Webcast from DC on CPSIA PRODUCT TESTING starts at 9:30am on 12-10-09

[Former_Member]

I know this post is last minute but anyone interested in following the webcast from the CPSC in Washington DC can goto this link and watch the webcast.
http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html

If ubable to watch from that link try go here and click on the webcast link at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html#bytopic


The all day workshop will be concerning testing of final products in general but they did say in the federal notice there may be a discussion of the possibility of component testing and the procedures that may make that feasible for compliancy to the governmnet. To read the orginal federal notice go here http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr10/testcert.html

[happywhosits]

Thanks for the notification jewelrydesignsbyME.

I'm at work so I can't watch or listen in. It would be great if anyone who is watching can post some updates.

Eileen...

[Former_Member]

Believe or not they are already taking a break and the meeting only started 50 minutes ago.
So for they have covered though breifly
- That the comment period will be open until Jan 11 2010 at http://www.Regulations.gov for comments regarding this workshop
- List of testing requirements for 4 exemples of products
*Wooden toy blocks - if painted or surface coated need 3rd party lab testing for the paint or surface coating
* A toy xylophone - lead in paint testing, lead content of materials used to produce tha body and accessories of the product, and small parts testing all done by a 3rd party approved lab
* Children's sleepwear - lead content for any iron-on or screen print appications done by a 3rd party approved lab and flammability testing which may be done as in house testing
* Crib - lead in paint testing, lead content of materials used to produce tha body and accessories of the product, and small parts testing all done by a 3rd party approved lab and all other appicable product specific testing such as slat size and space may be done in house

Next they went over what a reasonable testing program is for NON-CHILDRENS product which was basically saying if they CPSC has a regulation unless it says in the regulation itself that the product must be 3rd party lab tested a program in house to insure that the product meets all CPSC regulations and guidelines are acceptable to product a GCC.
Then followed up with the fact that regardless of the product category if the specific item is produced for a child that 3rd party testing is mandatory for sections of testing presented under the CPSIA. They did bring up that component supplier tests results MAY BE acceptable.
Next they went over how to pull simple random samples.

Ok back to watching the 20 minute break is over.

[LeafandYard]

Thank you so much for updating! I am also at the day-job and can't listen in.

[Former_Member]

Ok their taking a lunch break until 1pm EST. I'll write up another summary shortly when I dechiper my notes.

[fairiewings]

thanks for the update, on my way to work and will check back later for updates. Wish I had there break schedule at work.

[Former_Member]

It is "very" important for those of us who make children's things to log onto this workshop.
They are keeping tabs on how many are participating as well as those physically attending the workshop. It seems the commission doesn't feel there are enough of us concerned about this serious impending regulation.
I know it is a long day for us to sit at the computer. The workshop lasts until 4:30pm est today and runs from 9:30am to 4:30 pm tomorrow. I have mine just up on the computer and am listening to it as I work. At least I can get a handle on what is happening.
There are some people we can write to, letting them how we feel this will effect us. But, it needs to be done right away. There is fear that the stay of implementation is going to be lifted soon.
Here are the email addresses to those you can write to:
Chairman Inez Tenenbaum itenenbaum@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Bob Adler radler@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Thomas Moore tmoore@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Nancy Nord nnord@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Anne Northup anorthup@cpsc.gov

And this gentleman has been our champion, fighting for the small manufacturer in this battle. And you and I are small manufacturers. You can contact him as well: Rick Woldenberg
rwoldenberg@learningresources.com.

Remember having the correct information under our belts is our best tool. So log on and listen to our future.

[Former_Member]

After the coffee break they came back to discuss sampling sizes for 3rd party testing. The presentor did not give any specifics though he did give a formula for achieving a prediction bound calculation to know if a particular production run will run the probability of any single item in that run to be out of compliancy. Part of the problem he said is that manufacturers will need to know that risk, an intial testing result, to be able to to determine how many samples to submit for testing per production run. He went too fast for me to jot down all the variables that come into play in selecting a number of items to send out for testing, but I don't think he is aware that the for micro businesses & crafters a production run may one be one single product made from a group of materially identical batch of raw components. The smallest production run he refered to is 200 products being made in a single production run which for many of us here is not attainable in a year of producting a single item much less just a single production run the uses raw materials that are the all the same batch and lot numbers of raw matertials.

Now for recap the gentleman I would love to meet in person and sit down to talk about COMPONENT TESTING. Mr Robert Franklin is an economist with the CPSC/CPSA, he went over the cost of testing and what it means to a children's product manufacturer, and he started his main discussion off by saying the more testing needed on a product the more the product will cost the manufacturer to produce and how an economical balance must be achieved between produce safty yet containing costs to be practical. Thenhe said there will be discussion, I'm assuming at the breakout panel discussions later today and tomorrow, about how a method of testing assurancy can be attain without final product 3rd party lab testing and the child's product still be compliant.
He brief touched on how it will be more exepensive for a small lot manufacturer to test than it would be for a large volume producer to test simple because of volume discounting that the lab may choose to provide to the lagrer company while charging set fees for each test to a small lot producer that may only be testing one sample of a particular product a year. He continued to point out that the labs are charging for testing on a component based pricing scale regardless of the fact that individual component testing prior to assembly of the final product is not currently part of the law.
Outlined next was the typical testing cost when inquires wer made to various 3rd party approved labs. The lower prices for testing are typically for volume discounted overseas lab quotes while the higher ones are for single product tests done by labs in the USA.
Lead ICP testing (testing for toal lead in a product's body or paint & suface coatings of exempt material based items) $20 to $100+ per component contained in the final product.
Phthalates (for testing of all 6 known "hazardous" phthalates) $100 to $350 per spot on final product that needs testing
Mechanical testing (includes some as basic as small parts to the other more complex CPSC statues such as breakability, tensile strength, possible entrapment spacing, sharp edges, etc.) $50 to $1500 based on the complexity of the product the number of types of tests on the product and soon to be applied new ASTM standards.
Using the examples from the 1st part part of the meeting he when on to point out how much just basic testing PER SAMPLE on those 4 products would be with an average testing price where all testing is preformed at a 3rd party lab:
Blocks $560
Xylonphone $850
Sleepwear $980
Crib $1350
Next he pointed out what the cost of testing alone would add to each production run would depend on how many items in the sample size for each time testing is needed & what the total production is. (IMHO his tone sounded very sympthetic towards the smaller manufacturers during this part of the discussion)
Blocks at $560 for one sample spread over 5000 unit production run = about $0.11 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $1.14 increase per item
Xylonphone at $850 for one sample spread over 5000 unit production run = about $0.17 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $1.70 increase per item
Sleepwear at $980 for one sample spread over 5000 unit production run = about $0.20 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $1.96 increase per item
Crib at $1350 for one sample spread over 5000 unit production run = about $.27 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $2.70 increase per item
He the n pointed out that even if a large producer made the same items and paid the same for testing how significantly lower the per item cost becomes.
Blocks at $560 for one sample spread over 500,000 unit production run = about <$0.01 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $0.01 increase per item
Xylonphone at $850 for one sample spread over 500,000 unit production run = about <$0.01 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $0.01 increase per item
Sleepwear at $980 for one sample spread over 500,000 unit production run = about <$0.01 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $0.02 increase per item
Crib at $1350 for one sample spread over 500,000 unit production run = about <$0.01 increase per item
if 10 samples are needed to be tested it = about $0.03 increase per item
He followed this portion of the discussion up by shoawing an example of how component testing can reduce the testing cost for the small manufacturer to near the large manufacturers cost increases. As example he used the bolcks and xylophone being made by the same company using the same lot bases for the materials that comprise each. The xylophone uses more components than the blocks so all materials that go towards making that item must be tested but since the raw materials in the block is no different than what was used in the xylophone the blocks do not have to be tested. He based this on the manufacturer of the final products being able to order components testing and using those results to issue their certificates, he was quick to point out that this type of testing is not currently allowed under the law but should be explored. He further pointed out that if the supplier of the raw materials was to do the testing would further drive down the cost of testing but that there is no way currently to require that all component manufacturers to follow the CPSIA standards. He also said that certaintests can not be ascertained by component testing.



They're back, boy I'm a slow typist.

[Former_Member]

The discussion panel on the webcast includes Rick Woldenberg and a gentleman from Consumer Reports as well as a representative from the Handmade Toy Alliance.
So even if your working if you can at least listen this maybe worth it.

[Former_Member]

I could just kiss Rick he just pointed out the difference between is the product safe and is the product in compliancy.

[Former_Member]

His examples are still a little scary to me if I understood correctly. When will I ever do a 5000 unit run of anything? I'm trying to log in to listen but getting errors :/. Thanks so much for continuing to update us!

[Former_Member]

If your having problem try switching between the Adobe and the Windows Media feeds at some points one is better than the other.

[DanielleSealsEvents]

Thanks for the updates ... I'm trying to log in when I can but I've had calls from clients so I have to mute it... thanks again!

[TheScarletWood]

Please email these officials with your concerns! Most government representatives consider every letter or email they receive representative of 10,000 people’s opinions!

[MerryBeeArt]

Can anyone post the places we need to go to send comments. I'm having major internet brain fart (I'm blaming pregnancy, lol.)

I'm not currently selling but this affects some future plans that I have for a business for myself and I'd really like to voice my opinion.

[Former_Member]

For comments specifically on topics and concerns brought up at the workshop the comment period will be open until Jan 11 2010 at http://www.Regulations.gov .

For general inquiries about any product that you may have including info about the CPSIA the CPSC contact page is here http://www.cpsc.gov/about/contact.html . The CPSIA doesn't tend to send a personilized answers but if enought persons question or comment on something they put it into one of their FAQs like at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/faqs.html, or as a publication or opinion under their "Learn More" section at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html .

[Former_Member]

Thanks for the updates ~ they are really helpful!

[Former_Member]

I'll do more updates later tonight ~ must take care of the family now.

Please even if you can't actively follow the web cast tomorrow - they are gauging interest by how many hits they are getting on the webcast. So even if all you can do is leave your home computer set to the active broadcast while you are at work it will show the CPSC how many people are interested in correct information in regards to testing under the CPSIA.

Also if anyone else can listen or even a couple of persons in shifts in for Friday's webcast they're very important since they will exepressly address 2 of these 3 topics

* Challenges for the small manufacturer & low volume production

* COMPONENT TESTING and material changes

* Protection against undue influence

My husband had to change his work schedule so all the errands we would run on Saturday we will possible have to run tomorrow so I don't know if I'll even be able to listen myself to the procedings.

[Former_Member]

Also if anyone else can listen or even a couple of persons in shifts in for Friday's webcast they're very important since they will exepressly address 2 of these 3 topics

Should be

Also if anyone else can listen in & MAKE UDATES ON IMPORT KEY POINTS or even a couple of persons in shifts in for Friday's webcast they're very important since they will exepressly address 2 of these 3 topics

[Former_Member]

Ok family feed, kitchen cleaned, some more holiday decorations put up ... time to go back to business~~~~~~~

For the afternoon sessions they webcast 2 of the 3 Breakout "panel" discussions. The one left out of the webcast was the panel on "Sampling and Statistical Considerations" believe it or not personally, based on the after session summary, I think this is the one I would of like to at least be able to listen to, even as a after meeting option since it seemed to deal with what amount of samples the government, the labs, and the manufacturers consider an acceptable # of products for testing samples per lot, production run, or product line for an accurate but cost effective. Especially since many of my items are a lot of 1 per batch of raw materials, a production run time of 1 afternoon to 1 week to product the entire product line, in a product line that comprises of 3 coordinated jewelry pieces (ie necklace, bracelet, earrings sold seperately but all matching). It also seems as part of that discussion there cropped up a point that the government's definitions of lot, batch, production run, simple random sample, etc. may not match individual definitions from different industries and may even further differ for particular types of production methods within certain product industry.

I'm going to break down the 2 sessions that were feeds for the afternoon's wedcast into 2 more seperate posts.
Also I would like to invite anyone else that was able to listen to chime in, I'm no stenographer so there may have been points that I missed while jotting down my longhand notes.

[Former_Member]

Not to sound terribly snarky, JDBM, but why are you super-concerned about all this? You don't even sell children's items. I see your comments/info over and over and over again on these threads.

[Former_Member]

I don't think up sound snarky, it's an intelligent question. As to why I'm so concerned my 75% of my annual profits usually come from sales at local craft fairs between mid Oct and early Dec when I normally do 8 shows. At these show guess what my number one looked at type of product is - stocking stuffers aimed at children. Mostly grandma and aunts looking to buy earring or trinket boxes that sell for $2 each or less for their precious little to cooridinate with their favorite jeans & top or room decor. It's these items that attract them to my tables and they are my lead in items to open conversations that can turn into a purchase of an precieved adult product for another relative or friend. But many times especially during this weak economy that these items have been what has justified my presence at these shows with the profits from those items alone paying for the table and travel expense. So regardless of what you see me sell or post in the forums on ETSY, it's just a little sample of me that does not represent my entire business life and the same can probably holds true for 99% of other sellers here where all you see are the items or remarks that they list/post.

[Former_Member]

Oh I meant to post a link to the products I'm talking about ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/jewelrydesignsbyme/?saved=1

[Former_Member]

Breakout session I : Reasonable Test Programs and Third-pary Testing

The purpose of these sessions seemed to have been more or less to get questions out on the table but not necessarily to provide an offical answer those questions. So don't take what is discussed here as possible changes to policy at the CPSIA.

The sound on my computer was going in and out during the first few minutes so all I was able to piece together is they started the discussion about the reasonable testing being different for different industries and that there's no one size fits most. The first cohesive portion that came though, and I apoligize if I get the speaker's name or affilation's wrong, was the rep from the Handmade Toy Alliance - Jill Chuckas of Crafty Baby, she brought up the fact that many of the crafters in the alliance will buy thier raw components at the local craft store and truely what assuances do they have if the package says lead free that the component is still lead free using the same testing protocol the CPSIA wants if the supply manufactures are not held to the same testing responsibiliy of as the final product manufacturer.
Rick Woldenberg then brought up the fact there is a difference between a safe product and a compliant
product. This lead to Bill Prudue, from the American Home Furnishings Allance, asking what is considered a single product. In his industry, furniture in general can be described as a wooden case good regardless if it's a bed, a nightstand, or a bookcase. He wanted to know if in a example of a entire bedroom set that is made from the same wood and receives the same stain is that grouping considered one product since he is able to describe the group as wooden case goods rather than refering to each article by it's common name. Since testing could be done on a single article from that grouping that would cover all the other pieces since any piece of the room full of furniture is materially the same as each other. (Just as an observation his tone and other mannerisms suggested he was talking about furniture strictly needing the lead testing and not the other mechanical testing required for children's furniture leading me to believe he was referencing general use not children specific furniture.) The answer was surprising a CPSC rep more or less replied that it was a situation where components testing if allowed would solve that problem since the wood is exempt and it's only the staining agent that would be of question.
Jill Chuckas then pointed out the must be a way to recognize other testing methods as being equal to or superior than the proscribe testing protocols that the CPSIA calls for. She cited that certain established companies with proven track records like Brio that make their items to the EU standard are pulling out of the US market because even though the EU testing requires even lower levels than the CPSIA, the tests are not conducted using the proscribed testing methodology of the CPSIA. That there needs to be a more consise way of presenting test method equivalence rather than on a case to case review asking for exemption from additional testing to prove the same results a different way. This segue into a gentleman I believe from the YKK corporation bringing up the point that his industry commonly uses EDX testing for periodic product review. He was then asked by the moderator what that testing is, and the answer was it is similar to the XRF guns but because it is done in a lab clean room with a more powerful form of X-ray the results are more accurate and tests for more sustances. A CPSC pointed out that if a company wished to utilise a different testing methodology they must submit some sort of testing method comparision that shows that the testing method proposed to be used will provide the same or a more accurate test results than the proscribed testing methods of the CPSIA. This lead to a brief discussion on how if a non-destructive test method could be found as an equivalent to the destructive testing that the CPSIA wants and how it would befit micro and small batch manufacturers almost as well as component testing.
The next part of the discussion was about design appraisal and hazard analysis, this portion of the talk went completely over my head so if anybody else has anything to say on this part please fill in the blank area.
David Pittle, from I think Comsumer Reports, brought up that no one on any of the panels is from the manufacturers that broke older less stringent laws that brought about this confusing piece of legislation. He asked basically is new regulation really needed when it was only a few companies causing the problem of not meeting previous regulations.
The discussion next turned to the subject of component teting both at the raw material supplier level and by the manufacturer after they recieved the supply but before they fashion it into the final product. The CPSC prefaced this portion by stating the this type of testing is not a current option but something that they want to know if the manufactures and testing labs see as possibility of wanting to be able to use to fill out their GCCs.
Rick woldenberg was quick to point out that retailers want more than justt the GCCs they wnat copies of the actual testing reports and how would that be solve if component testing is used. He asked if the CPSC could make the importance of the GCC stronger that retailers would only require that and could not cancel an order based on a manfacturer being willing to share the actual labs tests results. I missed the follow up on that.
The next point that was brought up is that if a raw supplier does do the testing to the CPSIA standard that the GCCs should be able to be handed down the supply line the same way that is in place for assurances on fabric flammability. Following in that vein Bill Prudue asked what control factor does a manfacturer that assembles components from multiple sources into their final product vs. a extruding manufacturer that makes their own components. What sense of assurances does the assembling manufacturer have that the component testing if done by the raw supplier is to the CPSIA protocols for that typr of testing when the supplier needs not be beholden to the CPSIA regulations. Someone else replied that there should be some sort of chain of custody from the labs all the way to the retailer.
Next the rep from YKK brought up the fact that certain raw supplies are next to impossible to track because of their size or function. He wanted to know how trackability of such conponents would be possible. As well as how to prevent counterfits of products or raw materials with an existing certification from being passed off as a compliant item. He also wanted to know who would ultimately be responsible for if that components passes at the suppliers production level but later fails when a spot check is done further up the line.

I don't think I'll be able to get to the Thursday's second session to night. But I will try 1st thing in the morning.

[bobbinalong]

Regardless if you sell children's items, this meeting and this topic is important. If you ever purchase an item for a child, be it a niece, nephew, grandchild, neighbor, or to donate to a charity, the results of this meeting may, down the road, cause the cost of children's items to sky-rocket.