Comments on: CPSIA: Unit vs Component Testing

By: Sethi

Sethi — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:50:28 +0000

are there, or will there be any Government subsidy programs to help small business’s comply?

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:05:33 +0000

I respectfully disagree about RoHS. It has been quite successful in reducing hazardous substances in electronics on a nearly worldwide basis since 2006.

Today it is difficult to purchase a consumer electronics product that isn’t compliant. Apple, Dell, Sony, Motorola, HP, Cannon, Epson, Sharp and numerous others have been making millions of RoHS products for years now without reliability issues.

Tin whiskers is a well known, researched issue that has largely been mitigated by new solder alloys like tin-silver-copper. To date there are no significant known documented failures of RoHS compliant products due to tin whiskers.

Here’s a great link:

http://www.ventureoutsource.com/contract-manufacturing/benchmarks-best-practices/rohs-environment/rohs-one-year-later-the-good-news-is-the-bad-news-was-wrong

Luckily CRTs are obsolete with the advent of LCD technology, so I don’t see this as an issue long term.

As for plumbing solder, it has been lead-free for years.

By: Cinthia

Cinthia — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:03:04 +0000

Unit testing is crazy – if you wait until the factory has purchased all the raw materials, and then sew the product and THEN test it – what happens if it fails? When doing a ‘group’ of same products – I’d feel better testing the components first then following up with testing one finished product – maybe an FRX scan just to confirm. Last quote I got for testing one backpack was over $1,000 – even the zipper has 5 components to it. Oh, and it failed, and now the factory says “so sorry – production is finished!”

By: CPSC Request for Comments on Component Testing « Safety & Compliance in Children’s Sewn Products Manufacturing

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:28:30 +0000

[...] 15 December 2008 Among the problems with the new Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) legislation is the issue of unit versus component testing of products. Fashion Incubator has a thorough treatment of the issue. [...]

By: Maura

Maura — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:59:57 +0000

I want to add, as an artist and craftsperson who makes one of a kind items (they may be similar in design or use the same pattern, but no two use identical materials). If I were to be able to comply with the requirements, I would have to make two identical items, let’s say dolls, which individually take 5-6 hours to produce, then submit one for destruction in the process of testing. I would then have to work the testing fee into the price of the doll.

That would cause the dolls to cost well over (many times over) what I would charge for them, and would place them outside the reach of most people for a child’s cloth doll.

I think that artisans have simply been forgotten in the process of writing the law.

By: National Bankruptcy Day » Blog Archive » Stop hurting the cause!

National Bankruptcy Day » Blog Archive » Stop hurting the cause! — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:39:03 +0000

[...] saying that. Yeah, I get it, component testing is expensive but it’s still a money saver over unit testing which is what we’re required to [...]

By: Vesta

Vesta — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:47:19 +0000

Lordy. Thank you, Kathleen. I so appreciate your time, effort, and expense. Once we get through “death valley” (the period from Thanksgiving through New Year’s), I’ll help defray the expenses you’re running up. I suggest everyone else who is appreciating this information do the same. (”Make a donation” in the righthand column.)

By: Esther

Esther — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:58:17 +0000

I just learned that lead solder is used in copper pipe plumbing.