CPSC Votes to Lower Lead Content Ban for Children's Products to 100 ppm
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.11
On July 13, 2011, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("Commission") voted 3 to 2 to allow the 100 ppm lead content ban on children's products to go into effect on August 14, 2011. Pursuant to Section 101 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ("CPSIA"), "unless the Commission determines that a limit of 100 parts per million is not technologically feasible for a product or product category," the lead content limit for children's products will become 100 ppm three years after the date of enactment of the CPSIA.
The vote broke down on party lines with Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioners Robert Adler and Thomas Moore voting that 100 ppm is a technologically feasible limit and Commissioners Nancy Nord and Anne Northrup voting that the limit is not technologically feasible. Commissioner Nord also introduced an amendment to the 100 ppm limit to exempt products made from recycled materials which was defeated 3 - 2.
Accordingly, as of August 14, any children’s product as defined in section 3(a)(16) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, except those subject to specific exclusions, that contains more than 100 ppm lead content shall be treated as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal hazardous Substances Act. The new lead content limit will apply retroactively to all children's products covered by the ban regardless of the date of manufacturing.
Note that the new lead content limit does not affect the Commission's current stay of enforcement of third party testing and certification requirements for children’s products subject to the lead content limit (except for metal components of children's metal jewelry) which is still in effect until December 31, 2011, at which time the stay will expire. Furthermore, neither the lower lead content limit nor the stay of enforcement of the testing and certification to the lead content limit affects the current lead paint limit of 90 ppm and the certification and third party testing requirements for children's products subject to the lead paint limit.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
