HIGH POINT - In August 2008, President Bush signed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, or CPSIA. The law, which granted the Consumer Product Safety Commission additional powers and funding to police unsafe products, was developed in response to widespread recalls of children's toys and jewelry containing lead. It radically changes the way that consumer products are manufactured, particularly children's products.

While this legislation was touted as a "toy bill," it essentially affects every product used by a child, including furniture, regardless of risk. This presents three key obstacles for furniture manufacturers:

Lead

Section 101 of the act bans any accessible part of a children's product that contains lead in excess of 300 parts per million (ppm) as of August 2009 and 100 ppm as of August 2011. The ban is retroactive to all products in inventory at the retail and wholesale levels.

This provision essentially makes children's beds and chests illegal due to the metal screws and nails that hold them together.

This same provision reduces the level of lead allowed in paint and surface coatings of all household furniture - not just youth furniture - from 600 ppm to 90 ppm. This, too, was retroactive, causing manufacturers to destroy noncompliant inventory and to pull back products from retail inventories to avoid criminal penalties.

Although wood has been determined not to contain lead, the resin used in the manufacture of composite wood product has not received such a determination.

Testing and certification

The safety act requires all products that are subject to any mandatory standard or regulation be accompanied by a "Certificate of Conformity" issued by the manufacturer and based either on a test of each product or on a "reasonable testing program." Children's products must also be tested by a third-party lab recognized by the CPSC.

Phthalates

A May 23 "60 Minutes" segment on phthalates and a June CNN report on toxic chemicals in everyday products have increased consumers' familiarity with (and ability to pronounce) phthalates (say "thallates" - the ph is silent).

Section 108 of the act bans three specific phthalates from children's products on a permanent basis and bans three others in toys and child care articles on an interim basis. For the furniture industry, this means that the plastic parts on cribs, toddler beds and mattresses cannot contain any phthalates.

The American Home Furnishings Alliance agrees with the basic premise of CPSIA, which is to protect children from injury posed by consumer products. However, some of the provisions of the act have created havoc in the marketplace at a time when the economy can least afford it - and without contributing to increased safety for children.

AHFA is in the midst of a lengthy, cumbersome and expensive process of requesting an exemption from the Section 101 lead provision for composite wood.

AHFA has further recommended that Congress pass an amendment to CPSIA narrowing the scope of the section on lead so that it focuses on those products that pose a real risk of injury to children. In some cases, the presence of lead is necessary to preserve the structural integrity of a product, as is the case with metal screws and bolts in a child's bed.

The Alliance also has recommended that the lead rule not be retroactive so that the stream of commerce is not disrupted.

AHFA has proposed a three-part remedy to relieve the testing and certification burden of CPSIA without compromising its purpose of protecting children.

First, an early version of the bill defined children's products as those intended for age 7 and younger. The final version upped the age to 12. But manufacturers can't possibly know if a parent is buying a twin bed for a child who is 12 or for a young adult who is moving into a college dorm.

The only way bedroom furniture manufacturers can be sure they are complying with the law is to have all their products tested by third-party, CPSC-recognized labs. Lowering the age limit in the definition of children's products wouldn't eliminate this problem entirely, but it could help manufacturers segregate the targeted products better and thereby reduce the costs of compliance.

Second, the requirement for testing and certification could be limited to children's products rather than applying to everything a manufacturer makes.

Finally, the CPSC could permit alternative test methods for lead screening. Currently, the CPSIA requires a chemical test, which must be done in a laboratory setting. But the CPSC itself has been using radio frequency technology to test for lead - which is considerably less expensive than laboratory testing.

With regard to phthalates, AHFA is working with legislators to propose common sense remedies to unintended hardships. AHFA has proposed that inaccessible plastic parts be exempted from the ban, and that it not be retroactive to products already in the marketplace.

AHFA members can consult the STANDARDS section of the AHFA website for compliance guidance and further information. Non-AHFA members should go to www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html. For a list of CPSC-accredited labs