Proposed Final Rule for Lead Testing - Relief for Some of Us? 8.6.09

[Former_Member]

Hi all. I just got this emailed from the CPSC. I hope I'm reading this right. It appears to me that this ballot sheet for the proposed rule is good news, at least for some of us.

Specifically of interest is "[b]y this rule, the products and materials determined by Commission to fall under the lead content limits, are no longer subject to section 101(a) ofthe CPSIA and no testing of these products and materials is required under section 102(a) of the CPSIA."

...

"These materials included:
•Precious gemstones (diamond, ruby, sapphire, emerald);
•Certain semiprecious gemstones provided that the mineral or material is not based on lead or lead compounds and is not associated in nature with any mineral that is based on lead or lead compounds (minerals that contain lead or are associated in nature with minerals that contain lead include, but
are not limited to, the following: aragonite, bayldonite, boleite, cerussite,
crocoite, linarite, mimetite, phosgenite, vanadinite, and wulfenite);.
•Natural or cultured pearls;
•Wood;
•Natural fibers (such as cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax, linen); and
• Other natural materials including coral, amber, feathers, fur, untreated leather."

(Further on, they do state that they redacted it from the original, which stated "undyed" natural fibers.)

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/leadfinalrule.pdf

Vote due by 8.13.09

This is good news, right?

[TheWrapScrapPony]

Yes good news! I added that document to the "everything you need to know" post. Looks like if we make our items out of the exempt materials, which pretty much includes all fabrics natural/synthetic/dyed/undyed (velcro was even mentioned somewhere in the 94 pages) we are good to go. Buttons, zippers, etc. would still need to be tested. They even mentioned that they will be giving info on component testing sometime.
They really are working hard to make this law workable for small businesses like us Etsians. YIPPY!!

[FayeMaloneDesigns]

So now we can make dresses from cotton, linen and silk (do you dress you little darlins' in silk and linen pants to play in the backyard? How does one get out grass stains from linen "jeans"?) And we can embellish with diamonds, rubies, sapphires, and emeralds instead of rikrak!!! And God knows I wouldn't think of giving my grandchildren a ring make of wulfenite????? It may kill them. And we can use pearl buttons or unfinished wood. (please cut off before washing and sew back on) And we can trim with mink and ermine.!!!! Good God Almightly, these people are stupid beyond belief! What the hell are they dressing their children in, or do they have children? NO, they pay the nannies to raise them, send out for food, and send them to Sybil Friends at $30K a year. Do they realize how really stupid this sounds? Revolt!! Opps, I guess someone will turn me in to Obama's whitehouse site for being a subversive! I'm going to bed, and read, maybe even that revolutionary book The Bible, before that's taken away from me.....

[PlayingWithFiber]

littlethingsboutique said:
Hi all. I just got this emailed from the CPSC. I hope I'm reading this right. It appears to me that this ballot sheet for the proposed rule is good news, at least for some of us.

Specifically of interest is "[b]y this rule, the products and materials determined by Commission to fall under the lead content limits, are no longer subject to section 101(a) ofthe CPSIA and no testing of these products and materials is required under section 102(a) of the CPSIA."

...

"These materials included:
<snip>
•Natural fibers (such as cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax, linen); and

(Further on, they do state that they redacted it from the original, which stated "undyed" natural fibers.)

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia09/brief/leadfinalrule.pdf

Vote due by 8.13.09

This is good news, right?
__________

I think it would be good news - yes? Wow, maybe I'll be able to go back to making baby socks and such....

[Former_Member]

FayeMalone -- I certainly won't "turn you in"!!

I'm looking for a glimmer of hope here. It's a start. I don't send my little girl out in the mud in linen jeans (only silk for her ;D !!). I'm still holding out hope for polyesters, etc.

[TheWrapScrapPony]

Faye... before you embellish dresses with precious gemstones, read the whole document. There's more to it. I think you'll be ok with rikrak.

Littlethings...polyester is allowed :)

Taken from page 41-42 of the document linked above.


(d)
The following materials do not exceed the lead content limits under section 101(a) of the CPSIA provided that these materials have neither been treated or adulterated with the additioh ofmaterials that could result in the addition of lead into the product or material:
(1) Precious gemstones: diamond, ruby, sapphire, emerald
(2)
Semiprecious gemstones and other minerals, provided that the mineral or material is not based on lead or lead compounds and is not associated in nature with any mineral based on lead or lead compounds (excluding any mineral that is based on lead or lead compounds including, but not limited to, the following: aragonite, bayldonite,
38
boleite, cerussite, crocoite, galena, linarite, mimetite, phosgenite, vanadinite, and
wulfenite).
(3)
Natural or cultured pearls.
(4)
Wood.
(5)
Paper and similar materials made from wood or other cellulosic fiber, including, but not limited to, paperboard, linerboard and medium.
(6)
Printing inks that use the CMYK process (excluding spot colors, other inks that are not used in CMYK process, inks that do not become part ofthe substrate under 16 CFR part 1303, and inks used in after-treatment applications, including screen prints, transfers, decals, or other prints).
(7)
Textiles (excluding after-treatment applications, including screen prints, transfers, decals, or other prints) consisting of:
(a)
Natural fibers (dyed or undyed) including, but not limited to, cotton, kapok, flax, linen,jute, ramie, hemp, kenaf, bamboo, coir, sisal, silk, wool (sheep), alpaca, llama, goat (mohair,cashmere), rabbit (angora), camel, horse, yak, vicuna, qiviut, guanaco;
(b)
Manufactured fibers (dyed or undyed) including, but not limited to, rayon, azlon, lyocell, acetate, triacetate, rubber, polyester, olefin, nylon, acrylic, modacrylic, aramid, spandex.
(8)
Other plant-derived and animal-derived materials including, but not limited to, animal glue, bee's wax, seeds, nut shells, flowers, bone, sea shell, coral, amber, feathers, fur, leather.
39

[TheBlingyBobbin]

From what I read, they recognize that component testing would put us out of business, but I'm confused --

pg. 35

"The number of small businesses that will be directly affected by the rule is unknown, but could be considerable. However, the final rule will not result in any increase in the costs of production for any firm. Its only effect on businesses, including small businesses, will be to reduce the costs that would have been associated with testing the materials under section 102 of the CPSIA. Based on the foregoing assessment, the Commission certifies that the rule issued today on procedures and requirements would not have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities."

I read that as, too bad...y'all still have to test.

Am I wrong?

[TheBlingyBobbin]

How can testing NOT be a significant impact on us?

[BebeChicBoutique]

Yippee. They even mentioned elastic and ribbon as not containing lead beyond the limit. Keeping my fingers crossed they allow component testing at the supplier level for buttons, zippers, snaps, and grommets. This is definitely a green light for me.

[Former_Member]

Thanks, myblessedbaby. I missed that in my quick scan!

CutesyCloths, these are items that are generally recognized as NOT containing lead. Therefore, testing would not be required on these materials/supplies. As BebeChic points out, testing is still required on certain items; we'll keep fighting and hoping for supplier-level component testing.

[TheBlingyBobbin]

Thanks, Little Things - after 34 pages of that my eyes hurt like I stuck a needle in them..which is not far off.

Kidding. :)

[Former_Member]

Read through the whole document. These determinations spell disaster. What most have been relying upon as documentation of the safety of their component parts has just been thrown out as invalid - the Material Safety Data Sheet. See page 33 a.

They are also questioning the non-toxic pre-tested determination of art supplies.

As to component testing - this document does not leave much room for any hope.

[Former_Member]

Thanks for pointing that out, pastperfect. I just now read those few pages; I think you're right about component testing issue. Very little hope on that front.

For my items, this is good news (although I won't uncross my fingers and toes until the vote and results --I hope the Commissioners publish comments on this, as they did before). However, many crafters/artisans aren't helped by this at all. We'll have to keep fighting!

CutesyCloths -- I know how you feel!

[Former_Member]

Unless they allow for component testing, it doesn't do me any good at all. Because I use a LOT of wood but I alter it. So unless I can only test a component, I'd still have to send the wood in as part of a "finished product"....

[Former_Member]

I still think that 'suppliers' should have to test before they make items availbale for sale. Sure, incorporate the cost of testing into the wholesale/reatil price, but at least that way we know - if it's sold to you so you can make something, it's OK (I'm not including small importers who don't always follow rules in this group).

Etsy 'suppliers' should only be selling stuff that has been OK'd.

[Former_Member]

Things certainly seem to be heading in the right direction!

[Former_Member]

MooBeeTees says:
I still think that 'suppliers' should have to test before they make items availbale for sale. Sure, incorporate the cost of testing into the wholesale/reatil price, but at least that way we know - if it's sold to you so you can make something, it's OK (I'm not including small importers who don't always follow rules in this group).

_________

YESS!!!! I would pay more for items to know that they were MANUFACTURED/SOLD SAFELY. Also, it would help that their packaging reflect something like: "CSPC Compliant" (I may be dreaming.)

[Former_Member]

Such sweet dreams though - LOL!!

[DebSoromenhoArt]

I think if the testing does affect a lot of you and you all have to stop buying from the wholesalers because of it, they will take serious notice (the wholesalers) and possibly take action themselves (certified testing, lobbying, etc).

They are usually bigger business and have more money, resources, and influence and I'm quite sure that they will feel the sting when their sales drop significantly!!!

Just a thought! This is a case of the trickle up effect. LOL.

[Former_Member]

A step in the right direction. I just need them to allow component testing or allow the certificate of testing from the supplier be enough! I'll need to have the clips I use tested. They have been tested by my supplier and fall far below the lead limits. I hope that will be enough!

[Former_Member]

gives me hope. The clips I use have also been tested lets hope their certificate will be sufficient enough. Glad to see ribbon is okay and now I guess the tulle I use is okay since it's nylon.
I was considering closing shop but I think I'll label everything and keep my fingers crossed for whats to come in Feb.

[Former_Member]

What sucks is that I would have to test rhinestones that I put on my toddler collections. So that's very annoying. Is this still a for sure? That we have to test rhinestones? Like Swarovski crystals?

[Former_Member]

JuliePie, the CPSC Commissioners just issued opinions in response to the Fashion Jewelry Trade Assn's request for exemptions for crystal and glass beads:

Cmr. Tenenbaum: http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/tenenbaum071709.pdf
Cmr. Moore: http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/moore071709.pdf
Cmr. Nord: http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/nord071709.pdf

Looks to me like you still have to test those (but I'm no expert on these -- I'm sure there are others out here who may know better).

[Former_Member]

ByJuliePie says:
What sucks is that I would have to test rhinestones that I put on my toddler collections. So that's very annoying. Is this still a for sure? That we have to test rhinestones? Like Swarovski crystals?


Don't even bother to test Swarovski they will come back at 900 to 1100 times the Aug 14th 2009 allowed limited since Swarovski quality control keeps the lead oxide at between 28% and 35% in each and ever crystal. As for other rhinestones and glass flat backs the lead limit testing must come back at less than 0.03% lead and 0.01% phthalates per color tested. If your suppliers can provide you with their testing results you do not have yet to go through 3rd party testing at least until Feb 10th, 2010, since your putting the rhinestones on clothing rather than as part of jewelry pieces (jewelry testing started Mar 2009 with no stays). Since you said the rhinestones are on your toddler collection though, your products are may have to go through the small parts and durability testing at the 3rd party labs since they never clarified if the stay of testing covered this aspect.

[Former_Member]

littlethingsboutique, that set exclusion was denied.
Here's the link to the final vote http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot09/fjtaexclusionrequest.pdf
It seems to be confusing especially since they mention the proposed exclusion being for children 6 and under instead of the 12 and under that is mentioned every where else inclding the actual law.
So this brings to mind if they are going to start breaking the exemptions and exclusion down on an age based format. Like for ages 6 & under only the purest form of the unaltered natural raw materials like a wooden toy that has only been sanded and for ages 7 & up altered but with other known non-lead containing materials like using plant dye to color a wooden toy.