I highly advise that anyone concerned about the CPSIA read Rick Wolderberg's blog CPSIA - Comments & Observations. I'm using such a small amount of the material from just two posts.
The CPSC had a hearing December 2, a hearing on extending the testing stay and about interium enforcement policy. According to "CPSIA - Hearing on testing Stay and Interim Enforcement Policy," the Commission and the CPSC Staff are asking better questions
such as if there is enough lab capacity to the required tests."
However none of the discussion involved "Safety" or any discussion of risk. Rather concern seems to be the overwhelming paperwork. Nothing that mentioned the purpose of this law or huge governmental mistake - supposedly safety for children.
Rick Woldenberg continued by saying, "The sad fact is that the CPSC cannot create a workable solution, even with a smile on their faces and good intentions in their hearts, without addressing the deficiencies of the law. A nonsensical law cannot be fixed with implementing rules. At some point, the CPSC is going to figure this out when they see that compliance is very low, and they are overflowing with violations."
One of the items discussed as the possible extension of the testing and certification stay.
Woldenberg shared more in his "CPSIA - An Open Letter on the Testing Stay" December 8.
The discussion by the CPSA concerning possibly extending the testing and certification stay may not turn out well without massive pressure from us, all of us, steamroll the commissioners with an avalanche of emails.
I'm going to quote Woldenberg again, because he organized it and explained so well:
What kind of disaster would the termination of the Stay in February mean to you? Let me count the problems:
* The "15 Month Rule" was never issued when due on November 14th. The "15 Month Rule" was supposed to address testing frequency, sampling regimes, the need for additional testing, component testing rules, etc. [Component testing rules were cited as critical by Nancy Nord when the original stay was issued on January 30, 2009. How time flies . . . .] There is a workshop to be held on Thursday and Friday this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders. More than 200 people will attend and many more will watch and participate online in the web simulcast. Presumably this feedback needs to be fully digested before the Commission acts on the stay.
* Comments on the "15 Month Rule" issues are due on January 11. For perspective, the original comments on the penalty factors were due in late December 2008, and a second round of comments were due on October 1. The revised penalty factors have not been released, and we are now within days of a full year since the first comment letters were received. With this as precedent, we are clearly MANY months from a completed "15 Month Rule". Arguably, without a fully articulated "15 Month Rule", an active testing requirement will be incomplete and utterly confusing.
* The CPSC has not issued its phthalate testing standard.
* The CPSC has not certified ONE phthalates lab yet.
* The CPSC admits that it has not certified enough labs to handle a full burden of testing for many product classes or safety tests. They have not provided any quantification of this deficit besides acknowledging that for bikes, based on current accredited labs, it would take a full year to complete testing on all bikes on the U.S. market. That's one round of testing only, btw.
* The CPSC has not certified labs for ASTM F963 testing yet.
* The CPSC has not defined "children's product", "toy", "play" or "childcare article" yet, making the application of the rules completely opaque.
* The CPSC has not leveled the playing field, acknowledging that fixed test costs place a disproportionately high burden on small businesses. This competitive disadvantage has no ready solution under current rules.
* The CPSC has acknowledged that many companies have not acted to fill market gaps like component testing because the rules are not final (or even drafted in this case).
* The CPSC is on its third enforcement policy on lead and lead-in-paint. With the enforcement-policy-of-the-week, the agency ensures that companies will have devote considerable resources to relearning the rules that they had previously mastered, leading to confusion and exhaustion. Imposing a further layer of incomplete, vague and unarticulated testing policies and plans will only reinforce chaos as the working standard for the children's product industry.
* The rules that the CPSC has implemented are so ornate, confusingly worded, scattered among multiple documents, letters, and even video testimony, that only the most obsessive observers can claim an accurate understanding of every nuance. This group would not even include me, even though I have given up sleeping in favor of the CPSIA.
Now, I've emailed all five of the commissioners, but only one replied, Nancy Nord, agreeing the stay should be extended.
Send these five commissioners an email now with your concerns if the stay should be lifted.
Chairman Inez Tenenbaum itenenbaum@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Bob Adler radler@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Thomas Moore tmoore@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Nancy Nord nnord@cpsc.gov
Commissioner Anne Northup anorthup@cpsc.gov
Let's show the commissioners that we know what is going on and that we feel the destructive law, which should be destroyed, needs to have the stay extended.
Showing posts with label CPSC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPSC. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What? The CPSC didn't say what it said? Libraries are not criminals?
What! I've heard of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the latest news is astounding and more confusing than ever. The CPSC doesn't know what the CPSIA is supposed to do, and members of the CPSC don't know what each other does or should do.
As Walter Olson on Overlawyered, "CPSC: No, we didn’t ask libraries to pull pre-1985 books," wrote, an associated press article yesterday quoted Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Wolfson's message, as found also here this morning, stated that libraries should take steps to put pre-1985 books out of reach for children.
Now,commission chief of staff, Joe Martyak, says that Wolfson “misspoke." He says the commission never made any such recommendation. Huh?
Another CPSC commissioner, Thomas Moore, declared a few weeks ago that a large section of older books should be be “sequestered” from children for the time being.
When will the government admit defeat and scrap this poorly written law that does not protect children but harm them?
For updates on the CPSIA debacle, Overlawyered is an excellent source.
Are you as confused as I am? Apparently the CPSC is confused, too. Hmmm ... maybe the members ate too many lead filled books as adults.
.
As Walter Olson on Overlawyered, "CPSC: No, we didn’t ask libraries to pull pre-1985 books," wrote, an associated press article yesterday quoted Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Wolfson's message, as found also here this morning, stated that libraries should take steps to put pre-1985 books out of reach for children.
Now,commission chief of staff, Joe Martyak, says that Wolfson “misspoke." He says the commission never made any such recommendation. Huh?
Another CPSC commissioner, Thomas Moore, declared a few weeks ago that a large section of older books should be be “sequestered” from children for the time being.
When will the government admit defeat and scrap this poorly written law that does not protect children but harm them?
For updates on the CPSIA debacle, Overlawyered is an excellent source.
Are you as confused as I am? Apparently the CPSC is confused, too. Hmmm ... maybe the members ate too many lead filled books as adults.
.
CPSIA and libraries - breaking the law?
The "big brother" federal government fears lead may exist in children's books. The operative word here is "may." We can find no evidence of anyone, child or otherwise, being harmed by ingesting books. However, those in power, in their infinite wisdom, decided that many items not known for containing lead or are not eatable are dangerous to children -- including books. The Consumer Product Safety Commission finally announced that ordinary books printed after 1984 are probably safe.
Now the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, as translated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, requires that children's books (written for children twelve and under) printed before 1985 are to be destroyed or placed where children cannot access them. Of course until recently, the law was interpreted to cover all books published for children under thirteen.
Therefore, libraries were "urged" to take children's books printed before 1985 off their shelves or make those books not accessible until the federal agency "investigates" whether vintage books contain unsafe levels of lead. (Side note: What are unsafe levels of lead in items not digested?)
CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said libraries can safely lend any children’s book printed in 1986 or later…. Until the testing is done, the nation’s more than 116,000 public and school libraries “should take steps to ensure that the children aren’t accessing those books,” according to Wlfson. “Steps can be taken to put them in an area on hold until the Consumer Product Safety Commission can give further guidance.”
However, most libraries are not complying, as stated in CPSC Demands that Libraries Remove Books. A local television station had a segment on the nine o'clock news about libraries having more children checking out books than in the past. There in video were shelves after shelves filled with older children's books, and - horror of horrors - children were handling them, reading them, checking them out, but not eating even one, not even a nibble.
As Valerie wrote in the entry posted March 17, 2009, "Few, if any, libraries are complying, and many librarians are ridiculing the recommendation as alarmist. Even the nation’s premier medical sleuths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say any danger from lead in children’s books is slight."
Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association’s Washington office, said, “We’re talking about tens of millions of copies of children’s books that are perfectly safe. I wish a reasonable, rational person would just say, `This is stupid. What are we doing?’” Where are any reasonable, rational people in Washington?
Has the federal government made our public and school libraries criminals? Where can that reasonable, sane person be found?
.
Now the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, as translated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, requires that children's books (written for children twelve and under) printed before 1985 are to be destroyed or placed where children cannot access them. Of course until recently, the law was interpreted to cover all books published for children under thirteen.
Therefore, libraries were "urged" to take children's books printed before 1985 off their shelves or make those books not accessible until the federal agency "investigates" whether vintage books contain unsafe levels of lead. (Side note: What are unsafe levels of lead in items not digested?)
CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said libraries can safely lend any children’s book printed in 1986 or later…. Until the testing is done, the nation’s more than 116,000 public and school libraries “should take steps to ensure that the children aren’t accessing those books,” according to Wlfson. “Steps can be taken to put them in an area on hold until the Consumer Product Safety Commission can give further guidance.”
However, most libraries are not complying, as stated in CPSC Demands that Libraries Remove Books. A local television station had a segment on the nine o'clock news about libraries having more children checking out books than in the past. There in video were shelves after shelves filled with older children's books, and - horror of horrors - children were handling them, reading them, checking them out, but not eating even one, not even a nibble.
As Valerie wrote in the entry posted March 17, 2009, "Few, if any, libraries are complying, and many librarians are ridiculing the recommendation as alarmist. Even the nation’s premier medical sleuths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say any danger from lead in children’s books is slight."
Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association’s Washington office, said, “We’re talking about tens of millions of copies of children’s books that are perfectly safe. I wish a reasonable, rational person would just say, `This is stupid. What are we doing?’” Where are any reasonable, rational people in Washington?
Has the federal government made our public and school libraries criminals? Where can that reasonable, sane person be found?
.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Big Trouble on the Publishing Front
Ever hear of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008? If not, you need to read it and understand that, as of next month, the world of publishing, especially children's books will change. It also means that anything in your home that children touch can be illegal.
Here is what Amazon.com sent 4RV Publishing:
The U.S. House and Senate have passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (the 'Act'), and on August 14, 2008, President Bush signed the Act into law.
We expect that all Amazon.com vendors will ensure that their products are compliant with the Act in accordance with all applicable effective dates. Specific provisions of the Act discussed in this letter are for ease of reference only. Specific provisions of the Act discussed in this letter are for ease of reference only. Further information on the Act is available on the Consumer Product Safety Commission ('CPSC') website at www.cpsc.gov.
********************************
Product Content Limits
********************************
The Act prescribes strict limits on the content of certain materials in products intended for children, including lead and phthalates. In particular:
* Effective February 10, 2009, the Act prohibits the sale of children's toys and child care articles with concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate, (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP).
* The Act mandates a phased-in ban on lead in substrate for all children's products, requiring that lead levels be reduced to a maximum of 600 parts per million by February 10, 2009; 300 parts per million by August 14, 2009; and 100 parts per million by August 14, 2011. Electronic devices and inaccessible component parts will be subject to rules to be issued by August 14, 2009.
* The Act also reduces permissible lead in paint content from 0.06 percent to 0.009 percent (effective August 14, 2009), which may be lowered further by administrative action.
********************************
What you need to do
********************************
We expect that vendors will familiarize themselves with the effective dates of each applicable limit. In order to minimize the difficulty of tracking multiple versions of the same product through the supply chain, it is highly advisable for manufacturers to promptly eliminate or phase-out product offerings which do not or will not comply with the most restrictive limits described above, well before such limits take effect.
Follow the instructions located in this file, download and complete the spreadsheet and return it to us as an attachment to a Contact Us form, using Issue: Item Detail Page; Subissue: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
If all of your products are compliant with the lead and phthalate limits according to the table below, submit a Contact Us, using the instructions above, with the following statement 'We, [Vendor Name], certify that all of our products are compliant with the lead and phthalate limits effective as of August 14, 2011 as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.'
If some of your products are not compliant by any of the dates below, you must complete the spreadsheet located in the Resource Center of Vendor Central, as stated above. Only one spreadsheet needs to be completed.
As of each date set forth in Column III of the table below, each vendor must confirm and report to Amazon.com that all of your children's products (i) in Amazon.com's inventory, as reported to you in Vendor Central as of such date, and (ii) in transit or shipped to Amazon.com on or after such date, will comply with applicable limits set forth in Column I.
********************************
Specific Guidelines:
********************************
Limit Phthalate ban:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 10-Feb-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 30-Nov-08; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 15-Jan-09
Lead 600 ppm:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 10-Feb-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 30-Nov-08; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 15-Jan-09
Limit Lead 300 ppm:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 14-Aug-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 14-Apr-09; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 1-Jul-09
Limit Lead paint 0.009:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 14-Aug-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 14-Apr-09; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 1-Jul-09
Limit Lead 100 ppm:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 14-Aug-11; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 14-Feb-11; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 1-Jul-11
Please put your vendor name in the subject field of the email when you respond in any case.
Any children's products which are not so confirmed are subject to removal from the Amazon.com catalog, and Amazon.com will be entitled to return to you for a full refund (including shipping costs) any non-compliant products which remain in our inventory as of the dates in Column IV above.
In order to minimize difficulties in inventory compliance tracking, any products which are altered to comply with a limit described in the Act must have a distinct SKU number from previous versions. These changes must be reported to Amazon.com along with a return authorization for any Amazon.com inventory of previous versions.
The Act provides that the CPSC may issue regulations providing for further limitations on the content of children's products. Vendors are responsible for tracking and complying with any regulations issued by the CPSC.
We are confident that you share our commitment to ensure the full compliance with the Act of all of your products sold on Amazon.com.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Best Regards,
Amazon.com
Next post: What does this mean to small publishers and others (even authors) who sell children's books?
.
Here is what Amazon.com sent 4RV Publishing:
The U.S. House and Senate have passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (the 'Act'), and on August 14, 2008, President Bush signed the Act into law.
We expect that all Amazon.com vendors will ensure that their products are compliant with the Act in accordance with all applicable effective dates. Specific provisions of the Act discussed in this letter are for ease of reference only. Specific provisions of the Act discussed in this letter are for ease of reference only. Further information on the Act is available on the Consumer Product Safety Commission ('CPSC') website at www.cpsc.gov.
********************************
Product Content Limits
********************************
The Act prescribes strict limits on the content of certain materials in products intended for children, including lead and phthalates. In particular:
* Effective February 10, 2009, the Act prohibits the sale of children's toys and child care articles with concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate, (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP).
* The Act mandates a phased-in ban on lead in substrate for all children's products, requiring that lead levels be reduced to a maximum of 600 parts per million by February 10, 2009; 300 parts per million by August 14, 2009; and 100 parts per million by August 14, 2011. Electronic devices and inaccessible component parts will be subject to rules to be issued by August 14, 2009.
* The Act also reduces permissible lead in paint content from 0.06 percent to 0.009 percent (effective August 14, 2009), which may be lowered further by administrative action.
********************************
What you need to do
********************************
We expect that vendors will familiarize themselves with the effective dates of each applicable limit. In order to minimize the difficulty of tracking multiple versions of the same product through the supply chain, it is highly advisable for manufacturers to promptly eliminate or phase-out product offerings which do not or will not comply with the most restrictive limits described above, well before such limits take effect.
Follow the instructions located in this file, download and complete the spreadsheet and return it to us as an attachment to a Contact Us form, using Issue: Item Detail Page; Subissue: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
If all of your products are compliant with the lead and phthalate limits according to the table below, submit a Contact Us, using the instructions above, with the following statement 'We, [Vendor Name], certify that all of our products are compliant with the lead and phthalate limits effective as of August 14, 2011 as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.'
If some of your products are not compliant by any of the dates below, you must complete the spreadsheet located in the Resource Center of Vendor Central, as stated above. Only one spreadsheet needs to be completed.
As of each date set forth in Column III of the table below, each vendor must confirm and report to Amazon.com that all of your children's products (i) in Amazon.com's inventory, as reported to you in Vendor Central as of such date, and (ii) in transit or shipped to Amazon.com on or after such date, will comply with applicable limits set forth in Column I.
********************************
Specific Guidelines:
********************************
Limit Phthalate ban:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 10-Feb-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 30-Nov-08; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 15-Jan-09
Lead 600 ppm:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 10-Feb-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 30-Nov-08; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 15-Jan-09
Limit Lead 300 ppm:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 14-Aug-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 14-Apr-09; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 1-Jul-09
Limit Lead paint 0.009:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 14-Aug-09; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 14-Apr-09; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 1-Jul-09
Limit Lead 100 ppm:
Effective Date of Limit per the Act 14-Aug-11; Products shipped to Amazon.com must comply by 14-Feb-11; Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor 1-Jul-11
Please put your vendor name in the subject field of the email when you respond in any case.
Any children's products which are not so confirmed are subject to removal from the Amazon.com catalog, and Amazon.com will be entitled to return to you for a full refund (including shipping costs) any non-compliant products which remain in our inventory as of the dates in Column IV above.
In order to minimize difficulties in inventory compliance tracking, any products which are altered to comply with a limit described in the Act must have a distinct SKU number from previous versions. These changes must be reported to Amazon.com along with a return authorization for any Amazon.com inventory of previous versions.
The Act provides that the CPSC may issue regulations providing for further limitations on the content of children's products. Vendors are responsible for tracking and complying with any regulations issued by the CPSC.
We are confident that you share our commitment to ensure the full compliance with the Act of all of your products sold on Amazon.com.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Best Regards,
Amazon.com
Next post: What does this mean to small publishers and others (even authors) who sell children's books?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)