View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kiki.Fluhr Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject: Component testing and the new Falvey letter |
|
|
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/323.pdf
Am I right in thinking that this decision allows for component testing until August? I really am not trying to start a fight because I know this is a heated subject, so if I am mistaken please just delete this.
Thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mom 4 Life Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: component testing |
|
|
I would love to find out if there is a final word on this as well! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kathleen F. Site Admin
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 11557 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The situation remains unchanged. You are permitted to use a "reasonable testing program" such as XRF testing until August. The nature of XRF is you test the unit by comparing each varying "surface" e.g. "component". So you are neither allowed nor forbidden to do component testing but it must be a "reasonable testing program".
Caution: Dan Marshall of HTA is telling manufacturers they can use vendor supplied certificates of components to comply with the law. This is FALSE. If I were him, I'd worry about being sued. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PUBLIC MEETING Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject: CPSC MEETING |
|
|
For those of you interested in the meeting and Q@A of the Apparel Industry, please go to the CPSC website and have a look see.
Link is provided, scroll to the bottom of the page.
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/apparel.html
Bets |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kathleen F. Site Admin
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 11557 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I moved an entry from Trace over [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=24554#24554]here[/url] which is our section for the activities of kindred.
I removed Tracy D's entry because the Etsy entry turned her around (Tracy, you are correct).
It's prolly best to just link to other entries off site rather than printing them in their entirety here (unless there's no other option of course) because people then confuse information published here, as having passed muster and that's not necessarily the case. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Trace Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: Latest CPSC letter on testing changes |
|
|
Okay, so now it looks like most industries are in the same boat along with the thrift stores and eBay sellers... You're not required to test or provide certification for your products, but if you sell something with lead (or phthalates, for manufacturers), you're still in violation of the law.
CPSC Grants One Year Stay of Testing and Certification Requirements for Certain Products
http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09115.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Eric H Site Admin
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 205 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, this more or less puts everyone back to the situation shortly before the law was passed. 600 ppm was the limit on lead then, you just didn't need to test or produce GCCs for it. Now you have other obligations, and you still have the reasonable testing program. Moore's letter said something like, "If you weren't having safety problems before, I would continue manufacturing."
But as Kathleen has been pointing out, the industry is changed for good in the wake of this. Those of you thinking, "Ah-HA! reprieve! I can stop worrying and go back to what I was doing" are going to find themselves gradually sinking below the surface and will finally disappear when the stay is lifted.
I think that was a little optimistic since we know that Jennifer Taggart was finding things that tested positive for lead. Moore also suggested that you start demanding compliant inputs from your sources, a hint that he is strongly in favor of component testing. Don't wait a year to start scrutinizing your sources. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tracy D Guest
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that if I had a choice of two suppliers of say white batiste, same quality, but one has a gcc and the other doesn't. I'd be willing to pay even a little more for the tested fabric....assuming the testing would be ok for me to use too. (if that makes sense, it's getting late and it's been a long day)
Tracy D
in Texas |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|