A holiday gift from the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Last night, the CPSC approved a continuation of the present stay on CPSIA third-party testing and certification (for lead content requirements). In other words, while we, as manufacturers, were facing the legal obligation to submit all products to third-party testing and certification beginning February 10, 2010, we now have until February 10, 2011.

A reminder: of course that this is in no way an exemption for the lead requirements themselves.

This action takes a great deal of the immediate burden off manufacturers and places it back into the hands of the CPSC for further clarification, guidance, and education. It appears our voices have been heard, and we need to continue talking and letting the CPSC know what we need to make CPSIA work for us. In the interim, we have a brief reprieve.

Component testing is slated to be approved as well (or has been temporarily approved). According to Nancy Nord, component testing and its effectiveness will be part of what is further explored during this time of stay.

Happy Holidays!

Leah Carter
Better for Babies
Chair, Real Diaper Industry Association

Dan Marshall of Peapods Natural Toys and Baby Care traveled to Washington DC this week to represent Handmade Toy Alliance and Real Diaper Industry Association at a Consumer Product Safety Commission workshop on CPSIA. Seeing him hold up a pink diaper cover for the CPSC commissioners to see was a moment we can all be proud of. This is when we know we have been noticed and heard. You can watch the videos of the workshop on the CPSC website.

HTA board members present petition of 25,000 signatures to Commissioners Tenenbaum and Adler. HTA members Mary Newell, Cecilia Leibovitz, Dan Marshall, and Kate Glynn.

I have just returned from two intense days at the CPSC headquarters, where I represented small batch manufacturers who are struggling to comply with the requirements of the CPSIA on behalf of both the Handmade Toy Alliance and the Real Diaper Industry Association.

I feel very strongly that we accomplished a lot at these workshops, much of it behind the scenes. This was primarily a CPSC event, so we didn’t get a lot done on the Hill, although several HTA members had good meetings with their representatives while they were in town.

The workshops themselves were interesting. It was a very good thing we were there to counter YKK, who was there in force to oppose component testing, mostly because they don’t want to pay for it. HTA Treasurer Mary Newell of Mary’s Soft Dough and I argued in the Friday morning session that small batch manufacturers need to be treated differently and need component testing in order to survive. I used a diaper cover to illustrate how RDIA members would benefit from component testing because we could share the costs of certifying snaps, velcro, polyurethane laminate, etc. It was made clear to us in a number of ways that component testing will be approved but that CPSC staff are working on the details.

We also got some agreement from some surprising sources, including Dr. David Pittle, a longtime consumer advocate and one of the first CPSC commissioners, who said during the Friday morning session:

“There is something I’ve heard over the last few days, which I’ll never be the same on because it was new to hear it all. , , and that is the important distinction between large batch manufacturers and small batch manufacturers. . . . The small batch manufacturer almost needs like a section of the regulation. . . they need a very careful and judicious way of making sure they can do it and survive.”

These comments were extremely encouraging.

We had the opportunity to speak at length with Pittle and several other consumer group representatives, including Rachel Weintraub of Consumer Federation of America. They were cautiously sympathetic to our position. We shared the HTA Seeds of Change document with many of them, and I think we truly conveyed that we are very different from mass market producers. I think we also finally laid to rest with them the idea that we might be astroturf. We made the point that we’d like to fix this law sooner rather than later.

We presented our petition of 25,000 signatures to Commissioners Tenenbaum and Adler yesterday morning in a formal reception. Tenenbaum was courteous and said she reads all of our emails. We also got a chance to discuss many issues with Commissioner Adler, including that we need more time for component testing and ASTM requirements to be worked through.

Above all, I got the sense that the CPSC Commissioners are concerned for our businesses and are truly interested in our input. We are being heard and we are clearly influencing how this law will be enforced. Hopefully we will soon be able to influence the way it is written as well.

As many of you know, I was to represent RDIA this week in Washington, DC, at the CPSIA workshop on compliance, sampling, testing, challenges, and impact.

Unfortunately, a series of family medical emergencies kept me from traveling at the last minute. The good news is Dan Marshall was already planning to be in attendance representing the Handmade Toy Alliance, and he agreed to represent RDIA in my absence. Dan is an RDIA retailer member with Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care.

The workshops are broadcast via webcast live throughout the day. Today’s series begins at 9:30am Eastern and runs through 4:30pm. You can view the webcast at cpsc.gov

Thursday, December 10, 2009 Workshop Summary

Attendees were welcomed by Consumer Product Safety Commission Chair Inez Moore Tenenbaum and reminded that comments are open until January 11, 2010.

CPSIA Review.
The specifications of CPSIA were reviewed and everyone was reminded that this IS currently the law and compliance is required. A slide show illustrated several types of products which fall within the law and why.

Hazard Reduction.
Differentiations between Reasonable Testing Program and Third-party Testing were clarified and questions posed. General Certificates of Conformity ARE required, and the methods one uses to obtain them vary based of product type, source considerations and more. There will be continued discussion on Third-party Testing and all that in encompasses. (Discussion points: manufacturer’s judgment, historic risk.)

Component Testing.
Component Testing is that testing done when the rest of the product is not needed in the overall determining of compliance. This was a fresh perspective on an old term. It isn’t a new definition, but looking at it this way illuminates different aspects of the law. From all that is being said, Component Testing will “quite likely happen” although to what extent is certainly yet to be determined. (Discussion points: What kind of systems should be in place for suppliers? Who fits the definition of supplier? Where does the ultimate responsibility fall?)

Random Sampling.
Participants discussed random sampling for several hours. There are statistical methods in place which afford a “true random” sample. Such sampling is a business best practice regardless, but making sure those samples are statistically random increases effectiveness of the entire testing process and reduces the impact of “estimates.” (Discussion points: is sampling to be done per lot, production run, day, or month? To what extent can a manufacturer introduce their own responsibility when devising a sampling plan? Is a practical approach enough?)

Cost of Testing.
This section was disturbing in regards to the range considered to be acceptable. Single product testing for lead was quoted as varying from $20 to $100+ with the lower end being testing done in China. Clearly, sending single items to China for testing is neither feasible nor at all desirable for so many small cloth diaper manufacturers. I think we need to be clear about our own testing costs then make sure we tell the CPSC what these costs are.

Design Element vs Manufacturing Error.
An interesting statistic that 2/3 of all products considered unsafe (unsure of reference) were found to be unsafe at the design NOT at manufacture. Toys are legally subject to design safety testing. Implications here could be far reaching and provide some food for thought.

Be sure to tune in for the Day 2 summary to hear about Dan Marshall holding up a pink diaper cover and ask for a full product exemption.

Have you been wondering what the cloth diaper industry is up to? Find out all in one feed. Follow RDIA members on Twitter at twitter.com/RealDiaperIA/members

If you are an RDIA member and @RealDiapersIA isn’t following you, DM (that’s Direct Message, a private message through Twitter, for those of you new to this). Also, add your Twitter ID to your RDIA member record (and double-check the spelling).