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

Activism CPSIA: CPSC

 
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: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:22 pm    Post subject: Activism CPSIA: CPSC Reply with quote

As per [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=18780#18780]Jody's suggestion[/url], we're splitting the activism thread into five areas which are:
1. ONLINE: Distribution of materials through the Internet to get our message out there for the purpose of generating support at the grassroots level (through blogs, listservers, discussion groups on Etsy, eBay, posting iPetitions, etc.)
2. CONGRESS: Flooding our Congressional representatives with comments
3. CPSC: Flooding CPSC with comments
4. MEDIA: Generating media interest in our concerns
5. TRADE GROUPS: Working through and alongside professional trade organizations to get our message heard

Jody wrote:
I’ve seen a whole lot of good ideas on this thread on how to fight this thing. But, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to follow everyone’s efforts. Waging an effective battle requires strategy. To that end, I’d like to recommend that we get a little more organized to increase our effectiveness.

<snipped> What I’m suggesting is to use separate threads on this forum much like you would create subcommittees under a Board. This way, when any of us completes a task such as contacting a specific media outlet, posting on a specific blog, etc., we can post to the appropriate thread. Likewise, when each of us is working on something, we can go straight to that thread to find out what’s been done so far so that no one ends up spinning their wheels. We have lots of energy and connections here – we need to use both very wisely to avoid burn out.

It occurs to me that we really need to target our concerns about this legislation to the audience we are appealing to. To that end, I am drafting different responses for us to send to different audiences.

CSPC: Our Letter to CPSC
I think the letter we have drafted, once I go through your suggestions, will be ready (no major revisions appear to be needed based on your comments).</snipped>


Anyway, here please post your online activist activities and include links. If someone posts a link, please, follow the link and add your two cents! Don't leave someone hanging alone, they need back up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jody
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the revised letter for the CPSC. Thank you for all your comments on the draft. I know it still looks really long in this post. But, if you use the formatting shown in the post with 11.5 font and regular margins, it works out to about 3.5 pages printed. And, of course, since we're all going to have to copy and paste it in order to print and send, we can edit our own version as we see fit.

Mailing address:
Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814.

Fax: (301) 504-0127
Email: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. (Note, while we can send these email, I think it's still important to send hard-copies, too...they tend to carry more weight with government officials).

I am going to work on the media release and letter to congressional representatives tomorrow. The letter for CPSC appears below. Mine will be in the mail on Monday (and probably once a week thereafter ) Twisted Evil

[Date]

RE: SECTION 102 THIRD PARTY TESTING OF CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS

To [your Congressional Representative(s) and/or Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission]

I am writing on behalf of my self and other small manufacturers of children’s apparel and textile products throughout the United States to express our concerns regarding the lead and lead in paint standards as mandated by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

We want to first emphasize that many of us are parents ourselves and care as much about the safety of our children as anyone. We welcome measures that will help to ensure greater child safety with regard to lead. However, such measures are only effective if they target the real risks.

Lead in children’s apparel and other textile products pose little risk

There is very little research to support the notion that lead in textiles presents a significant risk to children. On the contrary, in his presentation to the May 13, 2008 Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) roundtable, Understanding the Pending Legislation and the Use of Lead in Consumer Products, Mr. Hardy Poole makes the argument that the lead content in textiles is actually very low. Mr. Poole, president of the National Textile Association, is considered a leading expert in the textile industry with than 30 years of experience including working with the CPSC on fabric flammability standards.

In his presentation, Mr. Poole cited dyes, dyestuffs and pigments used in coloring fabrics as the primary source of lead in textiles and pointed out that the dyes produced by the major suppliers to the U.S. textile industry are already required to comply with the standards for trace metal impurities. These standards allow a maximum lead content of 100 ppm, which is well below the CPSC interim goal of 300 ppm and consistent with the ultimate goal of 100 ppm. Mr. Poole added that these suppliers offer no lead complex dyes and that he knows of no operation in the United States using lead-based pigments in the dyes produced for the textile industry. Currently, there is no lead added to yarns or fabrics manufactured domestically. Regarding imported textiles, Mr. Poole indicated that the testing of imported fibers and fabrics reveal none or only trace levels of lead.

It is important for the CPSC to recognize that the majority of the materials used to manufacture apparel and other textile products are inherently lead-free. Textiles (both synthetic and natural) and thread are inherently lead-free. While trace elements may be found in some dyes, those amounts are well below the regulatory limits and the consensus in the industry is that lead is not found in or used in textile dyes. Even if trace materials existed in the materials used to produce the textiles, very little would remain on finished fabrics because of the low application levels and the washing that occurs during processing.

Without prudent regulation and clear guidance from the CPSC, the CPSIA will result in unintended and devastating consequences to manufacturers of children’s products that pose little to no risk of lead exposure to children.

The costs of unnecessary testing and its impact on our businesses
Requiring expensive tests on inherently lead-free products to verify that they, in fact, don’t contain lead will only add financial burdens to small manufacturers and ultimately consumers – most of whom are already suffering from the current economic climate – while providing no improvement in consumer or product safety.

We recognize that some types of children’s apparel contain components that may contain lead. However, metal, painted plastic, and vinyl components in children’s apparel (painted and/or metal buttons, snaps, zippers, decals, etc.) are adequately regulated under the requirements for third party testing for lead in paint.

The CPSC has the authority to exclude components and classes of products from the lead ban. Accordingly, we urge the CPSC to issue guidance that makes clear that textiles and apparel are only subject to the lead and lead in paint requirements to the extent that a component presents a risk that it contains lead.

We are also concerned about the apparent requirement to test the component – both as a stand alone component and also as an element of the entire garment. This redundancy greatly multiplies the cost associated with testing.

For example, the cost of digestive testing for lead is in the range of $130 to $180 per test. A garment with two metal component parts, such as a zipper and snaps, would have to test each component separately at a cost of $360. Previously, a small manufacturer might have been spread these costs out over several styles by incorporating the same zippers and snaps into several styles. Let’s assume a manufacturer produces 10 styles. Now, with new regulations that require testing of each component part after it is removed from a sample garment, one in each style, the costs of testing increase dramatically to $3,600.

These costs multiply exponentially if companies are now required to test fabrics and threads for lead, or if different dyes also trigger their own lead tests. Going back to the previous example, if each style contains six components – body fabric, lining, knit cuff, thread, snap, and zipper, as well as 5 possible dye options – the number of tests increases to more than 300, or $108,000 to for just 10 styles in addition to the actual costs of production. Any small manufacturer that survives these costs – and there aren’t many of us that can – will necessarily have to pass them on to our customers. So, consumers end up on the losing end, too.

CPSC should exempt lead testing for those components and articles that are inherently lead-free and require testing for only those components that may contain lead.

And, what do we do with our inventories?
In its September 12 memorandum in which CPSC general counsel advised that “products that contain lead above the limit set in the CPSIA cannot be sold from inventory or on store shelves on or after February 10, 2009.”

Many of us operate on extremely small margins. We cannot sell the merchandise we currently have in stock that we made prior to the standards ever having been approved, nor can we afford the testing required for each and every component of a finished product on top of the cost for testing the finished product – the vast majority of which are inherently lead-free or only present trace levels of lead, well below unsafe or regulatory limits. Requiring us to dispose of all our inventory and imposing huge testing costs on producing new inventory to replace it will force many of us to shut down our operations for good.


What happens to us will effect the U.S. Economy


Based on an analysis of 2002 U.S. Census data, which is the most current available for the apparel manufacturing industry, the Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing industry, which includes most categories of small manufacturers of infant’s and children’s apparel, is comprised of more than 40,000 companies. Of these, almost 28,000, or 68%, are sole proprietors contributing a total of $900 million to our nation’s economy. Thus, while our businesses are small, they comprise well more than the majority of the apparel manufacturing businesses currently operating in this country.

In addition to small manufacturers who work with apparel industry contractors, consider also the numerous home-based businesses that produce children’s apparel and sell directly to the consumer. These businesses are best characterized as “micro-manufacturers” who commonly produce several styles but in very small quantities. For these businesses to test for lead in every textile component of each and every style would exponentially increase the costs to produce a garment, which would effectively raise the price well beyond what the market will bear. They simply cannot survive these costs.

While it is important to ensure compliance under the CPSIA, at the same time, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) must also ensure that implementation of consumer product safety standards does not involve burdensome requirements or extraordinary costs.

Unfortunately, by exempting this rulemaking from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which would require the CPSC to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the lead content testing rule on small apparel manufacturing businesses, Congress has circumvented the public discourse necessary to truly ascertain the CPSIA’s impact on small business. As written, the CPSIA ignores the wide variety of small business models that comprise the children’s apparel manufacturing industry and the fact that the majority are indeed small businesses.

Every small manufacturer of children’s apparel shares the goal of the CPSC – ensuring that only safe products are permitted to reach the consumer. We believe this is best achieved by implementing and enforcing the CPSIA (specifically the lead and lead in paint standards) in a manner that focuses on risks.

Although I am sending this letter to you as an individual, I can assure you that these comments share the support of many others who, like me, want to continue providing necessary and safe products to American consumers. While we believe there are some components in textile and apparel products that may fall under the lead standards, we believe the vast majority of products and components are inherently lead-free and should thus be excluded from the standards.

We urge the CPSC to issue guidance that makes clear that textiles and apparel are only subject to the lead and lead in paint requirements to the extent that a component presents a risk that it contains lead.

Sincerely,
[Your name or business name]
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jody, I've pm'ed you and emailed you twice since yesterday. I've searched on line for a phone no for you. I would like to get a hold of you before people start using this -if anything, is this even addressed to the right person? This is not who appears on all of the private correspondence I've been reading. Everything I have is to and from the counsel general directly. I have her contact info including email address etc.

Please, contact me!!!
575-635-8131 or I'll be at the office later 575-525-1577

I swear, I'm going to change membership rules here to include mandatory contact info
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Anne
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Jody, for writing this! I will wait to send it out until Kathleen's question above is resolved. I also noticed a couple of little things:

-Lead in children’s apparel and other textile products pose little risk (should be "poses")
-In the paragraph after that, should be "Mr. Hardy Poole MADE" (not makes)
-What happens to us will effect the U.S. Economy (should be "affect," I think)

Thank you again so much for taking the time to work on this for all of us.
Back to top
Lisa Bloodgood
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was wondering, because someone mentioned the webinar for the outdoor products that the CPSIA affects them, too, that should the letter mention just children's stuff or all sewn products?? Or should we add a paragraph about that, too?

I mean, people seem to be worried about lead more in children's products than other products because it affects kids worse than the rest of us, or is the wording in the act much more specific about children's stuff? (I didn't bookmark the link to the act and hadn't finished reading it when it disappeared.) Because if I had to test the fabric, bias tape, rickrack, and thread in my aprons, which are all different, that would get prohibitively expensive, too. I just found the act again, so I'll finish reading it.
Back to top
Anke
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi everybody,
I have been quietly listening and reading the forum for quite a while and must say that I am really impressed by the kind and professional attitude of everybody willing to share information and to support each other. You guys are great!! Lots of things I have read here have been valuable information to me who still is in the phase before taking the 'big leap'. (and getting more scared by the minute, I must admit)

I am following this particular discussion closely and am ready to raise hell about this issue where ever I can as soon as we get the green light from Kathleen and Jody. And thank you Jody for all this work you have been putting in writing up those letters and petitions... and of course Kathleen!!!

There is just one thing that is getting more and more confusing to me especially after reading Jody's proposed letter and petition: Is this new law targeting manufacturers of children's products and children's textiles exclusively?? javascript:emoticon(':?')
I keep reading "children's" everywhere? I believe that earlier on in the discussion I learned that this new law is targeting ANY manufacturer of ANY kind of textile product including ANY component that would go into a such a product? Am I on the right track here or did I miss something important?? Maybe somebody could enlighten me, that would be great!! Thank you!

On a similar note: and I hope this doesn't sound ignorant but to my defense I am from another country and not 100% sure about law terminology here. I was trying to do my own research on this topic but noticed that I can not anywhere in the postings find a quote of the actual bill number or law paragraph reference number (I'm sure that must have some better name) the only thing that gets quoted every where is "Section 102 ....." is that the only reference that this law goes by??

geez!...just when I barely recovered from the shocking news about the infamous Garment License...
I just can't believe they are doing this to us!
-Anke
Back to top
Jennifer Taggart
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:29 pm    Post subject: Anke Reply with quote

The bill was HR 4040. The sections refer to the sections of the CPSIA, but not how they appear in the CPSA, as amended.

Different provisions apply to different classes of products. Lead standard applies to children's products; phthalates applies to children's toys and child care articles; lead paint ban applies to consumer lead paint.
Back to top
Eric H
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 205
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CPSC has a small business ombudsman!

I sent him this note via the contact form at the site (I didn't include the links since I assume they already know):

Quote:
Dear Sir;
I note that several special interest groups (Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen), Congresspeople (Henry Waxman, Janice D. Schakowsky, Dianne DeGette) and Senators (Dianne Feinstein) have been contacting the CPSC in order to demand an immediate enforcement of the CPSIA ban on phthalates. While I can understand their concerns, they seem to be unaware of the logistical details of the CPSIA requirements. First, the law requires testing and documentation. Second, many of the products working their way through the system were manufactured well in advance not only of the deadline, 10 Feb 2009, but in some cases in advance of the passage of the law. Since many of these products are not tracked by lot, it will be impossible to trace them all down and perform adequate testing -- even if someone had thought to build many more test facilities! -- before the deadline.

They are demanding that manufacturers and retailers play a game of "hot potato", where anyone stuck with that unsellable inventory on 11 February will lose their investment in it. This is irresponsible. In neither of the press releases I have seen have they mentioned the testing and certification requirements, so I can only conclude that they are ignorant of those. That should come as no surprise, since by my accounting, Congress spent all of 3 hours and 20-40 minutes debating this 62 page legislation. This is going to devastate anyone who is either very small or highly leveraged. This is why February 10 has been labeled National Bankruptcy Day. We already have a website set up to document the implosion.

Please ignore these calls from these well-meaning but not well informed representatives and special interest groups who have nothing to lose. They are only going to make things worse.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Eric Husman


I suggest that everyone who is a small business contact him in this way and explain exactly what this will mean to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jesica Milton
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Eric! I posted that link on the Etsy forums, and I'm going to write to him today.
Back to top
Vesta
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote to the CPSC Small Business Ombudsman, and received this response. In case you don't feel like reading, it says nothing. Nothing at all.

By the way, I realize my message was no work of art, but I just clicked on the contact link and threw down some words while my husband was standing over me waiting to get off the computer. I'm just trying to keep the pressure on anyone I can.

Quote:
Dear Vesta,

Thank you for contacting the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

I have forwarded your question to the Office of the General Counsel for a response. Due to the overwhelming volume of mail that we are receiving about the CPSIA, it may take someone there a few days to get back to you. We appreciate your patience, but if you do not hear from someone in a reasonable amount of time, please let me know.

In the meantime, you should check the following page (http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html) for information about the new law, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA).

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) requires a general certificate of conformance for products that are subject to a Standard, regulation, ban or rule under any of the Acts enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If you are interested in the certificate of conformance, please see the attached document.

You should refer to our website at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html for further information about the CPSIA. Also, please submit any questions you have about the new legislation under “Ask A Question.”

I also suggest that you check the Business section of our website www.cpsc.gov/businfo/businfo.html for information on regulations, laws, and business information by product category.

I draw you attention to important information regarding your responsibilities and applicable statutes and regulations concerning your product.

It is important for you to know that you must notify the CPSC immediately if you have a problem with your product or if an injury from the use of this product has occurred. Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers are required to report to CPSC under Section 15 (b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) within 24 hours of obtaining information which reasonably supports the conclusion that a product does not comply with a safety rule issued under the CPSA, or contains a defect which could create a substantial risk of injury to the public or presents an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b). The Recall Handbook will familiarize companies with their reporting requirements. The Commission's interpretive regulation Substantial Product Hazard Reports, 16 C.F.R. Part 1115 explains the company's obligations and the Commission's procedures.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
Patte
Patricia Bittner
Small Business Ombudsman
Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Phone: 301-504-7263
Fax: 301-504-0137
email: pbittner@cpsc.gov
“Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail (and any attachments) are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.


Quote:
From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 6:44 PM
To: Ombudsman, S. B.
Subject: Message from Email Form

12/07/2008 18:44:10

Name = Vesta Garcia
Organization/Affiliation = Ellaroo

Message =

Please help us. The CPSIA is poorly conceptualized and impossible to comply with, even for those of us who want to. Key points of concern for us:
-We need to be able to a) use tests performed by companies upstream in the supply chain (e.g. our fabric mills) to comply with lead requirements, and b) test components, rather than units/SKUs. For example, we make one products in 5 sizes. That's 5 SKUs. The only difference is length. It is wasteful and onerous to have to supply 5 tests.
-Requiring that all inventory without certification become a banned substance on Feb 10, 2009 is also onerous and wasteful. Who is supposed to bear this cost? The retailer who holds the product? Regardless of whether we know our products comply, without the tests to prove it, they're banned substances on Feb 10.
-There are some materials that are just not a concern for lead. Paper, unfinished wood, most fabrics, natural finishes such as beeswax. There should be a list of "safe" materials that are exempt from testing requirements. Any *components* not on the safe list could then be tested.

We need time, clarity, and sanity to get through this process. Of course we all want safe products for children. And the vast majority of US manufacturers have always tried very hard to provide that. We are now being punished, apparently thoughtlessly, for the sins of major multinational conglomerates who bring tainted toys into our markets. Help, please!
Back to top
LeAnn
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:30 pm    Post subject: contact your local reps! Reply with quote

I finally emailed and called the local office for my Representative. Boy did they get an earful and an education. Completely clueless about this whole thing. Please everyone, contact your local people as well!

LeAnn Contessa
Back to top
Lisa DOWNTOWN JOEY
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waiting for one of my ebay friends to tell her lobbyist husband of our plight. Asked for any good contacts. Will update when I hear back from her.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was a rush job, and I didn't have time to research the civil penalty sections of the CPSA like I wanted to. But, here are the comments that I submitted in response to the request for comments regarding the criteria CPSC should use in determining civil penalties for noncompliance:

In addition to the factors stated in the request for comments, the CPSC should consider and address the following items in its determination of the civil penalty factors specific to the CPSA:

1. The CPSIA has such a broad scope as to make it nearly impossible to implement in a fair and just manner in the timeframes established by Congress. To date, the CPSIA has provided very little guidance to help manufacturers spanning the broad spectrum of children's products understand, much less comply with the law as written. The law is broad in scope and too vague to provide sufficient guidance to manufacturers. And, given the thousands of different types of products to which it applies, it seem impossible to expect the CPSC to issue clear guidance for each type of industry. This lack of guidance in the short term and the overall level of specific guidance available in general should be considered when determining civil penalties for a manufacturer of children's product who may, through no purposeful disregard of the law, find themselves out of compliance with it.

Manufacturers have a responsibility to comply with the law. However, the CPSC has the responsibility to implement the law in a way that helps manufacturers to understand how to comply. The adequacy of available guidance from the CPSC should be a factor in determining civil penalties.

2. Another factor that is particularly relevant to this legislation is the appropriateness of the penalty in relation to the size of the business of the person charged. There are thousands of small, home-based businesses that are affected by this legislation, a fact that Congress likely did not consider when drafting this legislation. Or perhaps Congress was simply not interested in the CPSIA's impact on such businesses, which is what the decision to suspend the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements for this legislation would seem to imply. Regardless, comments from more than 4500 small businesses, many of which are home-based sole proprietorships, can be found on a petition regarding the CPSIA, which can be viewed at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/economicimpactsofCPSIA/index.html

Given the far-reaching impact of this legislation and to avoid unintended and devastating consequences to all businesses that manufacture children's products, the scale of the business must be considered in determining civil penalties.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


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

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice work Guest, thank you!

I'm leaving this here but cross posting it in [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=20185#20185]the thread [/url]we're using to develop a response to the request for comments.
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