CPSC's ruling on CPSIA Component-Based Testing Long Overdue
Published October 08, 2009 @ 09:52PM PT
On January 30, 2009, the CPSC stopped accepting comments on third-party testing of component parts under Section 102 of the CPSIA with a promise that guidance would be issued soon.
Nine months later, we are still waiting for them to issue rules that would allow component testing. With only 4 months left until third party testing becomes mandatory for all children's products, this delay is becoming less and less acceptable.
The Handmade Toy Alliance sent comments on component testing to the CPSC on December 30, 2008. We told the CPSC, "The use of component testing would allow many of us to remain in business, while adhering to the current regulations outlined in the CPSIA." Ten months later, we have still not received a reply.
Why is component testing important? Consider the lowly zipper. Without component testing, every pillow, pair of pants, dress, or kid's purse that uses a given style of zipper would have to test every zipper tooth, stop, and pull on every finished SKU. That's right--the same zipper under current CPSC guidance must be tested over and over by different manufacturers, once for every finished product type in which it is used.
With component testing, the zipper manufacturer can test and certify that the zipper meets lead content limits so that everyone who makes something with that zipper won't have to pay to test it again. The savings to small businesses are exponential.
Also, component testing would force CPSIA compliance upstream in the product supply chain, which would improve the safety of finished products for all consumer goods, not just CPSIA-regulated children's products. Manufacturers of paint, varnish, snaps, zippers, polyurethane laminate, hinges, screws, and velcro will all have an economic incentive to test and certify their materials.
Even consumer groups and Congressional leaders who fight against a technical amendment of the CPSIA have argued that component-based testing would solve many of the CPSIA's "implementation issues". Indeed, on January 16, 2009, CPSIA authors Henry Waxman, Bobby Rush, John D. Rockefeller and Mark Pryor wrote to the CPSC:
We encourage the Commission to move more quickly in consideration of [component testing]...The Commission must provide clearer guidance on this issue, and it must do so with greater speed than it has exhibited thus far. We do not believe that reaching a decision by August 2009 represents a sufficiently timely resolution of this issue.
And yet, here we are in October 2009 with no ruling on component testing in sight.
At this point, even if component testing were allowed as of tomorrow morning, it will be too late for many small businesses. The 2/10/10 deadline for third party testing is fast approaching and manufacturers are already buying materials now that they will still be using to make products after that deadline. Even though small-batch manufacturers have been working together to create a directory of CPSIA-Compliant materials, without CPSC-issued regulations we have little power to force suppliers to test and certify. Why would a zipper company spend money to test its zippers if the law doesn't justify it?
So, how can a useful component-based testing regulation be put in place in less than four months?
It can't.
The CPSC has stated that they do not plan to extend the one year stay of enforcement on testing requirements beyond 2/10/10. But, because of their lack of action on component-based testing, the only fair and workable solution will be to grant a further extension of the stay.
Common sense delayed is common sense denied.
Comments
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Dan Marshall
- Saint Paul, MN
The CPSIA came from Lala land and lifelong Democrats (such as myself) are becoming Republicans because we no longer have faith that our Democratic Congress has any common sense whatsoever. (if the CPSIA makes sense to them, how on Earth am I going to trust them with health care!)
Parents have little time to research laws passed by our Congress. They have to assume these laws are generally sensible. In the case of the CPSIA that assumption is utterly false - this law hurts children more than it helps them.
The CPSIA can be likened to dredging the entire Pacific Ocean to remove glass shards from the beach. You may get the glass but in the process you destroy the beach, the ocean, and everything in it. The CPSIA is impoverishing the creative and educational environments of children, stealing important resources from low income families, destroying businesses, negatively impacting our already weak economy, and providing little (if any) safety in return.
The list of TOTALLY SAFE products in the process of being made illegal or unmanufacterable by this law exposes it for what it really is - an excercise in phobia: bicycles, tricycles, books, rocks, telescopes, microscopes, teddy bears, potato clocks, most musical instruments, most anything with brass in it, clothing with zippers or snaps or buttons, most hand-made items (testing is too expensive for small quantities), rhinestones, and the this list goes on, and on, and on...focus on unsafe products is completely lost by the mountain of perfectly safe products being hyper-regulated by the CPSIA.
Historically only a tiny fraction of lead poisoning cases in children have come from childrens products. If the money being wasted by the CPSIA were focused on lead in house paint and soil and the few childrens products that really are a problem, safety would be increased by orders of magnitude over that being provided by the CPSIA. Instead, the complete loss of focus and the immense amount of money wasted on safe products, I believe, will ultimately result in less safety for children, not more. I have a six year old daughter and I believe she deserves better than an ineffective, money wasting, phobia based law!
Posted by Mars Feeney on 10/27/2009 @ 10:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.