Letters to/from Politicians, CPSC etc.

[Rob Wilson]

Please post your letters to Senators, Representatives of Congress, CPSC and others here. It would be nice to have a record of who has been contacted, AND their responses.

[Jennifer]

This is what I was sent from Senator Durbin. What does this tell me? No one read the letter I sent. So I responded back with a much firmer letter. I don't know about all of you but I wanted to bang my head against the wall when I read this. His letter does state to stay in touch, so we are.

rec'd December 16, 2008

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns.

In July, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The measure, which became law on August 14, 2008, includes a number of provisions I authored to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission's ability to protect American consumers.

The law authorizes a significant funding increase for the CPSC to hire additional inspectors and upgrade its testing facilities. In addition, the measure directs the CPSC to establish a searchable, online consumer product safety database to make it easier to find information about recalls and product safety concerns.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act also requires that all products marketed for young children be certified as safe by third-party inspectors. Under the new law, product testing may be performed by a company-owned lab only if the lab is CPSC certified, appropriately insulated from the rest of the company's operations, and can provide equal or greater consumer protection than what would be provided by available third-party labs.

The measure bans the use of lead and toxic phthalates in products manufactured for children aged 12 and younger and requires retailers to label children's products with tracking information that would aid identification in the event of a recall. Finally, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act increases penalties for companies that violate product safety laws.

In 2007, more than 40 million products regulated by the CPSC were recalled, including many popular brands of toys and other children's products. The recalls hurt consumer confidence and shed light on the CPSC's inability to adequately protect consumer safety.

I am pleased that Congress voted to pass this much needed legislation. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will provide the CPSC with the resources and authority it needs to better protect American consumers. I will continue to work to provide the CPSC with the resources it needs to keep the American people safe.

Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

RJD/hw

[Turtle Park Tots]

I spent 45 minutes talking to Diana DeGette's CPSIA aid last Friday (12-19). She is the vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee and is on the subcommittee overseeing the CPSC. He was very sympathetic and surprised. He was surprised about the unintended consequences. He said they had no intention of putting small manufacturers out of business. He said they'd heard from the larger toy companies but nothing from the smaller toy manufacturers and nothing from people like me who make cotton baby blankets and bibs. He said that they are convening the subcommittee to discuss the CPSIA sometime at the beginning of Jan. He asked if DeGette could tell my story at the meeting.

I plan to call her DC office again on Jan 5 when they are back in session to retell my story and find out when the subcommittee is scheduled to meet..

I suggest everyone contact the House Energy and Commerce Committee to tell them your story.

[Rob Wilson]

KATHLEEN FASANELLA SENT ME THE LINK TO THIS LETTER AND SUGGESTED I POST IT HERE FROM ALAN MACOMBER. AS A RESIDENT OF MA, I SECOND HIS REQUESTS/COMMENTS.

Corky & Company Letter to Congress

A Draft of this Letter was sent to the Honorable Edward Kennedy, John Kerry & Barney Frank our two Senators and Representative.







December 22, 2008



Via Overnight Delivery



The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2101



Re: Petition for Rulemaking under CPSIA Section 101



Dear Mr. Kennedy



I’m President of Corky & Company LLC, a manufacturer of children’s outerwear located in Fall River, Massachusetts. We’ve been in business for fifteen years, have always supported children charities in our community and provide a livelihood for a number of residents of southeastern Massachusetts. I have three young children and respect the intent of Congress when the Consumer Product Improvement Act of 2008 was passed this summer.



At Corky & Company we have been working diligently to understand and comply with the new law. We are taking actions that we understand to be necessary, but there is tremendous confusion in my industry as to what is required of children’s apparel makers. Recently the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) asked the U.S. Consumer Protection Agency for a Petition for Rulemaking under CPSIA section 101. A copy of that letter can be found in its entirety at the URL:



http://www.toyassociation.org/AM/PDFs/Safety/CPSCPetition1208.pdf



I have taken the liberty to summarize this letter here in order to explain the uncertainty of the CPSIA as it relates to Corky & Company LLC. Could I please ask you to urge the U.S. Consumer Protection Agency to fully and urgently act on the National Association of Manufacturers request for rulemaking? Immediate action is needed for my industry to be in a position to comply with the intent of the Act.



Executive Summary



NAM has asked for urgent action from the CPSC on the proposed rule making in light of the upcoming February 10, 2009 deadline for new lead limits in substrates. The CPSIA was drafted with the intention of enhancing children’s product safety. In connection with the new lead content requirements it is necessary for the CPSC to define how component testing can be relied upon and which materials and components should be excluded from testing. Manufacturers need to be able to rely upon supplier certifications for component materials. Developed regulations that address these issues before the February 10, 2009 deadline are necessary to enable effective compliance. Congress did not reasonably intend a chaotic implementation of the CPSIA.



Congress recognized an important role for risk and exposure assessments in identifying exclusions from reduced lead limits. Section 101 (b) authorizes the CPSC to grant exemptions to the lead limits under several circumstances, and § 3 gives the CPSC authority to issue regulations, as necessary, to implement the CPSIA. One major problem with the impending deadline to meet the lead limit comes before the CPSC is expected to issue guidance on test methods or rule on exceptions. The problem is exacerbated further by the absence of clear guidance on circumstances in which composite and upstream input component testing is acceptable. Such guidelines need to be firmly established as part of a rule.





Uncertainty Related to Children Apparel Makers



A specific example for a children’s apparel maker is the use of fabrics like cotton and cotton thread with no or very low total lead to make thousands of SKUs of children’s t-shirts. Absent an exemption, the garment producer may have to test each SKU for lead – testing the identical material thousands of times. Or, a garment maker might purchase 100,000 zippers and use the zippers in a variety of children’s apparel, perhaps involving 10,000 SKUs. Common sense tells us that it must be acceptable for the garment maker to rely upon the zipper manufacturer to certify compliance on all of its zippers, rather than needlessly require the zipper used in various garments to be tested 10,000 times because it is used in 10,000 different garments. The statutory language is unclear and could be interrupted to mandate 10,000 different tests. These are the types of practical problems that manufacturers, importers and retailers face and that have enormous cost implications.



Excluding from the requirements of § 101 materials or components that are known to meet the lead standards is crucial to maintaining safety, maximizing consumer choice and preserving the economic viability of American businesses. Limiting the number of lead tests that must be conducted by excluding materials, components and products that do not pose a risk will avoid costly and unnecessary testing, and offers environmental benefits as well by reducing the hazardous wastes which are a by product of testing with hydrochloric and nitric acid. Adoption of common-sense, risk, health and safety exemptions, consistent with the CPSC’s statutory authority, will protect the public while minimizing unnecessary economic impacts on business that lack any added safety benefit to consumers.



The best available scientific evidence supports excluding fabrics, threads and elastics because they are known to contain no or very low amounts of lead and therefore meet the criteria for exemption under the provisions of § 101 (b)(1). The state of California in consultation with scientists and toxicologists agreed to exclude from regulation under The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 materials that have no or very low amounts of lead. Included in these materials were fabrics, threads and elastics.





Clarification Needed By Children Apparel Makers



As noted above, garment makers are grappling with the technical and practical questions about how and what to test for lead. In addition to granting exceptions, as outlined above, which are entirely consistent with public health objectives and the statutory framework, the CPSC is urged to recognize reasonable component or raw material testing as the basis for certifications required under the CPSIA.



The apparel industry understands the need for robust quality control to assure components or raw materials meet required specifications and have implemented quality control procedures to assure that they do. The supply chain must rely upon a reasonable raw material and component manufacturer testing, as part of a comprehensive lead compliance verification process. Failing to address these issues will create enormous practical difficulties and financial burdens with no commensurate public safety benefit.



The timelines for the CPSC to act on testing and exceptions are not synchronized with the February 10, 2009 deadline for lead. Action is urgently needed on a comprehensive rule on all aspects of the lead limits to provide clarity and minimize disruption to markets in a fashion that fully meets our shared product safety objectives.





On behalf of Corky & Company LLC, its employees and our retailers we appreciate any effort you can make to encourage the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission to act on the National Association of Manufacturers petition for rulemaking under CPSIA section 101.



Sincerely,



Alan F. Macomber

President

Corky & Company LLC

[Alayna]

This is the letter I received from Congressman Ed Pastor:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Consumer product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) mandate for the removal of toys containing hazardous materials from the marketplace. I appreciate learning of your interest in this issue.

While I sincerely regret that third-party testing of toys and other children's products have become necessary, the recent incidents of dangerous levels of toxins found in these products requires Congress to increase oversight and ensure the safety and well being of our nation's children. CPSIA was passed by significant support in both the House of Representatives, 424-1, and the Senate, 89-3, and was signed into law by President Bush on August 14th. I joined many of my colleagues in co-sponsoring and voting in support of CPSIA because of this striking need to protect our nation's children.

However, please be aware that as the guidelines for implementing the legislation are worked out, there may be future exemptions for small businesses like yours. I would encourage you to contact the Consumer product Safety Commission with details of your circumstances as a small business owner in order to assist them as the make recommendations for future compliance guidelines. All correspondences can be sent to:

Nancy Nord
Acting Chairman
Consumer product Safety Commission
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

I appreciate learning of your concerns as you raised some very interesting points. Please know that my office is always open to you.

Sincerely
Ed Pastor
Member of Congress

[Jody]

You are absolutely correct that no one read your letter. Congressional offices commonly use software that searches their emails for keywords and then generates a canned reply. Nice, huh? I learned of this a few years back when I got a response to an email I sent to my congressman literally in seconds after hitting send. I picked up the phone and called the office, got a human on the other end of the line and proceeded to explain how I, as a registered voter of his party, resented being summarily dismissed on an issue that I clearly cared enough about to write such a lengthy letter. The aide apologized profusely and promised me a thorough response by the end of the following day. He followed through with his promise. So, if any of you are getting what you suspect might be a canned response, pick up the phone...I don't think these politicians can afford to use caller ID in the offices set up to work with constituents. The simple, sad fact is that Email and its attendant technology makes it too easy for them to dismss your concerns all while giving the appearance that they are being responsive....tells me they think I'm stupid, on top of being unworthy of their time.....Remind them they work for you....send a hard copy letter and/or make a phone call.

Jennifer said:

This is what I was sent from Senator Durbin. What does this tell me? No one read the letter I sent. So I responded back with a much firmer letter. I don't know about all of you but I wanted to bang my head against the wall when I read this. His letter does state to stay in touch, so we are.

[Rob Wilson]

12/28/2008

(also sent to James McGovern, MA, Bobby Rush, IL, and Edward Markey, MA, and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House)

To: [e-mail]
Subject: CPSIA, A View from the Field
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]., [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Dear Ms. Bailey:

I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me a couple of weeks ago with my Congressman (James McGovern) regarding the CPSIA.

I want to let you and your colleagues know a little bit more about who I am and what is happening in our movement. I am an importer, primarily of children's natural toys. I also manufacture 2 items here in Massachusetts. I am concerned about what this law means to my business, and to the future product availability in general for the children of this nation now and in the future. I am likewise concerned about what it means to the future of free-enterprise, innovation, and the entrepreneurial spirit of this country going into the future.

Rather than simply sign a petition, or write one blog post, I felt the stakes were too high and I had to do more. I do maintain a blog, which has been devoted to this subject for over a month now (http://challengeandfun.typepad.com/my_weblog/). I am not alone. I am among many other activists that are working around the clock due to the urgency and importance of this matter. I have created a networking site as a central place for various groups, businesses, consumers, etc., to gather and voice their concerns. You are all invited, and welcome to join, make comments, and contribute (http://www.cpsia-central.ning.com). This is but one, among many, forums for discussion and action on this issue.

If you venture into our fully public website and view the member profiles, you will see example after example of work at home mom's, enterprising retailers, innovative manufacturers, and more, from across the country. If you read their comments you will get a sense for the utter frustration that is being felt across this nation at the legislation that is needlessly threatening not only our livelihoods, but our very culture. This is but a small representation of the tens of thousands of businesses in many different areas of the children's products industry that is impacted by this law, not to mention the hundreds of millions of consumers that will be hurt by lack of choice and higher prices.

You probably have seen an up-tick in the news stories that are coming out. This story is all over the internet on the blogs, reaching those that most count on natural, and innovative children's products. It has been featured in regional papers, and local TV news. It was featured in the Washington Post last week, and all over the AP wires since then. We fully expect the main stream news media in the coming days and weeks. We have a story to tell, and we are telling with passionately, as if our lives depended on it. Because our lives, and quality of life do depend on massive changes to this law. I know that you are all in positions that could be considered "pressure cookers". I recognize that. I know that public opinion matters when it comes to policy change. We, as a movement, are doing our best to ensure you have the cover of public opinion to make these changes. We will do our best to educate the public about the shortcomings of the law as it stands now, and do our best to vocalize the public to help you make those changes. But to the extent that we fall short, in the short term. We ask that you stand up and take a leadership role in amending this law to avoid an even bigger public outcry when companies large and small start falling like dominoes in February.

I also want to let you know that we are encouraged by the movement we are seeing within the government to make changes to the law to accommodate smaller suppliers, particularly as the CPSC is considering exemptions for certain natural materials, and if I am not mistaken, for small businesses too.

We would like to encourage the government to follow-through and approve such measures, but we want you to know that this will, by itself, be enough to save the vast majority of children's products businesses in this country (retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers of all shapes & sizes). Here are but a few concerns that we would like to share with you.

1. While natural materials such as wood and cotton may be exempted, this does not help those that actually want color in their products. Certainly the government should consider broad exemptions for coloring that is deemed to be safe, and inherently lead free. Some examples would be those that stain their wood with water based paints, beeswax, etc. or who dye their cotton with dyes that are already certified to standards that are even higher than the CPSIA (such as, but not limited to, "oeko-tex" and/or other standards accepted in the the organic cotton industry). These are but a few examples. Additionally, there are many other materials that do not inherently contain lead, or which do not generally have soluble lead which should be considered for exemption.

2. We need your help to avoid the chaos that will soon be upon us in dealing with existing inventory (when I refer to "us" I mean the children's products industry in general) and the massive & extraordinarily expensive testing that is being required on this inventory.

3. Batches, labelling & testing frequency: What is a batch? How is it defined? How do we, as small companies, deal with the cost and administration of tracking batches, without incurring undue costs that make it no longer worthwhile to produce or import children's products. How frequently do we need to test? Do I, as a small importer, need to test each and every small shipment coming into this country?

4. Administration & legalities: Large companies can afford expensive lawyers to try to understand this highly complex law. Small companies will either give up, or simply ignore the law (which I do not think is the intended result). Administration costs also threaten to make the cost of supplying products into this industry unreasonably expensive.

5. We agree that the CPSC should consider the component (input) testing over unit testing which would alleviate the problem for many companies. We will send in our comments regarding this issue to the CPSC shortly.

Please rest assured that we are not talking about lowering the lead standards, or the inherent safety of children's products. We are committed to the safety of our products, we simply want an economic way to continue to bring SAFE products to the market.

We ask for your prompt action to make changes to this law so that our industry can have some semblance of certainty again. We are entering a new year. With a new year come new catalogs. Ours should be at the printers by now. We haven't even started. With the new year comes trade shows (Toy Fair, Gift Fair, "Magic"--for the Apparel industry, along with countless baby shows, and more). Will attendees show up? Will there be any exhibitors, or products to exhibit? Time is of the essence. We ask for your expeditious attention to these matters.

Sincerely,


Rob Wilson
Director of Marketing
Challenge & Fun, Inc.

[Rob Wilson]

As an update, Judith Bailey did respond and we exchanged some short emails. She was on her blackberry so the emails were short. I have found her responsive, and appreciate being able to discuss our concerns with her. I hope to hear back from the politicians too.

[Claudia van Dijk]

Here is the letter I wrote to my representative, who happens to be Edward Markey. I'll post when (if) I get a reply.

To the Honorable Edward Markey


Dear Representative Markey,
I am very concerned as a small business person, as a consumer, and as a parent about some of the details related to H.R. 4040. I am completely in favor of finding ways to guarantee that children's products are safe. But I am concerned that I will have to stop producing my safe and popular hand-made toys, and that I will be unable to purchase such hand-made items from other producers once the CPCIA is in effect.

As a business person, I am very interested in having my products go through testing to prove their safety to others. But because I work in very small batches (one to five items per "batch") the current testing facilities are unaffordable: I cannot spread the cost out among a large batch of toys.

My business is currently on hold. I cannot expand my product lines until I know how to feasibly comply with this new law.

Is it possible for me meet with you in your Medford office to discuss this topic and to find out your ideas about how very small producers like myself should be proceeding?

Thank you,
Claudia van Dijk

[dan marshall]

Attached is the letter to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy from the Handmade Toy Alliance. The letter is an application for relief under their Regulatory Review & Reform Initiative.

[Jennifer]

Thanks for sharing this. I modified and used for our purposes.

[dan marshall]

Attached is the Handmade Toy Alliance's Response to the CPSC's proposed rule exempting natural materials from lead testing. We argue for exemptions for many additional items not mentioned in the proposed rules.

[Tracy]

Hello Congress,

I am a very concerned parent who cares very much about my children's health and safety and our environment. We are a green family raising our children naturally and organically. This new law may have good intentions but scares the crap out of me. I no not choose to buy all the unsafe toys and clothing in stores for my children. I only purchase those things on-line at reputable sites that I stick to. If they are driven out of business I guess my kids will have to go nude and have nothing safe to play with. What sense does that make? The safest toys on the market are handmade and not sold in just any store. The rich guys will get richer and the small companies that are trying to make a difference for this planet are going to be crushed. I want you all to think about this long and hard and realize what is best for the children of the world, the environment and the economy. The cost of tyesting these toys and clothes should not put on these small retailers. If the government really cares about children and their safety they should be doing this at their cost. It should be these small companies that are selling certified organic clothing and non-toxic toys that should really flourish oiut of this and the super stores and box stores should take the hit because it them that are guilty of selling terrible, unsafe and toxic products to our children while getting rich!!!
Tracy