In case you haven't heard, the company who is the very reason for the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act has essentially been exempted from the third party testing. It leaves most of us who are desperately struggling to comply with this unwieldy law shaking our heads in despair.
Feel free to read up on this issue, there are many, many articles about it. Here are a select few:
Handmade Toy Alliance Press Release
Chicago Tribune
BuggaLove is still threatened with going out of business due to the third party testing issue come February 2010. Not because I don't want to have my products tested and certainly not because they won't pass the lead limits, but because the costs associated with this testing is astronomical. See my previous blog series: The Cost of Compliance with CPSIA - Volume 2.
Showing posts with label CPSC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPSC. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
CPSIA Labeling Guidance Issued
Today, two very important documents were released by the CPSC regarding CPSIA.
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot09/tracklabelpolicy.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/sect103policy.pdf
As usual, I'm going to try to interpret these documents into lay terms. Please note, as always, this is only MY interpretation and I am not a lawyer. I'm just a person running a business selling children's products that is trying to read the law and comply to the best of my ability. See my first post on labeling requirements here: http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/06/labeling-requirements-for-cpsia.html
This guidance was much needed and for the micro-manufacturer/crafter I beleive it is very helpful to assist in determining the labeling requirements set forth in the CPSIA. I'm going to start with the policy itself.
Why do there need to be labels?
To establish a means for identifying the source of children’s products in order to improve the safety of such products. Discussing Section 103, the Report from the House Energy and Commerce Committee noted that it intended the Section to “aid in determining the origin of the product and the cause of recall”. If a manufacturer can identify the location, date of production, and such individualized information as the batch or run number, it can more readily isolate products that it or others may discover present a safety concern. Similarly, if a consumer can identify the manufacturer (or private labeler), location and date the product was made, and any more specific identifying information, he can more easily determine whether a product in the home is the subject of a safety recall. (pgs. 1-2)
What kind of a label must be used?
The policy is that it must be a permanent label. But it is specifically stated that "The statutory provision does not require a uniform one-size-fits-all system." That means there isn't a specific material, format, information that must be provided on the label. It is going to depend on YOUR type of business and your specific product. "At this point, the Commission is not imposing any such uniform requirements, but expects that manufacturers will use their best judgment to develop markings that best suit their business and product." (pg. 2)
When do I have to start labeling?
The labeling requirement begins for products manufactured on or after August 14, 2009. This is not a retroactive requirement, you don't have to pull the products you made before this date.
What must be labeled?
All children's products. Here is my blog on "What are Children's Products" http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-are-childrens-products.html
What does my label have to look like?
"Each manufacturer is ultimately responsible for making a reasonable judgment about what information can be marked on their product and packaging, given the character and type of their product and packaging, and what required information can be ascertainable, given the character and type of their business." (pg. 3)
Do I have to label my packaging?
"A mark on disposable packaging need only be permanent to the extent it is durable enough to reach the consumer. As such, an adhesive label on a piece of disposable packaging might be sufficient for a packaging mark. Further, if a mark is visible on the product through disposable packaging, there is no need for the mark to be on the packaging." (pg. 4)
Can I label ONLY my packaging and not the product itself?
"Some circumstances where the Commission considers that marking the product itself might not be practicable include (pgs 4-5):
(1) If a product is too small to be marked...
(2) If a toy is meant to be stored in a box or other packaging, such as games with boards
and small game pieces. There, the board and the box should be marked, but the
individual game pieces do not need to be. The Commission believes that this principle would similarly apply to arts and crafts kits for children. Again, only the storage box and one integral part of the kit needs to marked and not every item in the crafting kit. Where a number of small products such as marbles, buttons, beads, etc. are packaged together, the Commission believes that marking the package would be sufficient. For products that are meant to stay with or be contained in their original packaging, the packaging would be considered part of the “product.”
(3) If a product is sold through a bulk vending machine, the item does not need to be individually marked but the package or carton in which such products are shipped to the retailer should be marked.
(4) If a physical mark would weaken or damage the product or impair its utility.
(5) If a product surface would be impossible to mark permanently such as those made of elastics, beads, small pieces of fabric (such as jewelry, hair ornaments, etc.), or craft items like pipe stems, or natural rocks.
(6) If the aesthetics of the product would be ruined by a mark and a mark cannot be placed in an accessible but inconspicuous location.
What information is supposed to go on my label?
Manufacturer name, date, and location. If your product takes several days to make, you use the date that you finish/package your item. Location is city, state, and country. Small manufacturers/crafters do NOT need to include batch/lot or run numbers as these likely do not apply. "Section 103(a) does not require codes, formats or numbering systems. A manufacturer may choose to employ a code or numbering system provided the required information remains ascertainable by the consumer." (pg.s 4-6)
The above is the most important information for me in my situation. I recommend reading the entire 6 pg. policy document as there many be information more pertinent that I have not included in this summary. Please note, these are not the official FAQs from the CPSC. They are simply MY summary of the policy. You can find the official FAQs here: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/103faq.html#103q8
As for the voting member statements, here are the best quotes I found:
"...the Commission does not intend to penalize manufacturers for inadvertant violations of the statute when they have made a good faith effort in attempting to comply with the tracking label requirements." --Inez Tenenbaum
"...the Commission agrees that small volume manufacturers or crafters need not create a labeling system incorporating the use of lot, batch, or run numbers so long as such manufacturers can keep adequate records of the components used in their products"-- Inez Tenenbaum
"The Commission will shortly be posting answers to additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the marking required by this section." --Thomas Moore
"It is important to note that the guidance issued today probably will not be the last word on this important issue. We realize that all the issues presented by Section 103(a) cannot be addressed by this document...I emphasize that the agency initially will be looking for 'good faith' compliance in the context of a recall." -- Nancy Nord
I hope you've found this blog post helpful in keeping abreast of the latest in CPSIA news. Hope you're all having a good day and good luck in implementing this provision! I know that this guidance has now provided me with enough information to move forward with labeling ideas for my products.
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ballot/ballot09/tracklabelpolicy.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/sect103policy.pdf
As usual, I'm going to try to interpret these documents into lay terms. Please note, as always, this is only MY interpretation and I am not a lawyer. I'm just a person running a business selling children's products that is trying to read the law and comply to the best of my ability. See my first post on labeling requirements here: http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/06/labeling-requirements-for-cpsia.html
This guidance was much needed and for the micro-manufacturer/crafter I beleive it is very helpful to assist in determining the labeling requirements set forth in the CPSIA. I'm going to start with the policy itself.
Why do there need to be labels?
To establish a means for identifying the source of children’s products in order to improve the safety of such products. Discussing Section 103, the Report from the House Energy and Commerce Committee noted that it intended the Section to “aid in determining the origin of the product and the cause of recall”. If a manufacturer can identify the location, date of production, and such individualized information as the batch or run number, it can more readily isolate products that it or others may discover present a safety concern. Similarly, if a consumer can identify the manufacturer (or private labeler), location and date the product was made, and any more specific identifying information, he can more easily determine whether a product in the home is the subject of a safety recall. (pgs. 1-2)
What kind of a label must be used?
The policy is that it must be a permanent label. But it is specifically stated that "The statutory provision does not require a uniform one-size-fits-all system." That means there isn't a specific material, format, information that must be provided on the label. It is going to depend on YOUR type of business and your specific product. "At this point, the Commission is not imposing any such uniform requirements, but expects that manufacturers will use their best judgment to develop markings that best suit their business and product." (pg. 2)
When do I have to start labeling?
The labeling requirement begins for products manufactured on or after August 14, 2009. This is not a retroactive requirement, you don't have to pull the products you made before this date.
What must be labeled?
All children's products. Here is my blog on "What are Children's Products" http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-are-childrens-products.html
What does my label have to look like?
"Each manufacturer is ultimately responsible for making a reasonable judgment about what information can be marked on their product and packaging, given the character and type of their product and packaging, and what required information can be ascertainable, given the character and type of their business." (pg. 3)
Do I have to label my packaging?
"A mark on disposable packaging need only be permanent to the extent it is durable enough to reach the consumer. As such, an adhesive label on a piece of disposable packaging might be sufficient for a packaging mark. Further, if a mark is visible on the product through disposable packaging, there is no need for the mark to be on the packaging." (pg. 4)
Can I label ONLY my packaging and not the product itself?
"Some circumstances where the Commission considers that marking the product itself might not be practicable include (pgs 4-5):
(1) If a product is too small to be marked...
(2) If a toy is meant to be stored in a box or other packaging, such as games with boards
and small game pieces. There, the board and the box should be marked, but the
individual game pieces do not need to be. The Commission believes that this principle would similarly apply to arts and crafts kits for children. Again, only the storage box and one integral part of the kit needs to marked and not every item in the crafting kit. Where a number of small products such as marbles, buttons, beads, etc. are packaged together, the Commission believes that marking the package would be sufficient. For products that are meant to stay with or be contained in their original packaging, the packaging would be considered part of the “product.”
(3) If a product is sold through a bulk vending machine, the item does not need to be individually marked but the package or carton in which such products are shipped to the retailer should be marked.
(4) If a physical mark would weaken or damage the product or impair its utility.
(5) If a product surface would be impossible to mark permanently such as those made of elastics, beads, small pieces of fabric (such as jewelry, hair ornaments, etc.), or craft items like pipe stems, or natural rocks.
(6) If the aesthetics of the product would be ruined by a mark and a mark cannot be placed in an accessible but inconspicuous location.
What information is supposed to go on my label?
Manufacturer name, date, and location. If your product takes several days to make, you use the date that you finish/package your item. Location is city, state, and country. Small manufacturers/crafters do NOT need to include batch/lot or run numbers as these likely do not apply. "Section 103(a) does not require codes, formats or numbering systems. A manufacturer may choose to employ a code or numbering system provided the required information remains ascertainable by the consumer." (pg.s 4-6)
The above is the most important information for me in my situation. I recommend reading the entire 6 pg. policy document as there many be information more pertinent that I have not included in this summary. Please note, these are not the official FAQs from the CPSC. They are simply MY summary of the policy. You can find the official FAQs here: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/103faq.html#103q8
As for the voting member statements, here are the best quotes I found:
"...the Commission does not intend to penalize manufacturers for inadvertant violations of the statute when they have made a good faith effort in attempting to comply with the tracking label requirements." --Inez Tenenbaum
"...the Commission agrees that small volume manufacturers or crafters need not create a labeling system incorporating the use of lot, batch, or run numbers so long as such manufacturers can keep adequate records of the components used in their products"-- Inez Tenenbaum
"The Commission will shortly be posting answers to additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the marking required by this section." --Thomas Moore
"It is important to note that the guidance issued today probably will not be the last word on this important issue. We realize that all the issues presented by Section 103(a) cannot be addressed by this document...I emphasize that the agency initially will be looking for 'good faith' compliance in the context of a recall." -- Nancy Nord
I hope you've found this blog post helpful in keeping abreast of the latest in CPSIA news. Hope you're all having a good day and good luck in implementing this provision! I know that this guidance has now provided me with enough information to move forward with labeling ideas for my products.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
CPSIA Webinar
On July 1, I sat in on a Webinar that had a good bit of information about CPSIA. I received the link to the webinar while I was on vacation. I'm sorry for the delay in presenting it but without further ado:
https://sgsevents.webex.com/sgsevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=EC&rID=1428737&rKey=5adc482f6420ebff
Don't want to listen for an hour? Let me sum it up for you:
Listen to the introduction. It's important to know WHO you are listening to in order for you to gauge for yourself if you feel these folks are reliable. Personally, I think they are. The first part of the presentation is definitely worth listening to. It provides good information about the labeling requirements that are impending. The introduction and labeling requirement presentation is the first 12.5 minutes of the presentation.
Second part of the presentation deals with composite testing. Very interesting I found it relevant to me. It talks about how testing happens in addition to other things. This is the next 27 minutes (give or take) of the presentation. Toward the end of this section of the presention I found there was a lot of information not relevant to me.
The next part of the presentation deals with what we can expect in terms of enforcement. It's all speculation. And while I found it interesting and enjoyed the perspectives given, it's really not possible to know. So, if you're short on time, this might be a section to skip. This section runs about 10 minutes.
The next part of the presentation deals with BPA. As a parent, I found this interesting given all the information about BPA in bottles and other baby products over the past 3 years that has come out but it is not relevant to my business. So if you are listening to this purely for your business, you might be able to skip this section.
There was a brief question and answer period at the end (starting at about 46 minutes). I would listen to that just for your own general knowledge. Some of the questions are great and I found some of them relevant to me.
https://sgsevents.webex.com/sgsevents/lsr.php?AT=pb&SP=EC&rID=1428737&rKey=5adc482f6420ebff
Don't want to listen for an hour? Let me sum it up for you:
Listen to the introduction. It's important to know WHO you are listening to in order for you to gauge for yourself if you feel these folks are reliable. Personally, I think they are. The first part of the presentation is definitely worth listening to. It provides good information about the labeling requirements that are impending. The introduction and labeling requirement presentation is the first 12.5 minutes of the presentation.
Second part of the presentation deals with composite testing. Very interesting I found it relevant to me. It talks about how testing happens in addition to other things. This is the next 27 minutes (give or take) of the presentation. Toward the end of this section of the presention I found there was a lot of information not relevant to me.
The next part of the presentation deals with what we can expect in terms of enforcement. It's all speculation. And while I found it interesting and enjoyed the perspectives given, it's really not possible to know. So, if you're short on time, this might be a section to skip. This section runs about 10 minutes.
The next part of the presentation deals with BPA. As a parent, I found this interesting given all the information about BPA in bottles and other baby products over the past 3 years that has come out but it is not relevant to my business. So if you are listening to this purely for your business, you might be able to skip this section.
There was a brief question and answer period at the end (starting at about 46 minutes). I would listen to that just for your own general knowledge. Some of the questions are great and I found some of them relevant to me.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Labeling Requirements for CPSIA
As the labeling requirement deadline approaches in August, many children’s product makers have been questioning whether or not they have to label their product. And many are confusing the testing issue with the labeling issue. I hope this will clarify a few points.
Does my product have to be labeled?
Your children’s product must be labeled. See my blog post on What Are Children’s Products here. Labeling issues and testing issues are separate. The label does not indicate that the product has been tested using the guidelines set forth by the CPSC in the CPSIA. The label is essentially a tracking device so that the consumer can identify where the product came from and when appropriate, the CPSC can issue recalls for those products.
Please note, that textiles have additional requirements for labeling. These requirements have been in place for years under the Textile and Wool Acts, long before CPSIA. Here is a link to the FTC website regarding labeling for textiles: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/textile/bus21.shtm
A good resource regarding textiles is the Fashion Incubator. Good information regarding labeling requirements for garments can be found there.
Can I attach a hang tag as a label?
No, permanent labels are required under CPSIA. Unfortunately, a sticker or hangtag is not acceptable.
What goes on my label?
According to what the CPSC has set forth currently, “The tracking label must contain certain basic information, including the source of the product, the date of manufacture and more detailed information on the manufacturing process such as a batch or run number. The scope of this provision is quite broad in that it applies to all children’s products, including, but not limited to, items such as clothing or shoes not just toys and other regulated products. Congress modified the requirement for tracking labels with the phrase “to the extent practicable” recognizing that it may not be practical for permanent distinguishing marks to be printed on small toys and other small products that are manufactured and shipped without individual packaging.”
The quoted information comes directly from the CPSC website. More specific labeling guidelines have not yet been issued by the CPSC. Though I hope they are to come as they are sorely needed. Here is the FAQ from the CPSC on tracking labels: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/faq.html#sect103
Are labeling requirements retroactive?
No. As it stands right now, you only have to label your products manufactured on or after August 14, 2009. I don’t take much comfort in this due to what was seen previously when the phthalate testing deadline came to pass. Previously it was also ruled that phthalate testing would not be retroactive. In the eleventh hour, this ruling was overturned in court. So I continue to remind myself that although it is not retro-active at this time, this may change.
Does my product have to be labeled?
Your children’s product must be labeled. See my blog post on What Are Children’s Products here. Labeling issues and testing issues are separate. The label does not indicate that the product has been tested using the guidelines set forth by the CPSC in the CPSIA. The label is essentially a tracking device so that the consumer can identify where the product came from and when appropriate, the CPSC can issue recalls for those products.
Please note, that textiles have additional requirements for labeling. These requirements have been in place for years under the Textile and Wool Acts, long before CPSIA. Here is a link to the FTC website regarding labeling for textiles: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/textile/bus21.shtm
A good resource regarding textiles is the Fashion Incubator. Good information regarding labeling requirements for garments can be found there.
Can I attach a hang tag as a label?
No, permanent labels are required under CPSIA. Unfortunately, a sticker or hangtag is not acceptable.
What goes on my label?
According to what the CPSC has set forth currently, “The tracking label must contain certain basic information, including the source of the product, the date of manufacture and more detailed information on the manufacturing process such as a batch or run number. The scope of this provision is quite broad in that it applies to all children’s products, including, but not limited to, items such as clothing or shoes not just toys and other regulated products. Congress modified the requirement for tracking labels with the phrase “to the extent practicable” recognizing that it may not be practical for permanent distinguishing marks to be printed on small toys and other small products that are manufactured and shipped without individual packaging.”
The quoted information comes directly from the CPSC website. More specific labeling guidelines have not yet been issued by the CPSC. Though I hope they are to come as they are sorely needed. Here is the FAQ from the CPSC on tracking labels: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/faq.html#sect103
Are labeling requirements retroactive?
No. As it stands right now, you only have to label your products manufactured on or after August 14, 2009. I don’t take much comfort in this due to what was seen previously when the phthalate testing deadline came to pass. Previously it was also ruled that phthalate testing would not be retroactive. In the eleventh hour, this ruling was overturned in court. So I continue to remind myself that although it is not retro-active at this time, this may change.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
CPSC releases guidance for Crafters
Well, it's about time! Never mind the fact that the law goes into affect TODAY. I guess we should be happy that it's better late than never.
Here's a link to the document itself. Read it. Seriously. I know I'm gonna break it down a little for you, but you really should read it yourself. http://cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/cpsiasbguide.html
Questions 1 and 2: Who is a manufacturer? And Am I Affected?
Please read my previous blog post for these answers.
Question 3: What is a children's product?
Again, I addressed this several weeks ago, read my blog on it.
Question 4: Do all children's products require testing? What requirements do I need to meet?
There is an easy to read table on pg. 4 of their document. Review it carefully. At the bottom of pg. 4 there is reference to the Stay of Enforcement in terms of the GCC (general conformity certificate) requirement. You can read more about GCCs here on my blog
Question 5: For testing and certification of children’s products that are required now (for example, lead paint and small parts), what do I need to do?
It states that XRF testing can be used for total lead content and lead paint. Previously I understood that lead paint was required to undergo the mandatory 3rd party testing. The statement isn't all that clear, it can be used but not as a replacement?
Here's the actual statement, "For lead paint and lead content, an X‐Ray Fluorescence (XRF) machine (used by a trained, qualified person) is a possible method to determine if a component has lead, but note that XRF is not a replacement for a third–party test. " (pg.5)
You can note my choice of trained, qualified person is the company Essco Safety Check, you can see my experience with them in this blog post.
Question 6: If I make multiple units of the same thing, do I have to have every single product tested?
Simple answer: No. But if you change your design or materials, then maybe. This is not good news for the OOAK folks. More clarification may be needed on this point from the CPSC for some. But based on my reading, I beleive I have a good grasp of the spirit and intention of this statement and feel that I can appropriately apply it to my items.
Question 7: When testing and certification are not yet required (for example, lead content and phthalates), what do I need to do?
Again, reference is made to the Stay of Enforcement indicating testing and certification are not necessary until 2/10/10. But you are encouraged to "get to know your product". This can include learning about your components through your suppliers (MSDS sheets) and XRF testing.
Question 8: Are there exemptions/exclusions to meeting the lead content limits?
They're working on it. These are the natural materials exemptions that are not yet finalized but have been on the table for some time now.
-Precious gemstones: diamond, ruby, sapphire or emeralds
-Semiprecious stones provided that the mineral or material is not based on lead and is not associated with any mineral based on ead
-Natural or cultured pearls
-Wood
-Other natural materials including coral, amber, feathers, fur, and untreated leather
-Surgical steel
-Gold, of at least 10 karats
-Silver, at least 925/1000 pure
-Platinum, palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium, and ruthenium
-Yarn, dyed or undyed
-Dyed or undyed textiles (cotton, wool, hemp, nylon, etc.), including children’s fabric products, such as baby blankets, and non‐metallic thread and trim. This does not include products that have rhinestones or other ornaments that may contain lead or that have fasteners with possble lead content (such as buttons, metal snaps, zippers or grommets).
-Children’s books printed after 1985 that are conventionally printed and intended to be read, as opposed to used for play
-Certain educational materials, such as chemistry sets
Question 9: What do I do if I learn that one of the products I make or sell does not comply with the lead limits, phthalate limits or toy standards?
Tell the CPSC immediately.
Questions 10-12: Phthalates
I have avoided phthalates on my blog for the most part. And this one won't be any different. I'll be doing a blog post on phthalates in the near future, so I'm not going to address it now.
Question 13: Donations
They're just like everything else. If you are using one of the exempted materials, you don't have to test it. If you're not, you do.
Questions 14-17: Resale and Vintage
Resale has gotten a LOT of attention. This document is consistant with the guidance provided previously as well as reiterating the exemption from testing and certification for resale shops.
Questions 18-19: Bikes and Enforcement stuff
I'm skipping these questions too, they're clear enough I think.
One really important thing, I've been seeing a few comments saying, "but they didn't address this or that". There is simply no way they can address every possible product on the planet individually. That is an unreasonable expectation. You will have to use your own common sense and deductive reasoning to apply these guidelines to your business and to your product lines. With some exception, I beleive there is enough information here about the testing for most people to be able to determine what is expected of them at this point.
We should all still be working toward changes to the law. Next year on this date, many people will still be forced otu of business if the testing requirements are not amended.
Here's a link to the document itself. Read it. Seriously. I know I'm gonna break it down a little for you, but you really should read it yourself. http://cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/smbus/cpsiasbguide.html
Questions 1 and 2: Who is a manufacturer? And Am I Affected?
Please read my previous blog post for these answers.
Question 3: What is a children's product?
Again, I addressed this several weeks ago, read my blog on it.
Question 4: Do all children's products require testing? What requirements do I need to meet?
There is an easy to read table on pg. 4 of their document. Review it carefully. At the bottom of pg. 4 there is reference to the Stay of Enforcement in terms of the GCC (general conformity certificate) requirement. You can read more about GCCs here on my blog
Question 5: For testing and certification of children’s products that are required now (for example, lead paint and small parts), what do I need to do?
It states that XRF testing can be used for total lead content and lead paint. Previously I understood that lead paint was required to undergo the mandatory 3rd party testing. The statement isn't all that clear, it can be used but not as a replacement?
Here's the actual statement, "For lead paint and lead content, an X‐Ray Fluorescence (XRF) machine (used by a trained, qualified person) is a possible method to determine if a component has lead, but note that XRF is not a replacement for a third–party test. " (pg.5)
You can note my choice of trained, qualified person is the company Essco Safety Check, you can see my experience with them in this blog post.
Question 6: If I make multiple units of the same thing, do I have to have every single product tested?
Simple answer: No. But if you change your design or materials, then maybe. This is not good news for the OOAK folks. More clarification may be needed on this point from the CPSC for some. But based on my reading, I beleive I have a good grasp of the spirit and intention of this statement and feel that I can appropriately apply it to my items.
Question 7: When testing and certification are not yet required (for example, lead content and phthalates), what do I need to do?
Again, reference is made to the Stay of Enforcement indicating testing and certification are not necessary until 2/10/10. But you are encouraged to "get to know your product". This can include learning about your components through your suppliers (MSDS sheets) and XRF testing.
Question 8: Are there exemptions/exclusions to meeting the lead content limits?
They're working on it. These are the natural materials exemptions that are not yet finalized but have been on the table for some time now.
-Precious gemstones: diamond, ruby, sapphire or emeralds
-Semiprecious stones provided that the mineral or material is not based on lead and is not associated with any mineral based on ead
-Natural or cultured pearls
-Wood
-Other natural materials including coral, amber, feathers, fur, and untreated leather
-Surgical steel
-Gold, of at least 10 karats
-Silver, at least 925/1000 pure
-Platinum, palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium, and ruthenium
-Yarn, dyed or undyed
-Dyed or undyed textiles (cotton, wool, hemp, nylon, etc.), including children’s fabric products, such as baby blankets, and non‐metallic thread and trim. This does not include products that have rhinestones or other ornaments that may contain lead or that have fasteners with possble lead content (such as buttons, metal snaps, zippers or grommets).
-Children’s books printed after 1985 that are conventionally printed and intended to be read, as opposed to used for play
-Certain educational materials, such as chemistry sets
Question 9: What do I do if I learn that one of the products I make or sell does not comply with the lead limits, phthalate limits or toy standards?
Tell the CPSC immediately.
Questions 10-12: Phthalates
I have avoided phthalates on my blog for the most part. And this one won't be any different. I'll be doing a blog post on phthalates in the near future, so I'm not going to address it now.
Question 13: Donations
They're just like everything else. If you are using one of the exempted materials, you don't have to test it. If you're not, you do.
Questions 14-17: Resale and Vintage
Resale has gotten a LOT of attention. This document is consistant with the guidance provided previously as well as reiterating the exemption from testing and certification for resale shops.
Questions 18-19: Bikes and Enforcement stuff
I'm skipping these questions too, they're clear enough I think.
One really important thing, I've been seeing a few comments saying, "but they didn't address this or that". There is simply no way they can address every possible product on the planet individually. That is an unreasonable expectation. You will have to use your own common sense and deductive reasoning to apply these guidelines to your business and to your product lines. With some exception, I beleive there is enough information here about the testing for most people to be able to determine what is expected of them at this point.
We should all still be working toward changes to the law. Next year on this date, many people will still be forced otu of business if the testing requirements are not amended.
If you read my blog today, you qualify for a discount on any pre-made mobile in my Etsy Shop. In honor of this February 10, 2009, a significant date in CPSIA history, you can get 20% off the purchase price (not including shipping) on any mobile that is ready to be shipped. Just write "I Read the BuggaBlog" in the "message to seller" and I will refund your 20% promptly through Paypal. Offer only good on February 10th, 2009.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
We're in the Fire Swamp
This is the best description of the stay I’ve seen. And it should answer many of the questions people have about it.
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=5267
There are people working to overturn the stay and remove Nancy Nord from her position at the Comission. Many of these are consumer groups, but the Energy and Commerce Committee also is working toward this goal. Letters between Energy and Commerce Committee chairs and Commission officials are flying. I am not sure the stay will actually stand. A letter was written from the Committee to President Obama, and from reading that letter I certainly hope that is not the only point of view President Obama hears. I hope that the promises made by Change.org are fulfilled to give the president a more balanced view of the issues and consequences of CPSIA. Or that he seeks some other perspective besides the Committee’s in order to make decisions.
We are still in the middle of the Fire Swamp. We’re learning a lot about the terrors of the Fire Swamp and we have definite confirmation that the R.O.U.S.s (Rodents of Unusual Size) exist.
What you could be doing to help:
Contact your Senators and ask them to support the DeMint bill
Work on securing information about your supplies and/or move forward with a reasonable testing program in case the stay is overturned
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=5267
There are people working to overturn the stay and remove Nancy Nord from her position at the Comission. Many of these are consumer groups, but the Energy and Commerce Committee also is working toward this goal. Letters between Energy and Commerce Committee chairs and Commission officials are flying. I am not sure the stay will actually stand. A letter was written from the Committee to President Obama, and from reading that letter I certainly hope that is not the only point of view President Obama hears. I hope that the promises made by Change.org are fulfilled to give the president a more balanced view of the issues and consequences of CPSIA. Or that he seeks some other perspective besides the Committee’s in order to make decisions.
We are still in the middle of the Fire Swamp. We’re learning a lot about the terrors of the Fire Swamp and we have definite confirmation that the R.O.U.S.s (Rodents of Unusual Size) exist.
What you could be doing to help:
Contact your Senators and ask them to support the DeMint bill
Work on securing information about your supplies and/or move forward with a reasonable testing program in case the stay is overturned
Monday, January 26, 2009
CPSIA FAQs - Volume 1
This is a call for questions: Please leave your question about CPSIA in the comments or send them via email to me at buggalove@gmail.com. I will be researching the answers and devoting posts to them. Some questions will be easier to answer than others. And for certain questions, I won’t be able to answer them at all becuase I'm not a lawyer, legislator, or compliance officer with the CPSC. But many people have been looking for a place to direct family and friends with simple language and answers to common questions. I hope to provide that.
What is the CPSIA?
CPSIA stands for the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. It lowers lead limits and details restrictions and bans on phthalates for children’s products. It was passed by Congress in August 2008 and signed into law by the President.
Who does the CPSIA affect?
Everyone. If you buy or sell any child’s product. This includes thrift stores, libraries, donations, small crafters, large businesses, etc. It is broad, sweeping legislation.
Who’s going to enforce this?
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for enforcement of the law.
How does this affect resale (Good Will, consignment shops, etc.)?
All items sold retail OR resale for children are mandated to comply with the new lead limits. So, children’s items at thrift stores and consignment shops are included.
Why does Snopes say this is an urban legend?
Because the CPSC released a statement detailing the following: “The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.”
Read that closely, they are not required to CERTIFY those products meet the lead limits. However, the statement a little further down reads: “… resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.”
So a seller of used goods doesn’t have to have a GCC (general conformity certificate) and they don’t’ need to do the lead testing, but they still have to comply with the new lead limits. Here is more on this subject.
http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-mommy-blogger.html
Source: http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
Who is a manufacturer?
Anyone who manufactures, produces, or assembles a children’s product is a manufacturer. That is a definition from the CPSC. Please see my blog post for more detail: http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/am-i-really-manufacturer.html
What is considered a children’s product?
I’m going to give you the short answer here: A consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. But there are many things that are questionable in terms of whether or not they fall into the cateogry of children's product.
Please see my blog post for more detail:
http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-are-childrens-products.html
Please submit other questions! And look back in the BuggaBlog Archives for other important topics related to the CPSIA!
What is the CPSIA?
CPSIA stands for the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. It lowers lead limits and details restrictions and bans on phthalates for children’s products. It was passed by Congress in August 2008 and signed into law by the President.
Who does the CPSIA affect?
Everyone. If you buy or sell any child’s product. This includes thrift stores, libraries, donations, small crafters, large businesses, etc. It is broad, sweeping legislation.
Who’s going to enforce this?
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for enforcement of the law.
How does this affect resale (Good Will, consignment shops, etc.)?
All items sold retail OR resale for children are mandated to comply with the new lead limits. So, children’s items at thrift stores and consignment shops are included.
Why does Snopes say this is an urban legend?
Because the CPSC released a statement detailing the following: “The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.”
Read that closely, they are not required to CERTIFY those products meet the lead limits. However, the statement a little further down reads: “… resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.”
So a seller of used goods doesn’t have to have a GCC (general conformity certificate) and they don’t’ need to do the lead testing, but they still have to comply with the new lead limits. Here is more on this subject.
http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-mommy-blogger.html
Source: http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
Who is a manufacturer?
Anyone who manufactures, produces, or assembles a children’s product is a manufacturer. That is a definition from the CPSC. Please see my blog post for more detail: http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/am-i-really-manufacturer.html
What is considered a children’s product?
I’m going to give you the short answer here: A consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger. But there are many things that are questionable in terms of whether or not they fall into the cateogry of children's product.
Please see my blog post for more detail:
http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-are-childrens-products.html
Please submit other questions! And look back in the BuggaBlog Archives for other important topics related to the CPSIA!
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Cost of Compliance with CPSIA - Volume 2
I know you were all expecting XRF Testing – Volume 2 today, and it is coming. I may be putting out another blog tonite or tomorrow. At the latest I expect you’ll have it Monday. But in the meantime, I got a little curious about all the quotes for the digestive lead testing that I was hearing. So I checked the CPSC website for accredited labs and I found one in Pennsylvania (because that’s the one closest to me) that I decided to call.
If you’re curious as to where to get the CPSC accredited lab list, here it is: http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/labapplist.aspx
Here’s the bottom line for digestive lead testing as it applies to me. I'm only doing the costs for my BuggaMobiles and my BuggApparel. Each component of my item will cost $60:
My line of BuggApparel, I specialize in designs on creepers:
Snaps - $60
Fabric - $60
Thread - $60
Labels - $120
Designs - $3000
Cost of Testing - $3300
Cost of Product to be tested - $300
Total cost to maintain my line of Creepers: $3800
And each time I ran out of any of my supplies, I would need to have the new batch of garments retested. So based on 2008 sales, this testing would net me a loss of $500-$1000 on my line of BuggApparel in 2009. I would have to price myself out of the market just to break even. I would potentially consider reducing my offerings in terms of designs, but that really stunts my creative process. I love coming up with new ideas for new designs. Additionally it would prohibit me from doing custom designs, which is a significant portion of my business.
Let’s talk about my mobiles. I have 13 different styles, 3 sizes, 20+ paint colors, 16 design schemes with over 100+ designs within them. For the purposes of this I have estimated some things or lowered my quantities, so the actual cost would be slightly higher than what this reflects.
BuggaMobiles:
Hoop - $180
Mobile Pieces – $6000
Fishing Line - $60
Paint - $1200
Designs - $6000
Cost of Testing – $13440
Cost of Product to be tested - $300
Total cost to maintain my BuggaMobiles: $13740
For those who are interested in which lab this was:
Chemical Solutions
Mechanicsburg, PA
http://www.chemicalsolutionsltd.com
(717)697-7536
And again, each time I run out of any component from the initial batch, I would need to retest those components. There is no reasonable way to absorb $13740 into my costs. That cost exceeds my total spending in all of 2007 AND 2008. I suppose I could look to limit my offerings significantly in order to bring costs down but part of the beauty of my work is that each one is unique, strung individually, made to order based on the colors my client wants, etc. That aspect, the creative aspect of my work, and the aspect I love most, would be destroyed.
So, I’m simply confirming what we all know to be true, the digestive testing for micro-manufacturers is simply prohibitive financially, among other things. On a positive note, this testing facility understood that I am a one-woman operation running a home-based business and was more than willing to do business with me. Please note this testing is for LEAD ONLY. Phthalate testing is not done by the lab I contacted. Based on these numbers, my business will not survive the next wave of deadlines in August 2009. BuggaLove has been given 8 months to live.
If you’re curious as to where to get the CPSC accredited lab list, here it is: http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/labapplist.aspx
Here’s the bottom line for digestive lead testing as it applies to me. I'm only doing the costs for my BuggaMobiles and my BuggApparel. Each component of my item will cost $60:
My line of BuggApparel, I specialize in designs on creepers:
Snaps - $60
Fabric - $60
Thread - $60
Labels - $120
Designs - $3000
Cost of Testing - $3300
Cost of Product to be tested - $300
Total cost to maintain my line of Creepers: $3800
And each time I ran out of any of my supplies, I would need to have the new batch of garments retested. So based on 2008 sales, this testing would net me a loss of $500-$1000 on my line of BuggApparel in 2009. I would have to price myself out of the market just to break even. I would potentially consider reducing my offerings in terms of designs, but that really stunts my creative process. I love coming up with new ideas for new designs. Additionally it would prohibit me from doing custom designs, which is a significant portion of my business.
Let’s talk about my mobiles. I have 13 different styles, 3 sizes, 20+ paint colors, 16 design schemes with over 100+ designs within them. For the purposes of this I have estimated some things or lowered my quantities, so the actual cost would be slightly higher than what this reflects.
BuggaMobiles:
Hoop - $180
Mobile Pieces – $6000
Fishing Line - $60
Paint - $1200
Designs - $6000
Cost of Testing – $13440
Cost of Product to be tested - $300
Total cost to maintain my BuggaMobiles: $13740
For those who are interested in which lab this was:
Chemical Solutions
Mechanicsburg, PA
http://www.chemicalsolutionsltd.com
(717)697-7536
And again, each time I run out of any component from the initial batch, I would need to retest those components. There is no reasonable way to absorb $13740 into my costs. That cost exceeds my total spending in all of 2007 AND 2008. I suppose I could look to limit my offerings significantly in order to bring costs down but part of the beauty of my work is that each one is unique, strung individually, made to order based on the colors my client wants, etc. That aspect, the creative aspect of my work, and the aspect I love most, would be destroyed.
So, I’m simply confirming what we all know to be true, the digestive testing for micro-manufacturers is simply prohibitive financially, among other things. On a positive note, this testing facility understood that I am a one-woman operation running a home-based business and was more than willing to do business with me. Please note this testing is for LEAD ONLY. Phthalate testing is not done by the lab I contacted. Based on these numbers, my business will not survive the next wave of deadlines in August 2009. BuggaLove has been given 8 months to live.
Friday, January 16, 2009
I'm a mommy blogger!
Yesterday I came upon some raw footage of Julie Vallese, from the CPSC. Julie Vallese is resigning from the CPSC, however on her way out the door, she’s managed to give one bang up interview about the CPSIA
http://www.wbaltv.com/video/18479590/index.html
Here are a few of the things that really stood out to me about this interview. First of all, it was focused on resale and consignment shops. Which is great, except that they’ve already released an official memo on resale and consignment shops. So, this interview gives us no new information. You can see that memo here: http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
From this interview there are a couple new phrases to be entered into our language when talking about the CPSIA. The first one I’d like to discuss is “level of confidence”. I first introduced the memo above in my previous blog post from January 9, 2009.
http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/finally-getting-on-board-with-blogging.html
So when asked to clarify this memo a bit, Julie Vallese talked about a reseller having a “level of confidence” in their product. And that while this was “not defined”, she suggested three possible ways to gain this “level of confidence”:
#1) Look at the product and assess whether or not you feel it might not pass the lead limit
#2) Contact the manufacturer
#3) Screen the product using XRF technology
This brings me to the point I made in my first post about this issue: Since it’s been determined that used goods are still subject to the law but don’t need to be tested, and selling them is basically at the seller’s risk. Why can’t handmade goods be exempted in the same way? The difference with my handmade goods is that I *know* what went into making the item. As the manufacturer, I can have a higher “level of confidence” knowing exactly what is going into my products. I can contact the manufacturers of my supplies and discuss materials and any certifications they have. If that standard is good enough for used goods, it should be good enough for my handcrafted goods. Sellers could still be held accountable and face civil and/or criminal penalties for selling goods that are in violation of the new limits the same way a reseller of used goods is. So, why not extend the testing exemption in this way to those who handcraft items?
I’m not going to address the suggestion of XRF screening at this time because that’s a topic that will warrant a post all it’s own. And that post is coming, I promise. But I do want to make the point that in this video, Julie Vallese was extremely careful to make sure we all knew that XRF was not definitive and could only be used as a “screening tool”. I find this to be indicative of what may come in terms of the suggestion to allow XRF testing replace the third party lab accredited digestive testing that is currently mandated as of August.
The second phrase I’d like to address is “mommy blogger”. If you’re not interested in a short rant, please skip this paragraph. All I can say is, Wow. Just wow. I’m not really sure how much more condescending that phrase could be in the context that it was used. And the notion that we, “mommy bloggers” are responsible for the misinformation regarding this law on the web is more insulting than I can express. Let me tell you who THIS mommy blogger is. I am a former higher education administrator with a Masters degree under my belt. I am a business woman (as long as the CPSIA doesn’t put me out of business), and I am a mother of two small children. I’m smart and I’m discerning of good information and bad information, regardless of the source. My first phone calls about this law were made to the CPSC directly and to my Congressman’s office for some clarification and to gather information. My information gathering resulted in misinformation being given to me by the CPSC. Information that directly contradicts the law as it is written. If there is any misinformation on this blog, you better believe I will address it, apologize, and print a retraction. But I stand by what I’ve written based on my interpretations and the information that I’ve gathered from many sources, including from the CPSC directly.
On a more positive note, I’m meeting with Congressman Dent today! I plan to update you all on how that meeting went as well as address the XRF testing next week. Have a great weekend!
http://www.wbaltv.com/video/18479590/index.html
Here are a few of the things that really stood out to me about this interview. First of all, it was focused on resale and consignment shops. Which is great, except that they’ve already released an official memo on resale and consignment shops. So, this interview gives us no new information. You can see that memo here: http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
From this interview there are a couple new phrases to be entered into our language when talking about the CPSIA. The first one I’d like to discuss is “level of confidence”. I first introduced the memo above in my previous blog post from January 9, 2009.
http://buggalove.blogspot.com/2009/01/finally-getting-on-board-with-blogging.html
So when asked to clarify this memo a bit, Julie Vallese talked about a reseller having a “level of confidence” in their product. And that while this was “not defined”, she suggested three possible ways to gain this “level of confidence”:
#1) Look at the product and assess whether or not you feel it might not pass the lead limit
#2) Contact the manufacturer
#3) Screen the product using XRF technology
This brings me to the point I made in my first post about this issue: Since it’s been determined that used goods are still subject to the law but don’t need to be tested, and selling them is basically at the seller’s risk. Why can’t handmade goods be exempted in the same way? The difference with my handmade goods is that I *know* what went into making the item. As the manufacturer, I can have a higher “level of confidence” knowing exactly what is going into my products. I can contact the manufacturers of my supplies and discuss materials and any certifications they have. If that standard is good enough for used goods, it should be good enough for my handcrafted goods. Sellers could still be held accountable and face civil and/or criminal penalties for selling goods that are in violation of the new limits the same way a reseller of used goods is. So, why not extend the testing exemption in this way to those who handcraft items?
I’m not going to address the suggestion of XRF screening at this time because that’s a topic that will warrant a post all it’s own. And that post is coming, I promise. But I do want to make the point that in this video, Julie Vallese was extremely careful to make sure we all knew that XRF was not definitive and could only be used as a “screening tool”. I find this to be indicative of what may come in terms of the suggestion to allow XRF testing replace the third party lab accredited digestive testing that is currently mandated as of August.
The second phrase I’d like to address is “mommy blogger”. If you’re not interested in a short rant, please skip this paragraph. All I can say is, Wow. Just wow. I’m not really sure how much more condescending that phrase could be in the context that it was used. And the notion that we, “mommy bloggers” are responsible for the misinformation regarding this law on the web is more insulting than I can express. Let me tell you who THIS mommy blogger is. I am a former higher education administrator with a Masters degree under my belt. I am a business woman (as long as the CPSIA doesn’t put me out of business), and I am a mother of two small children. I’m smart and I’m discerning of good information and bad information, regardless of the source. My first phone calls about this law were made to the CPSC directly and to my Congressman’s office for some clarification and to gather information. My information gathering resulted in misinformation being given to me by the CPSC. Information that directly contradicts the law as it is written. If there is any misinformation on this blog, you better believe I will address it, apologize, and print a retraction. But I stand by what I’ve written based on my interpretations and the information that I’ve gathered from many sources, including from the CPSC directly.
On a more positive note, I’m meeting with Congressman Dent today! I plan to update you all on how that meeting went as well as address the XRF testing next week. Have a great weekend!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
What are children's products?
I know it sounds like a crazy question. But with the stroke of the CPSIA pen being so broad it’s an important one to ask. Do the collectibles meant for adults that are plush or dolls fall under the law? What about miniatures? How about jewelry, what’s keeping a child from wearing it? Keep in mind the following is my interpretation of various resources and I’m not a lawyer.
Children’s products defined: A consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.
“Ok, so my item isn’t primarily intended for children. So, I’m good, right?” Well, sort of. Because you see it’s the CPSC deciding what is and what is not a children’s product, not you as the manufacturer. So you can’t just blindly stick a “Not intended for children under 12” disclaimer on your item and call it a day.
Here are the criteria by which the CPSC will determine if a product is a children’s product:
#1 - A statement by the manufacturer about the intended use of the product, if such a statement is reasonable
#2 - Is the product represented in it’s packaging, display, promotion, or advertising as appropriate for use by children 12 years old or younger
#3 - Is the product commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child 12 or younger
#4 - The Age Determination Guidelines issued by the commission staff in September 2002
Translation:
#1...means to me that you can say your products isn’t for kids, but if that statement isn’t reasonable, your disclaimer doesn’t matter.
#2...makes sense and should be relatively easy to determine.
#3... seems very subjective to me. Especially relative to miniatures, plush, collectors dolls, etc.
#4... well you can read that fun little 300 pg document here http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/adg.pdf, if you’re so inclined. I was not able to read it before posting about this topic, so I can’t comment on it at this time.
What about art and wall accessories? Their “use” is to look at it, not touch it. And that brings us to the question of “play value”. Well, in terms of children’s products themselves, play value doesn’t matter. It still needs to be tested for lead (Section 101). Where play value DOES matter, is in determining whether it needs to be tested for phthalates (Section 108). So your wall art and decorative accessories are children’s products, but since they have no play value they don’t need to be tested for phthalates.
By the way, the question of art and wall accessories is an interesting one to me because what it written is in direct contradiction with what I was told verbally by the CPSC. Obviously, I have to go with what’s written. Saying “Mr. X told me over the phone this is ok” isn’t going to cut it.
I’m not sure if this information is complete enough to help you determine for yourself whether or not your item will be considered a children’s product. For some of us, it’s obvious. All my products are children’s products and subject to lead testing. And for some of you phthalate testing may also be required, which I didn’t really discuss, but is an important part of the law.
Here’s my sources for this blog post so that you can determine for yourself if your products are “children’s products”: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/childprodtest.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsialead.pdf
Tomorrow is my meeting with Congressman Dent. Stay tuned, I'll be discussing that meeting and the XRF testing information I've gathered in some upcoming posts.
Children’s products defined: A consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.
“Ok, so my item isn’t primarily intended for children. So, I’m good, right?” Well, sort of. Because you see it’s the CPSC deciding what is and what is not a children’s product, not you as the manufacturer. So you can’t just blindly stick a “Not intended for children under 12” disclaimer on your item and call it a day.
Here are the criteria by which the CPSC will determine if a product is a children’s product:
#1 - A statement by the manufacturer about the intended use of the product, if such a statement is reasonable
#2 - Is the product represented in it’s packaging, display, promotion, or advertising as appropriate for use by children 12 years old or younger
#3 - Is the product commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child 12 or younger
#4 - The Age Determination Guidelines issued by the commission staff in September 2002
Translation:
#1...means to me that you can say your products isn’t for kids, but if that statement isn’t reasonable, your disclaimer doesn’t matter.
#2...makes sense and should be relatively easy to determine.
#3... seems very subjective to me. Especially relative to miniatures, plush, collectors dolls, etc.
#4... well you can read that fun little 300 pg document here http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/adg.pdf, if you’re so inclined. I was not able to read it before posting about this topic, so I can’t comment on it at this time.
What about art and wall accessories? Their “use” is to look at it, not touch it. And that brings us to the question of “play value”. Well, in terms of children’s products themselves, play value doesn’t matter. It still needs to be tested for lead (Section 101). Where play value DOES matter, is in determining whether it needs to be tested for phthalates (Section 108). So your wall art and decorative accessories are children’s products, but since they have no play value they don’t need to be tested for phthalates.
By the way, the question of art and wall accessories is an interesting one to me because what it written is in direct contradiction with what I was told verbally by the CPSC. Obviously, I have to go with what’s written. Saying “Mr. X told me over the phone this is ok” isn’t going to cut it.
I’m not sure if this information is complete enough to help you determine for yourself whether or not your item will be considered a children’s product. For some of us, it’s obvious. All my products are children’s products and subject to lead testing. And for some of you phthalate testing may also be required, which I didn’t really discuss, but is an important part of the law.
Here’s my sources for this blog post so that you can determine for yourself if your products are “children’s products”: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/childprodtest.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsialead.pdf
Tomorrow is my meeting with Congressman Dent. Stay tuned, I'll be discussing that meeting and the XRF testing information I've gathered in some upcoming posts.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Am I really a manufacturer?
When I first mentioned the CPSIA to a couple of my friends who are attorneys and my attorney, their reactions were “But, you’re not a manufacturer”. So my initial reaction to hearing about the CPSIA back in November was, “Naaah, this doesn’t apply to me”. But I “heard” it does. So I started reading and researching and making phone calls to try to get information. Mostly I was looking for information telling me that this law didn't apply to me or that all the people out there talking about this were wrong.
Well, in case you haven’t heard, it does apply to me. And if you are a crafter of handmade children’s products, it applies to you too. My very first question for the Congressional Liaison at the CPSC was, “As an artisan/crafter, am I considered a manufacturer?” His answer was a resounding YES.
Here is how the CPSC defines manufacture: To manufacture, produce, or assemble
So based on that definition, I am most definitely a manufacturer. And I suppose I really always felt that I was, at least in terms of my nursery decor items. But I was surprised to have that label placed on me regarding my line of BuggApparel. After all, I'm just embellishing a pre-made blank garment. How can I be considered the manufacturer of that? But I am. And furthermore, the fact that I put my own label in that garment, makes me a private labeler.
But it's my opinion that there should be a distinct difference made between me and a company who manufactures mass-produced children's products. And as there currently isn't one, that is one of the things I am asking to see changed in any amendment or revision made to the CPSIA. Here are just a few of the changes I am requesting be brought to the attention of the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce:
>>>>I am asking for the consideration of reasonable exclusions to the testing and certification requirements for textiles and apparel to the extent that a component presents a risk that it contains lead. As such, proof of component compliance from a supplier should be acceptable for handmade products.
>>>>I would like artisans/crafters to have a different designation by the CPSC from “manufacturer” that will exempt handcrafted products that meet the criteria for reasonable exclusion from testing as stated above.
>>>>I would like to see adjustments for small business such as limits of production under which certification is not required. This could include reduced certification requirements without removal of the liability.
More on product testing soon, specifically, information on XRF testing costs that I’m currently researching. Tomorrow, a discussion on what counts as a children's product.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
CPSIA - What is a General Conformity Certificate (GCC)?
I'm struggling very much with the interpretation of the CPSIA as it is intended for micro-manufacturers of handmade goods like me. I have been reading and turning it over in my mind. My goal is to stay in business while Congress and the CPSC figure out the law and what amendments should be made to it.
While it is very clear that in August 2009 the new regulations require third-party testing. The February 10, 2009 deadline allows for XRF testing and/or another "reasonable testing program".
So, based on that, until August I can come up with a reasonable testing program and produce a general conformity certificate regarding this program. So what is a general conformity certificate. Well, it just so happens that the CPSC has some guidelines on what that means.
Here's what I've learned:
Here is a template for your GCC: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/elecertfaq.pdf
In the upcoming days I'll be talking about XRF testing. I'm currently researching costs and gathering information. Stay Tuned!
While it is very clear that in August 2009 the new regulations require third-party testing. The February 10, 2009 deadline allows for XRF testing and/or another "reasonable testing program".
So, based on that, until August I can come up with a reasonable testing program and produce a general conformity certificate regarding this program. So what is a general conformity certificate. Well, it just so happens that the CPSC has some guidelines on what that means.
Here's what I've learned:
- Certification means vouching that a product complies with the standard set by the CPSC, In this case lead limits (and phthalate limits if those apply to you)
- Certification may or may not include any laboratory testing
- Certification may or may not include a label or mark on the product
- If the product has a private label (like my BuggApparel does), the private labeler must also issue a certificate
What needs a certificate:
- Certification must be based on a test of each product OR a reasonable testing program.
- All products intended for children under 12 must be tested.
Where do you get a certificate?
- You make it yourself based on the information and data you get from your "reasonable testing program"
What goes on the certificate?
- Certificate must be in English
- It must identify the manufacturer AND private labeler of the certificate issuer
- It must identify the party doing the testing by listing name, address, and phone number
- Date and place the product was manufactured
- Date and place the product was tested
- Contact information of the person maintaining the test records
- Each applicable standard (or ban)
What do you do with the certificate?
- If you are the retailer of your own products: File it away, if someone asks for it, you must be able to produce it.
- If you do wholesale or consignment of your products: Send it with any wholesale order you receive or with any products you intend to consign as the retailer must be able to produce it if asked.
Here is a template for your GCC: http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/faq/elecertfaq.pdf
In the upcoming days I'll be talking about XRF testing. I'm currently researching costs and gathering information. Stay Tuned!
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Congressman Dent supports Small Business
For those who do not know, I have been communicating frequently with Congressman Charlie Dent’s office. His office has been extremely helpful in assisting me gather accurate information regarding the CPSIA. My meeting with Congressman Dent himself is scheduled for January 16, 2009.
I’ve received word today that Congressman Dent is taking up our cause. And he is gathering the support of other Congressmen. So far, Congressman Jim Gerlach and Congressman Tim Holden have joined him to support the effort. Others are reviewing and likely more will join the effort in the next few days. Congressman Dent is sending a letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce requesting a hearing. This is VERY good news. THIS is how things get changed.
It is the new chairman of the Committee who has the ability to call for hearings on this matter and advance critical legislation to resolve some of the issues. The best way to convince him of the need for a hearing to amend the CPSIA is to WRITE LETTERS to the four Energy and Commerce Committee leaders explaining our concerns and issues with the law as it is written and how it will affect us. Even if you have written to these people before, I urge you to send another letter.
Here are the names and addresses of the four Committee leaders:
The Hon. Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Hon. Joe Barton
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
2322-A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Hon. Bobby Rush
Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Hon. Ed Whitfield
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection
2322-A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
I’ve received word today that Congressman Dent is taking up our cause. And he is gathering the support of other Congressmen. So far, Congressman Jim Gerlach and Congressman Tim Holden have joined him to support the effort. Others are reviewing and likely more will join the effort in the next few days. Congressman Dent is sending a letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce requesting a hearing. This is VERY good news. THIS is how things get changed.
It is the new chairman of the Committee who has the ability to call for hearings on this matter and advance critical legislation to resolve some of the issues. The best way to convince him of the need for a hearing to amend the CPSIA is to WRITE LETTERS to the four Energy and Commerce Committee leaders explaining our concerns and issues with the law as it is written and how it will affect us. Even if you have written to these people before, I urge you to send another letter.
Here are the names and addresses of the four Committee leaders:
The Hon. Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Hon. Joe Barton
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
2322-A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Hon. Bobby Rush
Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Hon. Ed Whitfield
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection
2322-A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Thursday, January 1, 2009
My Conversation with the CPSC
Happy New Year! For me, I wish I could say that it was going to be a great year. But right now, I’m not sure that it will be. On New Year’s Eve I spoke with the CPSC at length. While I have been trying to maintain that all I have been reading about the CPSIA cannot possibly be true, it is. The few products that I will be able to continue making after February 10, 2009 will likely not be able to sustain my business. So at this point, with no amendments having been made to this new law, my small home based business selling quality hand made items is in jeopardy.
I’m still fighting the good fight. I plan to meet with my Congressman in the upcoming weeks, I did a short interview for the Keystone News Connection just before Christmas which will hopefully be picked up by various PA radio stations, and I’ve been doing as much research on the law as possible.
From my conversation with the CPSC, I have confirmed the following:
I’m still fighting the good fight. I plan to meet with my Congressman in the upcoming weeks, I did a short interview for the Keystone News Connection just before Christmas which will hopefully be picked up by various PA radio stations, and I’ve been doing as much research on the law as possible.
From my conversation with the CPSC, I have confirmed the following:
- Artisans/Crafters ARE considered manufacturers and ARE subject to having their items tested
- There is currently NO exceptions for any materials, though a vote is being taken on natural materials in early January (wood, cotton, etc.)
- My garments (tote bags, etc.) must be tested, even if the garment itself has been tested previously, once I embellish it in any way it must be tested again.
- There is physically no way to comply with testing requirements for made-to-order and one-of-a-kind items at this time.
- My mobiles might not only be considered children's products, they might be considered TOYS even though they have absolutely no play value and are not meant to be touched by children, only looked at.
Unfortunately, with the February 10, 2009 deadline looming, I must take measures that will minimize my losses. I cannot stress enough that my products are safe. Among other things, the new law requiring third-party testing is over reaching and does not take into account custom made and made-to-order items. I am so glad that our government wants to help protect our children. But the unintended consequences of this law will be devastating to small business, the US economy, and my ability to make choices as a parent for what I buy for my children.
I hope to have better news about the future of BuggaLove in the upcoming month. The CSPC will be contacting me later in the week to answer questions that arose during our conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
