CPSC proposes new ban on phthalates in children's products.

Regular readers know that in terms of domestic, national regulation, we usually focus on developments coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the U.S., the EPA is the principal federal agency that regulates chemicals in products, but it’s not the only one. Last month, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) approved for publication a proposed rule prohibiting the use in children’s toys and child care articles of certain phthalates, a type of plasticizer used in teethers, plastic toys, home furnishings, and cosmetics.

The rule expands the existing “permanent ban” on phthalates at levels greater than 0.1% in accessible plasticized components of toys and child care products. Diisononyl phthalate (DINP) is shifted from the “interim ban” list and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) remain on the “permanent ban” list. The rule also adds to the “permanent ban list” the following: diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), and dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) in concentrations greater than 0.1%. Two other phthalates, diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), were removed from the “interim ban” list.

The Commission proposed the rule under § 108 the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which requires promulgation of regulations in response to the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel’s report and recommendations on the health effects of phthalates in children’s toys and child care articles. Under the CPSIA, a “child care article” is “a consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep or the feeding of children age 3 and younger, or to help such children with sucking or teething.”

The Commission is accepting public comment on the proposed rule through March 16, 2015.

EPA Grants TSCA Section 21 Petition on Cadmium


On August 30, 2010, EPA granted a citizen’s petition filed under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requesting Agency action on cadmium and cadmium compounds.  Empire State Consumer Project, the Sierra Club, the Center for Environmental Health, and Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides filed the petition on May 28, 2010.  The petitioners wanted the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to act to protect children against cadmium present in toy jewelry, but if the CPSC did not act, they wanted EPA to take action under TSCA.  The petitioners argued that analysis of Chinese imports strongly suggested that cadmium was being used in toy jewelry as a cheap substitute for lead, which is now strictly regulated by the CPSC.  The petition followed several recalls ordered by the CPSC and numerous warnings to Chinese exporters and others.

The Petition

The petition demanded that CPSC take several actions, including: (1) classifying as a banned hazardous substance under sections 2 and 3 of the Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) toy metal jewelry containing cadmium above trace amounts, thereby requiring manufacturers, importers, and processors to test and certify their products under the Consumer Product Safety Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA); (2) revising the test method, if the cadmium limit is to be based on the amount that can be extracted, to better reflect usage scenarios; and (3) using its participation on the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) established under TSCA to request EPA’s immediate adoption of testing and reporting methods, if CPSC believes that it lacks sufficient information on the extent of cadmium in children’s products or needs additional information to determine the appropriate limit for cadmium in those products.

The petition also sought specific EPA actions, including: (1) requiring health and safety data reporting for cadmium and cadmium compounds under section 8(d) of TSCA; and (2) issuing under section 6 a rule setting limits on cadmium and cadmium compounds in toy jewelry.   The section 8(d) rule was to apply to producers, importers, and processors of cadmium and cadmium compounds reasonably likely to be incorporated into consumer products.  Petitioners demanded that EPA seek lists and/or copies of the following types of ongoing and completed health and safety studies:

a.   epidemiological or clinical studies;
b.   studies of occupational exposure;
c.   health effects studies;
d.   ecological effects studies; and
e.   environmental fate studies (including relevant physicochemical properties).

The Agencies Respond

On August 19, 2010, the CPSC published a Federal Register notice, requesting public comments on the petition.  The public comment period closes October 18, 2010.  Many observers anticipate CPSC’s eventual adoption of restrictions on cadmium in certain consumer products, including metal toy jewelry.

EPA is further along in responding to the petition.  In a letter, dated August 30, 2010, EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Owens agreed to have EPA issue a TSCA Section 8(d) rule regarding cadmium and cadmium compounds used in consumer products, especially metal toy jewelry.  The rule will require reporting by producers, importers, and processors of cadmium and cadmium compounds that are reasonably likely to be incorporated into consumer products.   He also indicated that the Agency is willing to consider banning or restricting the metal if the CPSC does not address consumer uses of cadmium; however, the Agency has not used its section 6 authority in many years and it is unlikely to need to do so in light of anticipated CPSC action.

* * * *

Check back occasionally for additional posts concerning the evolving debate over the appropriate regulation of cadmium and cadmium compounds.