ACTIVISM: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

[Miracle]

Why is the assumption being made that every style must be tested as a finished garment?

[Esther]

The assumption on completed unit testing for clothing is because that is what is required for toys as quoted previously. My testing quote is based on a combination of unit tests and component tests. When it comes to clothing some tests cannot be easily done on completed units, especially flammability.

The thing is the CPSC has not said, in regards to clothing, whether the testing can be done on components. One has to assume the worst case scenario with testing children's clothing until an exception is made. The cost will be higher because with children's clothing you will have to submit at least 1 completed unit and swatches of the components. When I was a part of the private label program with JCP 8 years ago we had to submit a completed unit and at least 1 yard of each fabric. We averaged about $1000/style in testing costs 8 years ago. That number spread out over 20,000 units or even 2,000 units is doable. Not so much when it is 200.

[Miracle]

Ok, that is understandable with regards to toys, but the number given for apparel seemed to imply that you tested every single style, not the components or fabrics. If you're using certain fabrics repeatedly and certain components repeatedly, then the costs are not as high as what is being stated, unless I'm missing something.

I don't find the numbers credible. And when I mentioned the CPSIA to a couple (yarn and fabric) manufacturers, they replied saying they knew about it long ago and had already undertaken intertek testing and certification for certain fabrics (also because of the requirements of other countries as well). And because of the impact of the law, they would share the cost of testing on other fabrics they had not been certified.

Therefore, I'm not sure where all of this "the sky is falling" comes from. I think there are other avenues that should be addressed, but I don't know that it's prudent to argue that we shouldn't have to test our items for safety because it would put us out of business.

I do think the industry can cope, but I know this means that buying fabric from jobbers would be too risky.

I guess my point is that I understand the impact of the law, but I'm not sure what you guys are asking for. I think that when it comes to components, it was assumed each individual garment producer would have to individually test each component for each style, thereby leading to redundancy with testing. This does not make sense.

I don't think the numbers generated in the "form letter" pan out and I think to send it could really hamper credibility, if in fact the numbers are wrong.

Again, I think this is an interpretation issue and everyone moved full steam ahead without checking to see if the interpretation is, in fact, correct. It sounds absolutely ridiculous that this law would require the number of tests specified in the form letter. And while it may very well require that, I didn't see that anyone even bothered to check to find out if it does.

[Kathleen F.]

[Esther]

Manufacturers of any regulated product will need test their product under a reasonable testing program. The duplication in testing comes when each supplier tests their product, duplicated by the manufacturer and then the retailer. Now the retailer gets an out because they are only required to have copies of certificates, but they will still be liable if something goes wrong.

So if I buy fabric, trim, and buttons from various suppliers that have each done testing and they supply me with a certificate of testing, I will still have to re-test everything. This is especially true with children's clothing manufacturers. I can't rely on my suppliers testing because I have no way of knowing if the testing was certified for children's products. In fact most fabric suppliers do not certify their fabric for any end purpose even though they do their own testing. Besides that, as a manufacturer I am required to test each completed style in a certified testing lab with the assumption I test the products according to the most stringent requirements and standards out there. These means that I should do tests that are not necessarily required by the CPSC at this point in time, adding to the cost.

The minimum testing cost for a 10 piece line is $1000/style or $10,000. The number will be higher because there are only a few certified labs and they will be backed up. Supply and demand dictates the cost will rise. I have seen some "indie" children's DE's that use as many as 10 different fabrics in one style. Each fabric will have to be tested for lead at a minimum (10 surfaces will cost between $700-$1000 for lead testing). Every style will vary in the testing required and will increase dramatically with the complexity of design.

The sky is not falling but one MUST assume the worst case scenario and ask for an exception for apparel. Otherwise the regulations will be written and it will take an act of God to have Congress change the regulations back to something more reasonable.

[Miracle]

[J C Sprowls]

As you say, Miracle, I think most of what we are writing or objecting to lacks focus. I think that anyone who has a complaint about a procedure also has the duty of identifying the problem and offering a solution to be considered. To that end, I'm pasting a snippet from a draft letter I'm working on for the CO Attorney General:

[Miracle]

[Miracle]

JC:

You and I are on the same train of thought regarding this.

We are DEAD ON, especially with business shifting to mills that would provide certification (see above post about jobbers).

[J C Sprowls]

To me, it's always a matter of: a) what is the problem, b) do I need to manage it; and c) how to manage it.

This Act was obviously hurried through - sloppy language is one indicator of this. Regardless the integrity of the Act or its language, it's on the books, so it's a real problem.

When confronted with a crisis (and, this is a crisis) there are really only two options: get over it, or under it. And, in my mind, that means we have two options when it comes to this Act. Either we: a) offer a better, more articulate alternative (i.e. develop a best practice), or b) react in a silo when/if our companies are caught.

Most of my customers have told me that they prefer option B because they know it will cost money to comply. They also feel it will be easier to wait until they're caught because the CPSC will be forced to tell them at that time what they need to do to come into compliance. IOW: the costs - when they are incurred - are likely to be cheaper than the time and money invested in chasing after interpretations that might be overturned when the CPSC audits the company.

Personally, I have a hard time debating that logic. As it stands, I've spent about 60 hrs of unpaid time researching this matter, meaning that I've suspended revenue-generating activities and put my customers behind schedule. I've reached the threshold of what I can contribute and how much I can afford to care. After I submit this letter to the CO State Attorney's office, I have a backlog of work to get back to.

IOW: I'll deal with a decision when/if I ever receive one. In the meantime, I'll offer my suggestion (i.e. manage upward) and then go about my business until someone tells me, otherwise.

____ Edit to add:

All of my customers have agreed to my suggestion to obtain either lab results from their supplier on each component (if available) or to obtain 3rd party tests on the components when the supplier cannot produce them. So, if this due diligence is insufficient, we (meaning me & my customers) will cross the bridge when/if the CPSC tells us we have one (and, its dimensions, etc.).

[Kathleen F.]

[Miracle]

[Esther]

[Miracle]

[SarahM]

General Counsel Letter on the Section 108 Phthalates and "Wearing Apparel" (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/321.pdf)