http://www.fashion-incubator.com How to start a clothing line or run the one you have, better. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:16:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/fair-is-fair-blaming-china/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/fair-is-fair-blaming-china/#comments Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:17:56 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=6190 This is my case in point. It's a blog post from NTA (National Textile Assoc) about four more recalls of hooded sweatshirts. Here's an excerpt, emphasis is mine: Children’s Hooded Jackets about 2,400 units Manufactured in P.R. China. ...These latest recalls bring to almost a quarter of a million of number of articles of children's apparel recalled so far in 2010 due to health hazards. All recalls so far this year have been of foreign-made clothing. I'm not happy that most of the business went to China but fair is fair and this isn't. For each recall, the country of origin (contractor) was cited, namely China. Completely off the hook -in this entry, but not for the purposes of sanctions and penalties- were the responsible parties, i.e. the importers (manufacturers) and retailers of record. In other words, all were US companies. This entry should have said something like this:]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/fair-is-fair-blaming-china/feed/ 9 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-update-122309/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-update-122309/#comments Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:08:27 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=5711 Interim Enforcement Policy (pdf) on Component Testing and Certifications of Children's Products and Other Consumer Products to the August 14, 2009 Lead Limits. This will permit manufacturers to issue GCCs that rely on component testing and/or component testing results provided by component suppliers. Yes, again, we can use supplier provided documentation. However, there's one big caveat; the manufacturer remains responsible (read: liable) for compliance under the CPSIA. In other words, if your products are found to be out of compliance with the law and you used your supplier's testing results, you are liable, not the supplier. Greater due diligence will be required in sourcing your inputs. Be wary of lower cost input suppliers. On December 17th, the CPSC voted to extend the stay of enforcement on third-party testing under the CPSIA for an additional year. Other than the obvious, it gives the CPSC some more time to issue final rules. Likewise, we still don't have enough labs certified to provide testing services. It is hoped that these two issues among myriad others will be resolved before this current stay of enforcement expires in February of 2011.]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-update-122309/feed/ 1 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-update-12909-urgent-action-needed/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-update-12909-urgent-action-needed/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:13:06 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=5611 details) if you're one of the many who could not attend. Second and most importantly, this from Rick Woldenberg (most emphasis mine): You may not realize it, but we face a serious crisis right now. Last week, the CPSC held a hearing that discussed the possible extension of the testing and certification stay. The Commission is under pressure to ramp up implementation of the awful CPSIA and this therefore puts the testing stay in peril. Chairman Tenenbaum has heard the concerns of regulated businesses that some advance warning is needed, so Rumorville in forecasting a quick consideration of the question - possibly as early as next week. Commissioner Nancy Nord commented on the implications of the stay in her blog last week. At least one Commissioner, Bob Adler, is openly hostile to continuation of the stay. This is a big deal to companies regulated by the CPSIA. [...] The Commission's sense of urgency to get this irritant off their plate is creating rumors that they intend to act as soon as the next business day after the workshop. As outrageous as this might seem, it's really worse - the workshop is not about the stay. The workshop is about component testing, frequency of testing, sampling schemes, when to require additional testing, etc. The CPSC has not asked for comments about the lifting of the stay but at least one Commissioner has reasoned that if it was a "big deal", the CPSC might have heard from more than the Handmade Toy Alliance. [Apparently, both Bob Adler and Jay Howell believe that the CPSC has had not heard from anyone other than the HTA on the stay, which is certainly not true.] If the stay is lifted on two months notice with all these rules open, undrafted or in process, utter chaos will break out... ]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-update-12909-urgent-action-needed/feed/ 4 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-updates-11102009/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-updates-11102009/#comments Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:38:24 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=5252 CPSC released a draft for testing and certification requirements (pdf) under CPSIA. While the developments spelled out therein look promising, be advised this is a draft, not a formal ruling. If you'd care to lend your support to the proposal (recommended), public comments are due by January 11, 2010. Be advised the CPSC is no longer accepting comments via email directly. Instructions for submission appear on page 27 of the pdf. Here are the highlights of this most recent release from the CPSC: Supplier provided documentation on components This is the biggie we'd all been hoping for. It seems likely that we will be permitted to use third party testing documentation from our suppliers provided they've used a CPSC sanctioned lab. This is advantageous in two respects.

1. If one's component parts are either exempt (most fabrics are) or verified to meet CPSIA standards, the more stringent destructive unit testing won't be required to prove compliance.
2. You won't have to pay (directly) for component testing of buttons, grommets and the like. Indirectly you'll pay since you and every other children's product producer will need to source inputs from suppliers who can provide the documentation for the GCC and it's likely those will cost a bit more. And yes, you'll still need the GCC to document your compliance with this modified "reasonable testing program".

More details on the above can be found on page 10 of the document (page 12 of the pdf). Some CPSIA activists are saying we need an additional year's stay of enforcement because they claim it will take years for component suppliers to perform these tests but most suppliers are already required to do them by their insurers and larger customers. I think the bigger problem will be getting the existing documentation into the hands of those who need it. Standards relaxed for small companies]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-updates-11102009/feed/ 6 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-updates-102209/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-updates-102209/#comments Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:47:34 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=5134 The CPSC is conducting a hearing on November 10th regarding the establishment of a Public Consumer Product Safety Incident Database. Requests to present oral comments are due by November 3rd. On one hand, many are leery of the prospect of a database as it is unclear how whistle blowing will be weighted and processed. On the other, some people will use the resource to report vendors who willfully ignore the CPSIA statute and thus enjoy unfair competitive advantages. Like everything else associated with the law, the database is controversial. The CPSC has released the latest version (pdf) of the statement of policy governing testing and certification of lead content in children's products. It is much the same as before but with three differences: ]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-updates-102209/feed/ 3 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/will-you-need-to-do-a-recall/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/will-you-need-to-do-a-recall/#comments Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:11:00 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=5055 anyone who makes or sells products in California and children's product producers nationwide. Here's the context (if you're not making kid's products, don't leave yet). This morning I was visiting a children's retail site and noticed coats with drawstrings for sale. Shocking, no? If you don't know why ties and drawstrings are a huge problem, catch up now. Since I am friendly with the proprietor, I asked her about it and mentioned the problem. She was horrified to say the least and immediately pulled those items from stock. I was surprised she didn't know so I asked her if the manufacturer had advised her. At first she said no but then after poking around a bit, she found an email advising her of the problem. She also said the email did not emphasize the liability, that these products were illegal.]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/will-you-need-to-do-a-recall/feed/ 6 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-childrens-apparel-exemptions/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-childrens-apparel-exemptions/#comments Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:53:57 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=4639 catch up here. Start at the bottom entry and work your way up. For others who've kind of sort of kept up, the CPSC released a new ballot on the final lead rule (pdf) last Thursday which provided details and proposed exemptions to lead testing. I know what you're thinking, it's a ballot and not final. That it will pass is essentially a foregone conclusion. So the question is, is this a good thing or a bad thing for apparel producers of kid's clothes? Judging from consensus, it's not a complete solution but we (apparel) are a whole lot better off than other segments of the children's products market. Before getting into exemptions, I must reiterate that testing of individual components is technically not permitted under CPSIA. We were granted a stay effective through February 2010 but it's not a permanent change. I mention this because judging from the content of this 94 page document, it seems obvious that a change in testing requirements to favor component testing is being seriously considered. Here's the money quote (emphasis is mine): The Commission is aware that there are many questions regarding component part testing and certification for lead content given that any children's product may be made with a number of materials and component parts. The questions regarding testing and certification are significant because not all component parts may need to be tested if they fall under the scope of the exclusions approved by the Commission... The Commission intends to address component part testing and the establishment of protocols and standards for ensuring that children's products are tested for compliance with applicable children's products safety rules, as well as products that fall within an exemption, in an upcoming rulemaking. The reason I mention this before talking about exemptions is because exemptions are itemized per component. Many analysts are interpreting the focus on components as indication that policy changes will permit component testing in the future, hopefully before the expiration of the stay in February. Caveats dispensed with, here's the skinny.]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-childrens-apparel-exemptions/feed/ 19 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-another-tracking-label-update/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-another-tracking-label-update/#comments Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:22:29 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=4578 Statement of Policy (pdf) which includes Commissioner comments that outline the interpretation of the tracking label requirement as well as an updated FAQ. Perhaps surprisingly, many decisions are left in the manufacturer’s best judgment. Likewise, the CPSC mentions an “education period” although compliance is expected if it comes to a potential recall. Above all, it seems apparent the Commission does not intend to penalize manufacturers who have erroneously interpreted the guidelines provided any errors or omissions were made in good faith. That doesn't mean you're off the hook just because you're small. Tenenbaum said specifically: ...small volume manufacturers and crafters have expressed concern that they cannot feasibly comply with the statute because their production patterns do not lend themselves to lot, batch, and run labeling systems. To this end, the Commission agrees that small volume manufacturers or crafters need not create a labeling system incorporating the use of lot, batch, or run numbers so long as such manufacturers can keep adequate records of the components used in their products. The goal of the labeling statute is to enable manufacturers and consumers alike to ascertain pertinent information about a children's product in the event of a recall, not to implement a rigid and uniform labeling standard that applies to both small and large manufacturers in the same way. In developing and implementing a tracking label system, small volume manufacturers and crafters should also consider the business and recordkeeping practices of their peers. ]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-another-tracking-label-update/feed/ 8 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-articles-index/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-articles-index/#comments Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:45:22 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=3776 CPSIA Forum on Fashion-Incubator, open to the public Entries: CPSIA: Another tracking label update What is a batch? CPSIA: Tracking labels update What is a cutting ticket What is a Bill of Materials (BOM) What is a sketch sheet]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-articles-index/feed/ 0 http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/what-is-a-batch/ http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/what-is-a-batch/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:07:55 +0000 Kathleen Fasanella http://www.fashion-incubator.com/?p=4339 talking about, this is an entry I needed to put up a long time ago for people making children's products who need to comply with CPSIA. Several people contacted me saying they needed to order labels so I had to get back to it. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to read CPSIA and tracking label requirements. As of August 14, 2009, all children's products are required to have a new label. For review, the purpose of the label is so consumers can determine:

1. The manufacturer as we define it (legally, in other words, you)
2. Location of manufacture
3. Date of production
4. Cohort information (a contractor -none if applicable)
5. Batch or lot number (a number you assign)

The big sticking point is what is a batch? Normally, a cut order is a batch but this does not qualify under CPSIA. Under CPSIA, a batch is one lot that uses identical items which themselves have identical lot numbers. For example, if you're using the same thread, the same fabric and the same buttons or zippers the individual items of which come from their own complete batch as listed on the box they came in, then that is a batch. Each batch needs a unique identifying number.]]> http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/what-is-a-batch/feed/ 8