Jump to content

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act: Difference between revisions

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (view source)

Revision as of 23:02, 21 February 2025

8 bytes removed ,  21 February
m
Text replacement - "China" to "China"
VisualWikitext
(→‎External links: as amended in Statute Compilations, as enacted in SAL)
 
m (Text replacement - "China" to "China")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 40: Line 40:
| SCOTUS cases    =  
| SCOTUS cases    =  
}}
}}
The '''Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act''' ('''CPSIA''') of 2008 is a [[United States]] law signed on August 14, 2008 by [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]]. The legislative [[Bill (proposed law)|bill]] was known as [[United States House of Representatives|HR]] 4040, sponsored by [[Congressman]] [[Bobby Rush]] (D-Ill.). On December 19, 2007, the U.S. House approved the bill 407-0. On March 6, 2008, the U.S. Senate approved the bill 79-13.<ref>GovTrack.us. "[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4040 H.R. 4040--110th Congress (2007): Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008], GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) (accessed Dec 6, 2008)</ref> The law—public law 110-314—increases the budget of the [[U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission|Consumer Product Safety Commission]] (CPSC), imposes new testing and documentation requirements, and sets new acceptable levels of several substances. It imposes new requirements on manufacturers of apparel, shoes, personal care products, accessories and jewelry, home furnishings, bedding, toys, electronics and video games, books, school supplies, educational materials and science kits. The Act also increases fines and specifies jail time for some violations.
The '''Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act''' ('''CPSIA''') of 2008 is a [[United States]] law signed on August 14, 2008 by [[President of the United States|President]] George W. Bush. The legislative [[Bill (proposed law)|bill]] was known as [[United States House of Representatives|HR]] 4040, sponsored by [[Congressman]] [[Bobby Rush]] (D-Ill.). On December 19, 2007, the U.S. House approved the bill 407-0. On March 6, 2008, the U.S. Senate approved the bill 79-13.<ref>GovTrack.us. "[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4040 H.R. 4040--110th Congress (2007): Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008], GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) (accessed Dec 6, 2008)</ref> The law—public law 110-314—increases the budget of the [[U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission|Consumer Product Safety Commission]] (CPSC), imposes new testing and documentation requirements, and sets new acceptable levels of several substances. It imposes new requirements on manufacturers of apparel, shoes, personal care products, accessories and jewelry, home furnishings, bedding, toys, electronics and video games, books, school supplies, educational materials and science kits. The Act also increases fines and specifies jail time for some violations.


This act was seen in part as controversial because of its impact to many types of businesses.
This act was seen in part as controversial because of its impact to many types of businesses.
Line 135: Line 135:
At the time of passage in 2008, manufacturers, both large and small, protested the extremely short timelines for implementation, the failure to take into account manufacturing processes, and the failure to take into account the breadth of the impact.
At the time of passage in 2008, manufacturers, both large and small, protested the extremely short timelines for implementation, the failure to take into account manufacturing processes, and the failure to take into account the breadth of the impact.


[[Congress of the United States|Congress]] passed this legislation in the wake of several high profile [[2007 Chinese export recalls|recalls]] in 2007 and 2008 of toys manufactured in [[China]]. Though many of these later turned out to be problems with design rather than manufacture,<ref name="mattel">BBC staff writer, "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7006599.stm Mattel sorry for 'design flaws']," BBC, 21 September 2007 (accessed 21 February 2009)</ref> public pressure was increased as the result of at least one case of [[lead poisoning]]<ref>Reidy, Chris, "[http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/24/reebok_recalls_bracelets_after_boy_dies Reebok recalls bracelets after boy dies]," ''Boston Globe'', 24 March 2006 (accessed 6 December 2008)</ref> and subsequent issues with tainted pet food<ref>[[U.S. Food and Drug Administration]] Staff, "[https://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/petfood.html Pet Food Recall (Melamine)/Tainted Animal Feed]," (accessed 6 December 2008)</ref> and other products shipped from China. The legislation, HR 4040, was passed in July 2008 and signed into law by President Bush in August 2008. The first deadline came up in September 2008, and several major deadlines came up in February 2009.
[[Congress of the United States|Congress]] passed this legislation in the wake of several high profile [[2007 Chinese export recalls|recalls]] in 2007 and 2008 of toys manufactured in China. Though many of these later turned out to be problems with design rather than manufacture,<ref name="mattel">BBC staff writer, "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7006599.stm Mattel sorry for 'design flaws']," BBC, 21 September 2007 (accessed 21 February 2009)</ref> public pressure was increased as the result of at least one case of [[lead poisoning]]<ref>Reidy, Chris, "[http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/24/reebok_recalls_bracelets_after_boy_dies Reebok recalls bracelets after boy dies]," ''Boston Globe'', 24 March 2006 (accessed 6 December 2008)</ref> and subsequent issues with tainted pet food<ref>[[U.S. Food and Drug Administration]] Staff, "[https://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/petfood.html Pet Food Recall (Melamine)/Tainted Animal Feed]," (accessed 6 December 2008)</ref> and other products shipped from China. The legislation, HR 4040, was passed in July 2008 and signed into law by President Bush in August 2008. The first deadline came up in September 2008, and several major deadlines came up in February 2009.


Manufacturers pointed out that many of the products to be impacted were already making their way through the supply chain. As a result, much inventory that was legal prior to the signing of the law and was manufactured shortly thereafter were probably already on shelves as the deadlines approached. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen apparently agreed that these products were already in distribution, but believed that manufacturers should still be held liable.<ref>Trottman, Melanie, "[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122843155893080993 Suit Challenges Agency Over Phthalates Ruling]," ''Wall Street Journal'', 5 December 2008 (accessed 6 December 2008)</ref> The problem was not the lead or phthalate content, as they imply, but the fact that the products must be tested to make sure they comply. There was also confusion of what products need a GCC and which do not. They had not been tested because the items generally do not contain hazardous materials; CPSC had been slow to define some of the accreditation or testing criteria; some of the low volume, low value items were not economical to test; and lot tracking methods would not allow some of the items to be tracked.<ref name="Woldenberg_hearing">Woldenberg, Rick (speaker), ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk0Vr0yDrXc%20pt.%203 CPSC Public Hearing on Lead Standards]'', 6 November 2008 (accessed 7 November 2008)</ref>
Manufacturers pointed out that many of the products to be impacted were already making their way through the supply chain. As a result, much inventory that was legal prior to the signing of the law and was manufactured shortly thereafter were probably already on shelves as the deadlines approached. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen apparently agreed that these products were already in distribution, but believed that manufacturers should still be held liable.<ref>Trottman, Melanie, "[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122843155893080993 Suit Challenges Agency Over Phthalates Ruling]," ''Wall Street Journal'', 5 December 2008 (accessed 6 December 2008)</ref> The problem was not the lead or phthalate content, as they imply, but the fact that the products must be tested to make sure they comply. There was also confusion of what products need a GCC and which do not. They had not been tested because the items generally do not contain hazardous materials; CPSC had been slow to define some of the accreditation or testing criteria; some of the low volume, low value items were not economical to test; and lot tracking methods would not allow some of the items to be tracked.<ref name="Woldenberg_hearing">Woldenberg, Rick (speaker), ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk0Vr0yDrXc%20pt.%203 CPSC Public Hearing on Lead Standards]'', 6 November 2008 (accessed 7 November 2008)</ref>
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23323...29806’