Comments open for CPSIA on component testing

[littlegirlPearl]

This is our chance to effect change and amend this law!

Here is the link:
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html

Just follow the link through to the pdf file, and compose your letter. This issue is complicated, so if you are unsure what to write, here is a good jumping off point:


http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/five-steps-you-can-take-to-save-natural-and-handmade-companies/

You can then file your comments via email. Thanks so much to everyone who is helping us out. Again, we want to make sure our items are safe, but unit testing is way too expensive for most of us on etsy.

Please see my blog for a recap and helpful links:
http://www.littlegirlpearl.blogspot.com

[littlegirlPearl]

As soon as I write something up, I will post it here. This might take some time! But I promise I will come back to this thread and post my letter.

[Former_Member]

I just hope it is a user friendly process if it goes through. I will stay tuned...

[Former_Member]

Another link:
http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x845827383/New-law-to-put-thousands-out-of-work

They need to find a different way to approach the problem.

[littlegirlPearl]

OK, here is my response to question 1. I also have this posted on my blog at http://www.littlegirlpearl.blogspot.com. I will post my answers to all the questions there.

The CPSC has requested comments from interested parties regarding component vs. unit testing and supplier provided certification. I'm going to take these question by question, even though many seem to be redundant. Please feel free to use my responses as part of your own, but I do think the more varied the verbiage the better. If they hear from many of us in our own voices, maybe they will actually listen.

On to the questions:

Number 1: How the risk of introducing non-compliant product into the marketplace would be affected by permitting third-party testing of the component parts versus of a finished consumer unit.

The risk that would be introduced into consumer goods by component testing versus unit testing would be that there might be substitutions by the manufacturer after the component testing was completed. Say for example a certain trim was used in the prototype and the testing was completed on that particular trim. That trim then became unavailable for production. A different trim was substituted for the production run that was similar, but untested.

Similarly, if the manufacturer embellishes the product with appliqués, roller paints, iron decals, or other such embellishments, and did not have these components tested previously, there might be a chance of introducing non-compliant components.

However, a manufacturer should be allowed to permit the certifications from suppliers for the unaltered component parts, and additionally test those components for which no testing has been performed. Then that unit should be deemed sufficiently tested. Provided the manufacturer tested each component that was part of the finished unit, and no substitutions were made, then no subsequent risk would be introduced.

[littlegirlPearl]

I'm working on question 2, and should have that for anyone who needs to submit this to the CPSC.

[littlegirlPearl]

Question 2: The conditions and or circumstances, if any, that should be considered in allowing third-party testing of component parts.

The conditions that should be considered in allowing component testing are if the actual components used in the finished product are the same as those that were tested. Provided that each component has not been chemically altered, or any additional raw materials are introduced into the finished product, then component testing should be allowed.

In fact, component testing would be superior to unit testing when one small component would be over the legal limit for lead. For example, the allowable limit is 600 parts per million for the entire unit. If the buttons used on a garment were over that limit, but there were only 2 used on a finished garment, that allowable limit would probably not be exceeded for the unit, but would be exceeded for the component. In this case, component testing would reduce the danger of a small component being over the allowable limit for lead.

[Former_Member]

Thanks, littlegirlpearl! I am drafting my responses as well and will refer to yours. :)

[Former_Member]

Here's a great letter from the handmadetoyalliance.org page - I've sent this to every congress-person, etc, and just sent it to the CPSIA.

"Like many people, I was deeply concerned by the dangerous and poisonous toys that large Chinese toy manufacturers have been selling to our nations families. And, I was very pleased that Congress acted quickly to protect America's children by enacting the CPSIA.

However, I am very concerned that the CPSIA's mandates for third party testing and labeling will have a dramatic and negative effect on small toymakers and in the USA, Canada, and Europe, whose toy safety record has always been exemplary. It will also devastate small manufacturers of children's clothes and other handmade goods for children.

Because of the fees charged by Third Party testing companies, many toymakers, especially makers of unique and beautiful wooden toys and unique children's clothes from Maine to Oregon will be driven out of business. Their cottage workshops simply do not make enough money to afford the $4,000 price tag per toy that Third Party testers are charging.

I urge you to quickly rewrite the CPSIA so that toys and children's products made in batches of less than 5,000 units per year or manufactured within the USA and trusted countries with established product safety regimes such as Canada and the European Union be held exempt from third party testing requirements. Such products could still be subject to random auditing by the CPSC.

If you feel that testing should still be required, then the CPSC should be made to offer free testing services for USA manufacturers and importers from Europe or Canada with revenues less than one million dollars.

These toy makers and crafters have earned and kept the public's trust. They provide jobs for hundreds and quality playthings for thousands. Their unique businesses should be protected. Please visit www.handmadetoyalliance.org to learn more about this issue.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,"

[Former_Member]

Re your responses for question 1 - These chances occur especially with unit testing. When the manufacturer runs out of the original supply of an item used in the creation, they will need to purchse more - maybe from the same source and batch but maybe not. When this happens, under unit testing, the entire article will need to be retested but will the retesting be done?

This is why I don't think that this law will be effective as written.

[littlegirlPearl]

Yes, that is another risk LILGIRLCA. The unit will most likely not be retested as has already been accepted. So of course the risk would be greater. If component testing is allowed, then it would be more likely the manufacturer would retest that specific component. It would certainly be cheaper to do so.

However, knowing how these things go, it is doubtful that either test would be performed. If a manufacturer already has the GCC for that particular product it would be unlikely they would incur further expense to test a new batch.

There are also labeling requirements for this law as well that specifically deal with production runs and batches.

[art2theextreme]

http://art2theextreme.blogspot.com/2008/12/save-handmade-learn-about-cpsia.html

Very important blog post about this!

[littlegirlPearl]

Question No. 3:

The conditions, if any, under which supplier third-party testing of raw materials or components should be acceptable.

The conditions which supplier third-party testing of raw materials and components should be accepted is if the manufacturer using those raw materials does not alter them in any chemical way. For example, a fabric manufacturer tests each fabric for lead and it is under the allowable limit according to the CPSIA. The fabric manufacturer then sends a copy of the test results to the manufacturer of the children’s product, or has them available electronically. Provided the manufacturer of the children’s product does not chemically alter the fabric (painting, surface coating, etc.), then that supplier third party test should satisfy the requirement of the CPSIA. It would not be cost effective to retest already tested materials, and retesting would not make that particular product any safer for the child. If the manufacturer is cutting and sewing a raw material, and not altering it in any other way, supplier third party testing should be acceptable.

Moreover, the cost of testing already tested materials not only hinders business, but it is redundant and unnecessary. As manufacturers seek out raw materials that are inherently lead free, or have already been tested by the supplier and shown to comply in order to avoid costly testing, the likely result is that less lead will be introduced into the supply chain. The demand for supplies that have already been tested would likely rise. If a supplier cannot prove that his raw material comply with the law, then the demand for his product would go down, resulting in fewer raw materials that contain higher levels of lead.

I also have this posted on my blog: http://www.littlegirlpearl.blogspot.com

You can also read others responses to all the comments at http://www.fashion-incubator.com in the forum under cpsia comments.

[littlegirlPearl]

Question No. 4:

"Assuming all component parts are compliant, what manufacturing processes and/or environmental conditions might introduce factors that would increase the risk of allowing non-compliant consumer products into the marketplace."


There is no manufacturing process that has the possibility of introducing lead unless it involves introducing a new component that might contain lead, ie. solder. Simply heating, sewing, cutting, ironing, and the like, cannot change the chemical make up of the unit, and will not introduce lead if none existed in the components.

If however during the process of manufacturing, an untested component is introduced such as solder or a surface coating, then that might change whether or not the unit is compliant. But, the fact remains that if all the components have been tested, then processing those components will not alter the chemical compounds significantly enough to pose any hazard.

[Former_Member]

Marking as I make breakfast.

[Former_Member]

Please also check out this video I made, please give it love and comment and SHARE SHARE SHARE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHa3C9EU_Uo

[littlegirlPearl]

great video mamaslittlemonkeys. I think there was something about sharing videos on the fashion-incubator site.

Sorry guys, I know this is dull stuff, but this is how the law is going to get amended that will allow us to remain in business.

[Former_Member]

OK new video version changed the song
ok heres the NEW version with new items and song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5A1scKh7LM

[littlegirlPearl]

Question 5:

"Whether and how the use and control of subcontractors would be affected by
allowing the third-party testing of component parts."

This is the hardest question for me, because I don't contract out, and have no experience with the manufacturing process outside my own basement. So here goes.

A quality control system would have to be put in place that may include randomizing testing and implementing stricter quality control processes. Instead of checking the first few from a production run, a manufacturer might pull and spot check somewhere down the production line. That way if the contractor has substituted a tested component for another, a check against the original components could be performed. In the apparel industry, this could be performed by a visual inspection compared against the original compliant components specified by the manufacturer.

As for toys, or other products, this might be harder to determine. Whether a certain paint has been swapped for another, might be difficult to tell without doing random unit testing. However, if you did do unit testing on one of the first few from the production run, and then later on a switch was made, unit testing wouldn’t have made that product any safer versus component testing. It really comes down to random quality control.

Additionally, an exemption should be made for contractors located in certain countries where lead and other contaminants have not been a problem, and component testing should be allowed. For those countries that have had issues with contamination and lead in the past, a random unit testing program should be in place, until that contractor has been proven trustworthy. In other words, there is no historical reason for not trusting products made in Europe, Japan, the US, and Canada, etc., but we do have reasons for not trusting products made in China and some other South East Asian Countries. In those countries a random unit test would prevent non-compliant products entering the US.


I welcome all of your comments to help me formulate these responses, as I'm pretty sure I'm not aware of many of the complicating factors that many businesses face.

[littlegirlPearl]

Bringing this back up for the evening crowd.

[Former_Member]

marking

[littlegirlPearl]

Question 6:

This one is very hard for me. Again, any comments here are much appreciated.

"What changes in inventory control methods, if any, should be required if third-party testing of component parts were permitted. Address receipt, storage and quality control of incoming materials, management and control of work-in-process, non-conforming material control, control of rework, inventory rotation, and overall identification and control of materials."


A manufacturer would need to make sure that there is a system for labeling and tracking incoming components, and have that tracking linked to the test results and the final units.

The manufacturer must have an inventory system where untested components be kept separate from tested components. If a component is proven to be non-compliant, there must be a “quarantine” area to which workers on the floor do not have access. Then the manufacturer would need to make the determination whether to return that component to the initial manufacturer, scrap the component, or use it in a different manufacturing application.

There must be coordination between the inventory control and tracking system and the physical location in the facility. Once a component has been tested, logged, and stored that component must still be traceable to the final product by assigning batch ID#’s.

[littlegirlPearl]

Finally Question 8:

“Whether consideration of third-party testing of component parts should be given for any particular industry groups or particular component parts and materials. Explain what it is about these industries, component parts, and/or materials that make them uniquely suited to this approach.”

The Apparel Industry: The aim of the CPSIA is to keep dangerous products out of the hands of children. If manufacturers are able to use component testing of fabrics and other inputs, and spread the cost of testing over a larger product range (ie. the same zipper on 5 different garments, the same snaps on an entire product line) then the business can afford to be compliant. Also consumers would benefit from lower prices. If the apparel manufacturer must test each unit, costs will skyrocket, and many companies will fail.

There should also be a subset of exemptions for materials used in any industry that are inherently lead free, and do not pose a health risk to children. For the textiles, apparel and footwear sectors, fabrics, thread and other materials should be excluded because they are known to contain no or very low amounts of lead. Paper, printing inks, laminates, adhesives, bindings and cardboard used in books and other paper-based printed materials and toys should also be excluded.

There are already international standards in place for fabrics. Oeko-tex and GOTS certified fabric already exceed the standards set forth in the CPSIA. Apparel manufacturers should be able to choose these inputs without having to incur any additional testing at all, as they are already inherently safe. Many suppliers already test their products, and companies should be allowed to use these certificates as part of their “reasonable testing programs.”

Also, an exemption should be given for components that are inaccessible. The CPSIA establishes one clear example of an inaccessible component part: a part which is not physically exposed by reason of a sealed covering or casing that can withstand appropriate use and abuse testing. There is sufficient evidence for the Commission to immediately conclude that certain components of children’s products do not present hazards based on their inaccessibility to children when contained in the product, to include circuit boards that are in a sealed covering, innersprings in upholstered furniture, and other products that are inaccessible when considering normal use and abuse.

Toys that are component tested v. unit tested would also be inherently safer. If only one small component on an entire toy tests for higher levels of lead, then that component may not be enough to put that toy in the non-compliant category. But if it were component tested, and that component were to test at or higher than the threshold level, then that component would have to be replaced with a suitable substitute, thus making the unit inherently safer.

Also, the National Association of Manufacturers has come up with a brilliant petition that addresses just about every industry. You can refer to it as well when constructing a response.

http://www.toyassociation.org/AM/PDFs/Safety/CPSCPetition1208.pdf

Thanks for hanging in there with me, and sorry this took so long.

[littlegirlPearl]

Question 7: realized I forgot to post this here:

How a manufacturer would manage lot-to-lot variation of component parts, in a third-party testing of component parts regime, to ensure finished consumer products are compliant.

In this instance, supplier provided testing is an advantage over unit testing. For example, if a manufacturer only tests one unit, yet that production run consists of 3 lots of components, then presumably only one of those lots will be tested. But if the supplier of that component has an on-going testing regime, then those results would be superior to unit testing. If a supplier consistently chooses the same materials to produce their products, then that lot-to-lot variation will be insignificant. The same would apply to the manufacturer.

[littlegirlPearl]

Morning All. Bumping this one last time for any who have missed it. I know it is D.U.L.L., but it's the non-sexy stuff that will actually get this law changed.