insertion mark) until further notice. DATES: As it pertains to products under 16 CFR part 1512, the stay of enforcement is extended until August 14, 2010, except for products under 16 CFR 1512.16, for which the stay is extended until November 14, 2010, and except for bicycles with non-quill-type stems, which are excluded from the certification requirement regarding the handlebar stem insertion mark at 16 CFR 1512.6(a) until further notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew M. Lee, Compliance Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; e-mail mlee@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 14 of the CPSA requires that every manufacturer of a product (and the private labeler, if the product bears a private label) that is subject to a consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation enforced by the Commission certify, based on testing, that its product complies with the applicable safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation. For nonchildren’s products, the certification must be based on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program. For children’s products, the certification must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (laboratory). The Commission announced the criteria and process for its acceptance of the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to test children’s products under 16 CFR part 1512 in a notice of requirements that appeared in the Federal Register on September 2, 2009. 74 FR 45428.

On February 9, 2009, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register staying enforcement of the testing and certification requirements for many products, including bicycles. 74 FR 6396. The Commission committed to the stay for one year, explaining that the stay was necessary to ‘‘give us the time needed to develop sound rules and requirements as well as implement outreach efforts to explain these [new] requirements of the CPSIA and their applicability.’’ 74 FR 6396, 6398. On December 28, 2009, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register revising the terms of the stay. 74 FR 68588. In that notice, the Commission lifted the stay for some CPSC regulations and extended the stay for other CPSC regulations. Relevant for present purposes, the Commission stated that it ‘‘plans to keep the stay in effect for the bicycle regulations (16 CFR part 1512) as applicable to all bicycles, both non children’s (sic) and children’s, until May 17, 2010. With regard to bicycles, the Commission has determined that there is insufficient laboratory capacity for third-party testing of bicycles at this time * * *. Should the extension of this stay until May 17, 2010 prove insufficient, the bicycle manufacturers and laboratories must petition the Commission for additional relief no later than April 1, 2010.’’ 74 FR 68588, 68590.

On April 1, 2010, the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA) petitioned the Commission for an extension of the stay of enforcement as it relates to 16 CFR part 1512, the CPSC safety regulations for bicycles. The BPSA contended that laboratory capacity was still inadequate. It also asserted that 16 CFR part 1512 is ‘‘out of date in many respects,’’ and urged the Commission to revise the regulation. Finally, BPSA maintained that the bicycle industry has a good record of compliance with part 1512 and so extending the stay would not increase risk to public health or safety. The CPSC invited the BPSA to meet to discuss the petition, and such a meeting was held on May 3, 2010.

II. Limited Extensions of Stay of Enforcement

The Commission has decided to extend the stay of enforcement of the testing and certification requirements imposed by section 14 of the CPSA with regard to the safety regulations in 16 CFR part 1512 (bicycles) until August 14, 2010, with two exceptions noted immediately below. As of May 12, 2010, there are five CPSC-accepted conformity assessment bodies accredited to test to some or most of the standards contained in 16 CFR part 1512. This limited extension of the stay will provide time for the development of additional laboratory capacity for the testing of children’s bicycles. Nevertheless, bicycle manufacturers must certify based on testing that their products, both nonchildren’s and children’s, manufactured after August 14, 2010, comply with 16 CFR part 1512.

There are two exceptions to this extension of the stay. Because there are currently no CPSC-accepted conformity assessment bodies accredited to test to the bicycle reflector requirements at 16 CFR 1512.16, the Commission is extending the stay as it relates to bicycle reflectors and 16 CFR 1512.16 until November 14, 2010. The Commission is allowing this additional three-month period for the development of CPSCaccepted laboratory capacity for bicycle reflector testing. In addition, the Commission is aware that bicycles with non-quill-type stems may not be able to comply with the insertion mark requirement of 16 CFR 1512.6(a). Bicycles with non-quill-type stems are hereby excluded from the requirement to certify compliance with the handlebar stem insertion mark requirement at 16 CFR 1512.6(a). Dated: June 9, 2010. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–14328 Filed 6–16–10; 8:45 am]

read the notice in PDF format

 

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

February 18, 2009

CPSIA reform bills inch ahead

The original bill (S. 374) introduced in the senate was joined by a companion bill (HR 968) in the House of Representatives on Feb. 10, 2009, which is virtually identical to the Senate bill by DeMint. There is also a much shorter bill (S. 389) to establish a conditional stay of the ban on lead in children's products (introduced in the Senate on Feb 5, 2009) that seems to only delay implementation. The house bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and S. 374 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation under the subcommittee on consumer affairs.

We will try to watch these bill as best we can. Bills can languish for months and then pass fairly quickly so make sure your sign up for our news alerts on the left side of this page. We really would like to see a site like this put up by the BPSA. Otherwise if you need to write to your Federal Congressman or Senator urging them to pass these bills (or how they should be changed to help your specific situation) start here to find all their contact info based on your zip code. Dont forget to also check your business AND home zip code as they may be in two different districts.


Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use

February 12, 2009

CPSC indefinitely delays determination on industry petitions seeking exclusions from lead limits

The CPSC just posted their "response" to a number of industry petitions filed well before February 10, 2009 seeking exemptions or exclusions from the lead limits for various reasons. It seems the BPSA was in good company as the Motorcycle Industry Council was also petitioning.

The letters in response to the petitions were all about the same. Bottom line: not good news but not bad...just more waiting until the CPSC can figure out what to do. In CPSC speak the letter said in conclusion: "Because the Commission lacks the authority to grant the "temporary final rule" you seek, we are not docketing your request as a petition. Your request will be considered as part of the ongoing rulemakings for exclusions or exceptions from the section 101 lead limits. The staff will assess your request accordingly..." Of course no date was given when they will make a decision. Sound Familiar? In the meantime though all of you in the supply chain are still subject to the lead limits (testing or not) and if and until Congress acts the Sword of Damocles will remain over your heads.

Here are the petitions and the respective letter responses (by the way the letters from the CPSC are all dated February 9, 2009 but this information was not posted by CPSC until late on February 12, 2009):

Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA) (January 28, 2009) and Response from CPSC General Counsel (February 9, 2009)

Jim Boltz Cycle Barn Motorsports Group (January 30, 2009) and Response from CPSC General Counsel (February 9, 2009)

Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) (January 28, 2009) and Response from CPSC General Counsel (February 9, 2009)

Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) (January 28, 2009) and Response from CPSC General Counsel (February 9, 2009)

Polaris Industries, American Suzuki Motor Corporation, Arctic Cat Inc., Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Yamaha Motor Corporation (January 27, 2009) and Response from CPSC General Counsel (February 9, 2009)


Also on Feb 12, 2009 the CPSC issued a
Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance Regarding Which Children's Products are Subject to the Requirements of CPSIA Section 108 (Regarding Phthalates); Request for Comments and Information The CPSC is seeking comments on whether the Commission should follow the exclusions listed in ASTM F963 for meeting the new Phthalates requirements (along with a host of other issues). The CPSC staff looked to the definition of “toy” in the ASTM F963-07 toy safety standard for guidance. (The CPSIA makes ASTM F963 a mandatory CPSC standard on February 10, 2009) ASTM F963 excludes certain types of articles (such as Bicycles, Tricycles etc; see above pdf for a list) from the definition of toy.

Clearly we want bicycles any other "non toys" to remain free of the new Phthalates requirements as they currently are.

Please read the above PDF and file comments with the CPSC by e-mail to: section108definitions@cpsc.gov. Comments are due by March 12, 2009. Comments also may be filed by fax to (301)504-0127. Comments should be captioned “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.”

Last but not least, we have not heard anything further on Senate bill S. 374 except for the request of Senator DEMINT to add the names of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. BROWNBACK), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE) as cosponsors of S . 374, a bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide regulatory relief to small and family-owned businesses. As there is now a groundswell of support against the "unintended consequences" of the lead ban we may see a faster move by Congress than the CPSC (provided Congress can resolve the Stimulus Bill soon as that is using up all available resources in Congress now.)


Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use