Comments on: CPSIA updates 11/10/2009

By: Sarah Natividad

Sarah Natividad — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:14:09 +0000

Thanks Kathleen! I thought so, but since it would be *logical* to not require periodic testing on something that doesn’t require testing, I couldn’t be sure skipping the periodic testing would comply with CPSIA.

By: Kathleen Fasanella

Kathleen Fasanella — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:27:10 +0000

So how does periodic testing work with all-textile items whose components don’t require testing?

It seems logical and by extension, that if the item doesn't require testing in the first instance -being exempt- it wouldn't require periodic testing either. On a related note, Rick Woldenberg discusses the considerable and weighty implications of periodic testing here and here. Caveat: since the situation is constantly evolving, one should make note of the dates of entry.

By: Vesta

Vesta — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:05:51 +0000

Thanks, K. Off to send in my comments to the CPSC.

By: dosfashionistas

dosfashionistas — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:13:54 +0000

Thank you for this update and summary. And thank you again for all the work you have done to bring a touch of sanity and common sense into a piece of legislation that started with neither.

By: Anne

Anne — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:19:20 +0000

Thank you for this summary! I’m so glad that all of our communal efforts are starting to pay off, and that some common sense is being applied to this legislation.

By: Sarah Natividad

Sarah Natividad — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:31:45 +0000

So how does periodic testing work with all-textile items whose components don’t require testing? Are we still required to have a test result on file? Can it be an XRF test? If so can it be performed in-house?