What follows

The sealed part

Updated October 2026

On this page11

The clause Which sounds made for this craft Read the two conditions again And abuse is where resin jewelry is weak So this property does not tell you the exception applies Which is the right way round for a supplier to talk Thickness and coverage are the variables And a surface-breaking inclusion is simply accessible The safer design is to use compliant parts anyway Document the reasoning either way References

Encapsulation is literally sealing. That does not settle it.

The clause

The lead limits "shall not apply to any component part of a children's product that is not accessible to a child through normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse", including where the part is protected by a sealed covering or casing that remains intact during normal use.

Which sounds made for this craft

A charm cured inside clear resin is covered by a sealed casing. The technique the whole craft is built on is, physically, the thing the clause describes.

Read the two conditions again

Normal and reasonably foreseeable use AND ABUSE, and a covering that remains intact during normal use. Both halves have to hold.

And abuse is where resin jewelry is weak

A child bites a pendant, drops it on a tiled floor, or catches it on a zip. Resin chips and cracks, and a cracked encapsulation is no longer a sealed casing.

So this property does not tell you the exception applies

It tells you the clause exists and that whether a given encapsulation qualifies is a determination about that piece, that resin thickness and that foreseeable abuse. Saying otherwise would be inventing a conclusion.

Which is the right way round for a supplier to talk

Naming the clause is useful. Asserting that your resin satisfies it is a claim nobody selling containers is in a position to make.

Thickness and coverage are the variables

A charm sitting proud of the surface is not encapsulated. One with a millimetre of resin over it is encapsulated thinly. The geometry is part of the determination.

And a surface-breaking inclusion is simply accessible

Dried flowers and foils often break the surface by design, which is an aesthetic choice with a regulatory reading attached.

The safer design is to use compliant parts anyway

Then the clause is a second line of defense rather than the basis of the product. That is a cheaper position than defending an encapsulation.

Document the reasoning either way

If a design does rest on inaccessibility, write down why, with the thickness and the abuse scenarios considered. An undocumented determination is indistinguishable from not having made one.

References

15 U.S.C. 1278a. Subsection (a) sets total lead content for any part of a children's product at "100 parts per million" by weight, and (f)(1) substituted "0.009 percent" for lead in paint on children's products. Subsection (b)(2) provides that the limits "shall not apply to any component part of a children's product that is not accessible to a child through normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse", including where the part is protected by a sealed covering or casing that remains intact during normal use. The children's product definition is taken from section 3(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. law.cornell.edu

Written from 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(5) and 15 U.S.C. 1278a, and from the catalog as it stood on 18 October 2026. Whether a particular piece is a children's product, and whether a particular encapsulation is an inaccessible component part, are determinations this property raises and does not make. State jewelry laws and voluntary standards for children's jewelry sit on top of everything here.