Magnetic tiles, building sets, drawing boards and other children’s toys with magnetic components cannot be reduced to one “magnet-strength report.” First determine whether the product is primarily intended for children 12 or younger. Then map the manufacture date, toy structure, separable components, materials and labels to the rules that actually apply, and connect the CPC, reports, physical sample and public wording to one model record.

This article is based on the current U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) guidance for Toy Safety, Magnets, Children’s Product Certificates and Tracking Labels, reviewed on 21 August 2026. It is a documentation and wording guide, not product-specific legal advice and not a promise of CPC acceptance, marketplace treatment, customs clearance or regulatory outcome.

Five corrections before you build the file

  • Do not treat ASTM F963-17 as the default for every product made in 2026.CPSC states that children’s toys manufactured after 20 April 2024 generally transition to ASTM F963-23 through 16 CFR part 1250; an earlier manufacture date may point to an earlier version. Use the manufacture date and the applicable text.
  • A magnetic toy is not automatically a part 1262 subject magnet product.A toy covered by 16 CFR part 1250 and ASTM F963 is handled through the toy standard and is exempt from the separate magnet standard. Part 1262 primarily addresses other products designed, marketed or intended for entertainment, jewelry, mental stimulation or stress relief.
  • Flux index must be assessed with the correct unit and regime.CPSC describes the part 1262 threshold as 50 kG²·mm². A children’s toy must be assessed under the applicable ASTM F963 version and test procedure. A report should state the object tested, method, unit, product condition and result; a standalone number is not a legal conclusion.
  • A CPC is not a nine-element checklist.CPSC’s current CPC guidance lists seven required elements. The laboratory supplies testing services and results; the manufacturer, importer or private labeler is responsible for issuing the CPC.
  • Tracking information is not a CPC citation.Children’s products must carry visible, legible and durable source information on the product and packaging where practicable, but CPSC says the tracking-label requirement itself is not a safety rule that must be listed on the CPC.

1. Classify the product before listing the rules

CPSC describes a children’s product as a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. The toy standard can cover toys intended for children under 14, while CPSC third-party testing and CPC duties for children’s products generally focus on products primarily intended for children 12 or younger. Age labeling is one fact, not a complete classification test; design, marketing, packaging, function and reasonably foreseeable use must be considered together.

Review layerQuestionEvidence to retain
Product positioningIs this a magnetic toy, or a magnet product sold solely for professional, industrial or other non-toy use?Specification, packaging, instructions, listing, intended age and marketing images
Toy safetyDoes 16 CFR part 1250 and an applicable ASTM F963 version apply? Which sections fit the design?Manufacture date, model drawings, structure description, test plan and reports
Chemical rulesWhich accessible components raise total lead, lead-coating, phthalate or other applicable questions?BOM, material statements, sample photos and chemical test records
Small parts and labelingCan use-and-abuse testing create a small part? Are tracking marks, age statements and warnings applicable and aligned?Product, packaging, instructions, label artwork, test photos and revision history
Other magnet rulesCould the product fall under 16 CFR part 1262, or is it excluded because the toy rule applies?Purpose, audience, marketing wording and a scope memo

Do not infer a legal result from a marketplace category alone, and do not treat an “18+” or “14+” statement as a complete escape from children’s-product analysis. Record the design, marketing and foreseeable-use facts, including facts that still need confirmation.

2. Test the magnetic component through a separable-part chain

CPSC’s toy-safety guidance focuses on magnetic components that are loose as received or liberated during use-and-abuse testing. If the magnet or magnetic component fits entirely within the small-parts test cylinder, the applicable magnetic-performance assessment must also be made. CPSC’s magnet guidance refers to ASTM F963 sections 8.25.1 through 8.25.3 for the testing procedures; the exact toy requirements should be checked against the applicable standard version.

  1. Identify the sample and version.Record the model, variation, magnet count and location, material and dimensions, production batch, manufacture date and whether the sample represents the listed product.
  2. Review separation risk.Check whether a magnet can leave a housing, coating, rod, stylus or storage component. “The adhesive is strong” and “the magnet is small” are not substitutes for testing.
  3. Use the applicable use-and-abuse plan.The procedure should follow the product’s age range, construction and applicable standard. Do not present a custom set of force, torque, drop or soak values as a universal legal threshold.
  4. Assess the released object.The report should identify whether it tested a single magnet, a magnet-containing component or an assembly, and should record dimensions, small-parts-cylinder status, flux index, unit, method/instrument and result.
  5. Separate engineering changes from legal conclusions.Changing the magnet material, retention design or age positioning requires a new assessment of sample representativeness and testing scope. An internal “safety margin” is not itself a certification.

For a non-toy subject magnet product, CPSC explains that a magnet fitting entirely within the small-parts cylinder and reaching 50 kG²·mm² or more is a hazardous magnet. The scope, exclusions and certificate type must be recorded separately from the toy pathway. Do not combine the two regimes’ terms, units and thresholds into a universal template.

3. Keep lead, phthalates, coatings and small parts separate

  • Total lead:Accessible components of children’s products must not exceed 100 ppm total lead. Accessibility and any CPSC testing determination or exemption must be checked for the actual component.
  • Lead in coatings:Paint and similar surface coatings on children’s products must not exceed 90 ppm lead. Ink, coatings, metal finishes and plastic parts cannot be classified solely by a supplier’s material name.
  • Phthalates:Accessible plasticized components in children’s toys and child-care articles must not exceed 0.1% (1,000 ppm) of a regulated phthalate. CPSC’s current FAQ lists eight: DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP and DCHP. The source article’s older six-phthalate list was incomplete.
  • Small parts:Whether a small part is created, which age group is implicated and which warnings apply must be assessed against the design, testing and rules such as 16 CFR part 1501 and 16 CFR §1500.19. Do not turn an invented magnet-warning sentence into a universal federal template.

Each chemical report should lead back to the actual SKU, colour/material, production batch and sample. If the magnet, housing, soft plastic, ink, adhesive or packaging changes, document the impact assessment instead of carrying forward an old model report without analysis.

4. Prepare the CPC with CPSC’s seven elements

For a magnetic toy that requires children’s-product certification, CPSC guidance places responsibility on the domestic manufacturer or importer to draft and issue the CPC based on applicable test results. The CPC and supporting reports should be in English. The laboratory must be a CPSC-accepted third-party laboratory with an accreditation scope covering the cited rules. Use this seven-point readback:

  1. Product identification: brand, product name, model, variation or other detail sufficient to prevent overbroad coverage;
  2. Every applicable CPSC children’s-product safety rule and the necessary specific ASTM F963 sections; do not write only “complies with ASTM F963”;
  3. Name, full mailing address and telephone number of the domestic manufacturer or importer certifying compliance;
  4. Name, address, email and telephone number of the person maintaining test records;
  5. Manufacture date or batch and place of manufacture, traceable at least to the finished-product assembly site;
  6. Test dates and places, including any applicable exemption or testing determination; and
  7. Name, address and telephone number of each CPSC-accepted third-party laboratory that performed the testing, with the relevant scope confirmed.

Report numbers, model identifiers, manufacture location, test dates and sample versions should reconcile. A laboratory may help format a document, but it does not take the manufacturer’s or importer’s CPC responsibility. A marketplace may request extra fields or images; that workflow is not the federal rule, and unsupported “automatic rejection rates” or fixed review times should not be presented as law.

5. Align tracking information, age statements and public wording

CPSC’s tracking-label guidance calls for visible, legible and durable distinguishing marks on the product and packaging where practicable. The marks should make it possible to ascertain the manufacturer/importer or private labeler, production location and date, manufacturing details such as a batch or run, and other information that helps identify the source. Codes may be used if a consumer knows whom to contact to interpret them. CPSC does not prescribe one size or layout for every product.

  • Put the product, packaging, instructions, CPC, test reports and listing into one comparison sheet for brand, model, age, variation and batch wording.
  • Support the age grade with design and marketing evidence; do not use “3+,” “8+,” “14+” or “18+” as a single switch to avoid magnetic testing or children’s-product duties.
  • Review warnings by age range, product structure, accessible small parts and applicable rules. A vague “small magnet” notice cannot replace a real scope assessment.
  • Keep page and image language within the evidence currently supported. Avoid absolute-safety claims, official-approval claims, guaranteed outcomes and other official-endorsement impressions.

6. Six-step manual review checklist

  1. Lock one SKU, variation and production batch, and retain the listing, packaging, instructions, sample photos, BOM and supplier files.
  2. Write the children’s-product scope analysis: age, design/marketing facts, foreseeable use and missing facts.
  3. Use the manufacture date to select the ASTM F963 version, then list the toy, lead, coating, phthalate, small-parts and labeling rules that actually apply.
  4. Build the separable-part, small-parts and flux-index record, including sample identity, method, unit, result and report version.
  5. Read back all seven CPC elements, the issuing party, the laboratory scope, the record keeper and the manufacture location.
  6. Complete a release consistency review: title/H1, summary, age, warnings, images, physical labels and CPC must not expand or narrow the supported scope differently.

Greenark Certification (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. recommends separating “verified,” “pending supplier confirmation” and “not applicable with a recorded reason” in the register. This keeps legal facts, engineering changes, marketplace requests and customer wording distinct, so a single report or page prompt is not mistaken for a complete certification conclusion.

Sources and boundaries

A product-specific review still depends on the manufacture date, construction, audience, materials and current legal text. This article makes no promise about certification, marketplace access, customs, delisting recovery, ranking, sales or regulatory outcome.