FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Volunteer Researcher needed

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11557
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:39 pm    Post subject: Volunteer Researcher needed Reply with quote

I meant to post this hours ago. I have a job for someone who has some time. Here's a message from Mike (http://www.sarahssilks.com/) that explains the issue. I need someone to find the specific video he mentions and hopefully mark the time segment in which it appears so I can see it and also pass it off to someone for a legal opinion. Much thanks in advance, if you can help, please let us know.

Quote:
I was watching one of the CPSC's videos (available on their website)- I can't remember the date, I want to say in October. There was a panel of CPSC staff at a meeting in Bethesda, MD. One of them was Cheryl Falvey, general counsel.

She brought up the issue that there is an exemption for singularly unique items. This was in the context of a question from Lego. They described an option on their web site in which someone could design and order a unique collection of pieces. Then somewhere in Lego, these would be pulled and packaged and sent out. Cheryl Falvey, explicitly stated that - that one product was exempt because it was a "one of a kind item". However, because Lego's web site is designed to save that order and say call it, "Mark Smith's spaceship design", anyone else could then also order "Mark Smith's spaceship design". Allowing other people to reorder that same product nullified its "one of a kind" classification and then subjected it to standard regulations. (Now the Lego person didn't point out how unreasonable this sounded, but Ms. Falvey certainly had to see that. I did hear her murmur something to the effect of "then you'd have to do the testing by component". Which gives me some hope that reason will prevail in the end.)

However, I do think that there are many doll-makers, for example, that do this as a matter of procedure. The issue is how to describe a product that would be similar enough for a consumer to know what they are getting but different enough to qualify as a "one of a kind" item.

Mike Lee
Sarah's Silks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The video in question is October 2 2008, the question and answer segment. The lego question comes up at 1:12:56.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11557
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MUUUUAAAAAAAHHHHHHH
Thanks guest, I'll get on it later today, have already passed the info along.

If anyone else is interested, the direct link is here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11557
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

okay, this is what I transcribed in reference to the lego question:

Quote:
what makes sense is to have those pieces certified and then the assortments can be certified very easily based on testing of the individual pieces and so rather than have to say this is the assortment for today, so go have this tested you have a test report that says this, this product consists of lego #1, lego #17, lego #5, and so on and all those have been certified and the assembly or ah package is certified on the basis of those underlying test reports

Falvey speaks up and says the equivalent of (hers isn't word for word exact)
Quote:
I just want to say that we're looking at the question now, just a little differently than...the question may have been addressed in the past... a one time use product, your product is for sale but it sounds like a unique product that warrants that configuration but leaving it there for someone else to buy ...but we're looking at that question

My opinion is that this isn't going to be the saving grace for producers of one of a kind items. This is a SKU related or packaging question, not product question. The reason is, the legos are basically static, unchanging, they're made, the process of making them is done. Recombining them in various quantities and colors doesn't change their constituent configuration. Another example that could be used in this example is those Make-a Bear thingies. You buy the bear, the accessories, the clothes etc. Well, each of those finished component parts would be tested and repackaged as requested according to specific customer demand.

The difference between the item of discussion here and unique one of a kind items made by crafters, is -what the CPSC has said- that it's not certain that the process of combining the inputs into a unit doesn't modify the final result in some way. For example, sure, you can have your fabric certified safe but many designers then go and dye it or screen print it or put iron on decals full of phthalate and/or lead onto the product. I mean, this is their whole reasoning for the push for unit testing rather than component testing. Iow, they are still holding for unit testing rather than component testing. There's no mention of unique product classes made by individuals at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Anne
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wouldn't it be reasonably to ask that they allow component testing "if no further processing occurs" other than cutting and sewing? Then if you offered a selection of shirts each made of tested components but printed with different designs, you could test only the printed area of each product?
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's another part of this video (cpsc q&a oct 2 2008) that seems to explain why component testing is unacceptable.
The relevant portion takes place between 11:09 and 13:59.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11557
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike Lee Sarah's Silks wrote:
I went back and transcribed Cheryl Falvey's comments on the 10/2/08 meeting at Bethesda, MD in response to the Lego question. If anyone wants to see it it's at the 1 hr. 14min. point.

Cheryl Falvey wrote:
I just wanted to tell you that we are looking at that issue a little bit differently than the question you've now raised. But the question may have been addressed in the past by the Commission of a one-time-use product. So a particular product that's not necessarily - I mean your product is for sale, so it falls under our definition of a consumer product. But - it sounds like a unique product that may only be sold to that one customer that wants that configuration. But then you're posting it and leaving it there so that someone else can buy it too which is a twist to the question we're researching that we hadn't thought of. But that's why we have these meetings. But we're looking at that question and trying to look at past interpretations to see if there's a way to handle that that might be unique. But I think Gib is right that what is going to have to happen is some sort of certification of the underlying various component parts that will have to be put together for that product.


So it's pretty clear to me that Kathleen is definitely correct and that it appears it was wishful thinking on my part to remember "one of a kind" when what was really said "was one-time-use" and "unique" withuot any mention of an exemption. Thanks Kathleen for taking the time to go and wade through all of that.

As an aside, it certainly seems that they see component testing as the only reasonable method for Lego's "mass customization" with 480,000 customer submitted designs.


Actually, it's not "kathleen" who deserves the credit but an anonymous generous "Guest" who slogged through it and posted the segment time line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group