Reasonable Testing Program & Component Parts

[Former_Member]

According to this letter from Cheryl Falvey of the CPSC letter to the Association of American Publishers, it seems that component testing qualifies as "reasonable testing".

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/323.pdf

Based on this, I will be using component testing as my "reasonable testing method" from February 10th to August 14th. I will create a General Certificate of Conformity each time I "manufacture" an item for a child under the age of 12 and will keep them on file (oh the paper!). I have this posted on my website as well.

http://www.littlebugsboutique.com/lbb_015.htm

I am not sure what I will be doing after August 14th, but I am crossing my fingers that the component testing will be accepted in lieu of third-party testing for smaller manufacturers.

[Former_Member]

Let's say you purchase all components for a necklace that may be worn by a child under the age of 12 at a store like Hobby Lobby. The components carried at Hobby Lobby or any other major retailer would have had to pass the tests for lead, correct? So what sort of certificate of compliance would be included and how would it be worded, I'm wondering.

Just throwing that out there...

[Former_Member]

Let's just take one example. If I only use sterling silver & swarovski crystals in a piece of jewelry, I can rely on my own reasonable testing of the two components.

1. Sterling silver is a natural material with no lead.
2. Swarovski crystal DO contain lead, but I will limit the quantity (thus ppm) of beads in the design to fall under the required 600ppm or 300ppm come August 14th. Actually, most of my designs already fall under the 300ppm as I am currently following the Cal Prop 65 guidelines.

I create the certificate of compliance when I make the item. Follow me?

[Former_Member]

marking

[wigglysee]

marking

[Former_Member]

That is great news looks like if we have information from our supplies we don't have to do the testing for now.

[Dannielle]

deannaburasco says:
The components carried at Hobby Lobby or any other major retailer would have had to pass the tests for lead, correct?
*********************************************

NO, not necessarily.

If those components are packaged in a child-specific kit or something, yes, they have to be tested.

If it's assumed that the components are for adult jewelry makers, then no.

Maybe if you're in CA though. There are strict rules in CA I'm not familiar with.

[Former_Member]

marking

[Former_Member]

Thanks for the link.

[allisajacobs]

thanks for the link!

[Former_Member]

littlebugsboutique How are you going to be testing your components or are you going to rely on the manufacture to certify their products?

I'm trying to figure different things out about testing my products, the ray gun is to expensive for me, and 3rd party testing is going to blow my shop out the water...

I would like permission if I could us your idea of certificate of compliance, I want to make something like that for myself and my products...

Thanks.... :0)

[ThePlayhouseKid]

BUMP!! Did anybody read this letter or did this just get buried under all the doom and gloom?? This letter says, and I quote, that "CPSIA section 102 provides that a general conformity certificate for lead content can be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program". So, okay, if all you use in your products are fabric that is certified lead free and thread that is certified lead free, you are completely fine. Testing has been done on each component.

[Former_Member]

The views expressed in this letter are provided pursuant to my authority described in 16 C.F.R./1000.7 and have not been reviewed or approved by the Commission. They are based on the best available information at the they were written. They may be superseded at any time by the Commission, or by operation of law.

Cheryl Falvey,

The first Pdf that littlebugsboutique shows us has this statement written. So this statement is just her views and ideas on the subject which could be superseded by the Commission or the law itself at anytime....

I agree with littlebugsboutique about reasonable testing and I will probable following her idea of reasonable testing until such time that CPSC officially confirms what we are allowed to do concerning testing or until August dead line, which ever come first....

[acorngirl]

Thank you- Marking!

[Former_Member]

marking

[Former_Member]

ArtisansGifts says:
I agree with littlebugsboutique about reasonable testing and I will probable following her idea of reasonable testing until such time that CPSC officially confirms what we are allowed to do concerning testing or until August dead line, which ever come first....
---------------------------------------------------------

I agree until they give us something more or tell us we cannot use this as a reasonable testing metho its the one i am planning to follow

[Former_Member]

In regards to jewelry peices, supplier fact sheets and testing most likely will only be be good until the ends of March. Here's the reasoning I followed early this month I received a reply back from Jennifer at http://thesmartmama.com/bg/ concerning the XRF services for products before August deadline, & found out that jewelry NEEDS 3rd PARTY CERTIFIED LAB TESTING as of 3-23-09. Jennifer said "Up until March 23, 2009, you can use XRF. For items manufactured after that, you can't." And I double check that at the CPSIA site http://cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/metaljewelry.pdf
Now what the CPSIA has listed as acceptable testing method for jewelry is destructive acid digestive testing as outlined here, http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/pbjeweltest.pdf . Which in plain english is the lab will dissolve your product in a beaker full of acid and test the remaining precipitation for lead and other heavy metals. After the testing is done all your left with is the certificate if you passed. This would be great if the testing didn't destroy the single item made from that particular combination of supplies, the "batch", or cost a couple hundred dollars. So if XRF testing won't comply for jewelry after that date I'm fairly sure niether will certs. from the suppliers.

The CPSIA has "Request for Comments: Please provide
comments in response to this notice by
January 21, 2009. Comments on this
notice should be captioned ‘‘Laboratory
Accreditation Process for Testing for
Lead Content in Children’s Metal
Jewelry.’’ Comments should be
submitted to the Office of the Secretary
by e-mail at
Leadaccredjewelry [!at] cpsc.gov, or mailed
or delivered, preferably in five copies, to
the Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East
West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland
20814. Comments may also be filed by
facsimile to (301) 504–0127." from http://cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/metaljewelry.pdf .
On 1-6-09 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0Xr2Iw1Vi_8&refer=us has reported that "The CPSC exempted wool, cotton, silk, gemstones and pearls in its proposal today. " if your jewelry is made exclusively from these materials it looks like you might be exempt, but please contact the CPSIA to publish an exhausted list of exactly what is included as exempt so you know for sure.

If exemptions are made and your items are not completely made of exempt components contact the CPSIA and urge them to seriously consider allowing us to use supplier provided testing certificates. This would allow us to continue making wonderful jewelry and still be in compliance with the lead regulations. There is no way that if you take a clasp that is exempt attach stringing media that is in compliance add beads that are exempt and wind up with a finished product that could be out of compliance. PPM, parts per million, is just another way of saying percentage based on weight. This would be similar to what many of us do to be acceptable with the CA jewelry law, but just providing us with more complete lead info than class 1, class 2, etc.
Another thing to possibly point out that I have seen repeated in many other CPSIA / CPSC threads, is that regardless of who the government thinks our products are for, it is OUR RIGHT to mark our jewelry designs as not intended for children 12 and under. If a parent wants to disregard the warning that is their judgement call. Or in the event that the disclaimers do not cover our ARTISTIC DISCRETION to decide for whom are jewelry is primarily intended for, the CPSIA provide us with a plain english list of criteria of what is to be consider as children's jewelry.
Please I urge anyone with any type of questions to contact the CPSIA directly at http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/newleg.aspx . The more times a particular question is asked, the more likely it will be answered in one of their upcoming FAQs or a General Counsel Advisory Opinions.

Also even though CA law on lead in Jewelry allows for Swarovski there is no indication that the CPSIA will allow Swarovski crystals and pearls to be exempt since they are using a different standard which is total lead present rather than what CA uses which is lead likely to be exposed or absorbed. The lead oxidized glass that makes Swarovski so desirable is still st least 21% lead which in government speak translates to 210,000 ppm of lead or 350 X the limit allowed in Feb 2009, 700 X the limit allowed Aug 2009, and 2100 X the limit allowed Aug 2012. The CPSIA is not distinguishing accessable lead or lead able to leech out from a product from total lead content, they will simple put the product components in beakers of acid to dissolve it down to whatever lead there is, and even if 1 component fails the lead level testing then the entire piece will fail. So even though other legal entities deem Swarovski safe the CPSIA probably will not, since they are looking at the total lead by weight rather than if the lead can even come out of the the glass matrix without complex chemical reaction. Guess what the destructive acid digestive testing is one of the few complex chemical reactions that will destroy the glass and the oxide but leave the straight lead to counted.

[Former_Member]

Thanks for the links!

[Former_Member]

I will also being implementing a "reasonable testing program" for my items from Feb-August.

I hope things change before then, becuause once the third party testing becomes the only option,I will have to close.

[Former_Member]

Same here... I wish there were a "reasonable" law on the books, but that's too much to hope for! Gah!