Handmade Toy Alliance Blog

HTA Presentation to the CPSC Roundable Discussion on Small Business Outreach, October 6, 2011

2011-10-06T08:04:00.000-07:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance, (HTA) representsa broad swath of small and micro businesses involved in production, retailing and importing of specialty toys and children’s products. These businesses are the backbone of specialty children’s products culture in America. They are mothers crafting items for sale on etsy.com, they aresmall specialty toy shops in towns across America, they are small businesses producing small batch toys in the USA, and they are all entrepreneurs providing new and unique opportunities for safe play.

This diverse membership struggles with assembling, reading, interpreting, understanding and implementingthe Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA.) The smallest microbusinesses have the largest hurdle to jump, but even our small business members have a sizeable learning curve. I’ll summarize these issues along with suggested outreach opportunities for threebusiness categories within the HTA.

Micro and Small Businesses Manufacturers
Micro-businesses are those crafting and retailing toys and children’s products in very small batches, each in very narrow product types. These businesses are family or single owner businesses with no employees and they represent 61% of our membership.In addition to selling their products online in a marketplace like etsy.com, they retail their products at small craft shows throughout the country. These may be church fairs, county fairs and other artisan events where they sell directly to the public.

Small businesses are those producing children’s products in small batches, often with broader product types. They represent 7% of our membership.

The following factors combine to makecomprehensionof the law problematic:

1. Insufficient time to digest the thousands of pages of law and rulings.
2. Inability to interpret the laws and rulings for their specific products and circumstances.
3. No feasible access to legal representation to provide an interpretation the law.
4. Difficult to obtain documents required by the law – ASTM F963 – because of cost and limited availability.

These businesses need the law boiled down to the minimum required for compliance in their specific business implementation. This amounts to individual legal interpretations for each business for each product they produce. This is literally hundreds of thousands of applications of the law. (There are currently over half a million children’s items for sale at etsy.com alone.)

The HTA suggests flowcharts or other easy to use methods like web-based question-answer forms for providing requirements in a logical manner. The intelligence programmed into the flowchart or form sequence leads business owners through questions ultimately arriving at requirements for their product. Either technique mustprovide the user the following information:

1. What parts of the law are applicable,

2. What tests are required and whether the test must be performed by a 3rd party;

what is the specific component that causes the test requirement,
a list of certified testing laboratories.

3. What possibility there might be for component part certification,
4. How to apply the small batch rules from H.R.2715,
5. What are the labeling requirements,
6. What are the record keeping requirements,
7. What liabilities and penalties come into play,
8. And, what form a certificate must take.

Another tool the CPSC can provide is to publish lists of components to avoid when making one of a kind and crafted children’s items. For instance; metal beads, colors that have a greater risk of containing lead, hazardous fasteners, etc. This is an easy way to keep components that are more likely to pose a risk of injury or that likely cause test failure out of children’s products from the start.

For reaching these businesses, the Internet is the primary method. Micro businesses rarely attend trade shows and most of them are NOT members of a trade organization like the HTA.The largest of the small business manufacturers may attend a trade show like ABC Kids recently held in Kentucky.

Specialty Toy Retailers
The second category is small specialty toy retailers, both brick and mortar and internet based. These businesses provide a market for small batch children’s products and an alternative for consumers not interested in products mass produced in the Far East. They differentiate themselves from mass market retailers by offering unique small batch products, usually through a single retail outlet. These businesses represent 25% of our membership.

Technically, these retailers are not required to test and certify but are subject to some requirements of the law depending on how they acquire their product for sale. Without sorting through thousands of pages of law, they need to know:

1. What parts of the law they should be aware of when working with small batch suppliers,

2. What record keeping requirements affect them,
3. What responsibilities they have when acquiring product directly from a local small batch manufacturer,
4. What responsibilities they have when acquiring product directly from a foreign manufacturer,
5. And how they can ensure their inventory is safe and compliant.

The Internet is also a primary source of information for specialty toys retailers. Many of these retailers attend at least one trade show yearly, for instance ABC Kids or the International Toy Fair in New York. These small retailers are seldom members of the Toy Industry Association (TIA) but some may be members of the American Specialty Toy Retailing Association (ASTRA.)

Specialty Toy Importers
The final category is specialty toy importers and these businesses represent 5% of our membership. It is a small percentage, but a big component in the culture of specialty toys in America as these importers provide access to mainly small batch products from Europe.

For importers the CPSIA blurs the definition of manufacturer to include the importer. The law is not always clear in how this blurring occurs. They need to know:

1. How to determine if they are considered the manufacturer of record, especially when they hold no inventory or only facilitate transport from foreign manufacturer to domestic retailer,

2. What testing requirements apply when a product is already third party tested to a European standard,
3. What record keeping requirements affect them,
4. And how to apply the small batch rules from H.R.2715.
The primary source of information for specialty toy importers is the internet and a secondary source is an industry group like the Handmade Toy Alliance.

In General

It is important to note that small batch manufacturers are constantly under production, although certainly the fourth quarter is the busiest time of the year for all of our membership. Issuing request for comments, changes and requirements during these 3 months will often go unnoticed.

The CPSC already has a wealth of information available. Unfortunately it is not always easy to find and utilize. Perhaps it would be advantageous to create a Wiki where businesses can post questions and the CPSC can post an official response. The wiki can also incorporate existing FAQs and guidance documents. Over time this becomes a valuable, searchable knowledgebase.

About the Handmade Toy Alliance

The HTA was formed in 2009 as an ad hoc group of businesses that were adversely affected by the CPSIA. During these past few years we have worked to save our member businesses from the unintended consequences of the CPSIA. We have testified before House and Senate committees and lobbied our representatives and senators. This culminated in the passing of H.R.2715 in August of 2011 which has two provisions that are an outgrowth of our work. Unfortunately, H.R.2715 is not the legislative fix our group desired, but places the fate of all of our businesses in the hands of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

We currently have nearly 700 members but no offices, no staff, no legal representation, a volunteer board of directors who donate time and resources to the cause, and very limited financial resources. Although we work hard to help our members understand the law and to disseminate information, we are in no way prepared to be the source or conduit of comprehensive compliance information to our members. The width and breadth of the products produced by our members is enormous and the need to interpret the law for all of these single cases beyond our capability.

Today we hope to communicate to the staff of the CPSC as an advocate for our members, the magnitude of this issue and the primary problems that need to be addressed for educating our membership. We appreciate this opportunity to voice these concerns and look forward to working together to implement suitable solutions.

Image from Michelle Sorensen.

HTA Letter to CPSC on Registration of Small Batch Manufacturers in the CPSIA Reform Law

2011-08-21T08:01:00.000-07:00

August 19, 2011

Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

On behalf of the Handmade Toy Alliance, an alliance now numbering 670 toy stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country who want to preserve unique handmade toys, clothes, and children's goods in the USA, we respectfully request your clarification and action in regards to the registration requirements for small batch manufacturers in the newly signed CPSIA reform law, H.R. 2715.

Congress has now expressed its clear intent to provide regulatory relief to the small businesses we represent. As you know, H.R. 2715 allows small batch manufacturers to assure compliance with applicable product safety laws through less expensive alternative testing methods and exempts them from testing altogether when no affordable alternative testing methods are identified by the Commission.

The Handmade Toy Alliance would like to be fully engaged with the CPSC as it interprets H.R. 2715. Our goal, as always, is to create a regulatory environment which protects both public health and the welfare of the small businesses we represent.

It has come to our attention that members of the Commission are interpreting H.R. 2715's requirement for small batch manufacturers to register with the CPSC as a technicality which requires the completion of an official registration process by the Commission before relief willbe provided. This interpretation is contrary to our understanding of the law and contrary to congressional intent as we understand it through dozens of conversations with bothRepublicans and Democrats in the House and Senate.

The text of the law reads:

Any small batch manufacturer that utilizes alternative requirements or an exemption...shall register with the Commission prior to using such alternative requirements or exemptions pursuant to any guidelines issued by the Commission to carry out this requirement.

The word any in this sentence makes it clear that a manufacturer's ability to register with the Commission is not predicated upon whether or not the Commission has issued guidelines for registration. If the word any were not present in the sentence, the meaning would be different. However, the inclusion of the word any makes it clear that small batch manufacturers may still register with the Commission even in the absence any official guidelines. It is our interpretation that, in the absence of any guidelines from the CPSC, a small batch manufacturer may register with the CPSC in any manner which the manufacturer deems appropriate.

Our interpretation is supported by the previous section of the law, which reads:

The Commission may not require third party testing of a covered product by a third party conformity assessment body until the Commission has provided either an alternative testing requirement or an exemption...

This sentence clearly states Congress's intent that, in the absence of any action by the CPSC, third party testing will not be required for covered products made by small batch manufacturers. Relief is not contingent upon the CPSC's ability to identify alternative testing methods. Nor should relief be made contingent upon the establishment of registration guidelines.

We therefore formally request the Commission to make an immediate finding of fact that relief for small batch manufacturers under H.R. 2715 is not contingent upon the promulgation of registration guidelines by the Commission.

Notwithstanding our position on this interpretation, we would like express our interest to help create a sensible registration process as soon as possible. Registration should be simple and straightforward for both the Commission and small batch manufactures. We agree with Senator Rockefeller, who spoke on the Senate floor:

The creation of a new public [sic] registry for small batch manufacturers...can be implemented without notice and comment or even a hearing. As such, the Commission should act to effectuate the new mandates of this bill in a most expeditious manner.

Senator Pryor then seconded this view:

I also share the Senator’s view that nothing in H.R. 2715 is intended to delay the Commission’s rulemaking with respect to third party testing and believe that the Commission should conclude its testing rulemakings in the next 2 months.

We agree with Senators Rockefeller and Pryor that 2 months is an appropriate timeline to complete registration guidelines. This will allow enough time for small batch manufacturers to register prior to the expiration of the ASTM F963 and lead in substrate testing stays of enforcement on December 31. If the registration process is not completed by October 31, 2011, there will not be enough time to notify small businesses before the expiration of these stays. As we have stated previously, the last two months of the year are the busiest season for our members. So, the earlier they can begin to register, the better.

Small batch manufacturer registration can and should be as simple as filling out a registration form or sending an email to a specified address at the CPSC. The Commission may also want to allow outsourcing of this task to trade associations or businesses who could collect and compile a database for the Commission. We would like to discuss alternatives with the Commission as soon as possible, as well as ways in which our organization can help publicize the registration process to our members.

Thank you again for taking the time to read and consider our comments.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

Congress Passes CPSIA Relief for Small Businesses!

2011-08-01T21:53:00.000-07:00

In the past three years, Handmade Toy Alliance members were quoted in hundreds of news articles, testified 5 times on Capitol Hill in both the House and Senate, met with 4 out of 5 of the CPSC commissioners, phoned in to dozens of conference calls, wrote dozens of letters to the CPSC and hundreds of letters to Congress, and brought together over 600 likeminded small businesses--all to reform the CPSIA, a one-size-fits-all law that was killing our businesses.

And, just when it seemed that the debt ceiling crisis was going to swallow Washington whole and prevent any chance of CPSIA reform for another legislative session, the balance suddenly tipped yesterday. Within 8 hours, both the House and the Senate passed a bipartisan bill that provides a meaningful way forward for our members. Only two members voted against it in the House and it passed unanimously in the Senate.

While we did not write this bill, we were able to significantly influence it's design through dozens of meetings with Republican and Democratic staffers. It's not a perfect solution to the many problems of the CPSIA, but it does offer the promise of meaningful relief for small batch manufacturers. Basically, the new law will require the CPSC to identify "alternative testing methods" which are economically practical for each product safety standard which would otherwise require third party testing. And, if the CPSC is unable to identify an economically feasible alternative for a given standard, it must exempt small batch manufacturers from the testing requirement. And, it gives the CPSC the flexibility to recognize other standards, like EN-71 in the Europen Union, which paves the way for the return of small batch products from Europe.

These new rules will apply to standards such as the 100ppm lead in substrate rule, the ASTM toy safety standard, and a variety of other standards which apply to many different types of children's products. Notably, it does not apply to the lead in paint standard, the small parts standard for products designed for children under age 3, the lead in metal jewelry standard, and standards that apply to pacifiers, cribs, and durable nursery equipment; those standards will still require third party testing as they do now.

What is a small batch manufacturer? Basically, it's a business or group of similarly-owned businesses that make less than $1 million in revenue per year (indexed for inflation) from the sale of consumer goods. And, in order to qualify for these alternative testing methods or exemptions, products cannot be made in quantities greater than 7,500 per year. Qualifying small businesses will also need to register with the CPSC.

What this means is that the CPSC must act to ensure that product safety certification is affordable for small businesses. How that plays out over the next few years is very much in question, however, and it will require the HTA and other groups to remain steadfast advocates for our members. The importance of the HTA and other trade organizations will only grow as a result of this new law.

If this law is to work for us, we need your continued support! The fight is far from over--it's just moved from Congress back to the CPSC. The HTA could use your support now, more than ever. If you aren't already a member, please join us now. The HTA has low cost and even free options for membership. Not only will we be working to make sure that this new version of CPSIA does what it needs to for small batch producers, we will continue to promote members and offer great cooperative marketing opportunities.

Donate to the HTA

Yesterday morning, our members were facing a drop dead date on December 31, 2011, when two important CPSC stays of enforcement on third party testing requirements were set to expire. Today, we now have a way forward that will stop the CPSIA's one-size-fits-all approach and will hopefully keep our family businesses alive. That is the victory in today's votes.

We did this together! Thank you!

As Seen in Today's Issue of The Hill

2011-07-21T11:50:00.000-07:00

Fix the CPSIA!

Fix the CPSIA: ‘Unintended Consequences’ Cost Thousands of Small Business Jobs

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) passed by Congress in 2008 was intended to make products safer, but after three years it has also effectively ended the American Dream for many small businesses and needlessly raised consumer prices. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the law's "unintended consequences" must be urgently fixed.

The safety of our products is our top priority. Our member companies want to focus on improving safety instead of generating paperwork. We want to invest in our products and employees instead of spending millions of dollars for unnecessary and redundant testing. The CPSIA has jeopardized the availability of and, in some cases, banned safe products such as books, bicycles, musical instruments, rhinestones, youth model ATVs and motorcycles, and clothing with zippers.

HR 1939 maintains the CPSIA's important safety provisions but adopts some modest, common sense reforms. HR 1939 amends the CPSIA to ease regulatory burdens where appropriate, eliminate duplication and needless paperwork, and improve the accuracy of information in the CPSC’s public database. With unrealistic deadlines and new regulatory burdens fast approaching, the time is now to fix the CPSIA.

It’s Time to Put Politics Aside. Support HR 1939 and Save U.S. Jobs

A message from the National Association of Manufacturers, with thanks to:

Alliance for Children’s Product Safety
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Pyrotechnics Association
The Art and Creative Materials Institute
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
Bicycle Product Suppliers Association
Craft and Hobby Association
Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association
Handmade Toy Alliance
HandsOn Science Partnership
International Sleep Products Association
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association
Motorcycle Industry Council
National Retail Federation
National School Supply & Equipment Association
Promotional Products Association
International Retail Industry Leaders Association
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America

Press Release: HTA Urges CPSC to Stay Enforcement of ASTM Testing for Small Batch Manufacturers

2011-07-06T15:52:00.000-07:00

Stamford, CT – July 5, 2011 – In a letter dated July 3, 2011, the Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) addressed the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) recent staff briefing package on the “notice of requirements” for laboratories to become accepted to test for ASTM F963 as presented to the Commission and public. Primarily geared towards testing laboratories, this notice also signals to stakeholders such as the HTA that once approved and published in the Federal Register, all children’s products falling under toy guidelines manufactured 90 days after publish date will need to be tested and certified by a CPSC accepted laboratory.

“To begin requiring third party testing to the ASTM F-963 standard will dramatically and permanently harm small batch toymakers,” shares Dan Marshall, HTA President and owner of Peapods Natural Toys (MN). “We are therefore petitioning the Commission to delay the publication of lab certification standards for ASTM F-963 or to stay indefinitely the enforcement of the ASTM F-963 third party testing requirement for small batch manufacturers.”

Currently, Congress is considering substantive changes to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which would significantly reduce the compliance costs for small batch manufacturers. “We have received clear indications from the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties of their intention to modify the CPSIA in order to reduce its unintended consequences for small batch manufacturers,” states Randy Hertzler, HTA Vice President and owner of euroSource (PA). “While this legislation is pending and progressing, it is simply unnecessary to employ a ruling that will imperil thousands of small business.”

“The vast majority of HTA members are extremely small businesses, consisting of no employees, very small revenues and a limited number of products produced in short quantities,” explains Jill Chuckas, HTA Board member and owner of Crafty Baby (CT). “Yet, the CPSIA treats these micro businesses exactly the same as large, multi-national corporations. A typical HTA manufacturer making only a few thousand units of a toy per year simply cannot afford to absorb fixed testing costs (often at $500 to $3500 per toy created).”

The HTA also states concerns regarding the timing of this proposed rule making, which, by estimates, will bring ASTM F-963 into effect in mid-October, directly in the middle of holiday production runs. “Large companies who mass produce product for holiday sales complete their production runs at least 6 months prior to sale,” shares Mary Newell, HTA Treasurer and owner of Terrapin Toys (OR). “Imposing third party testing requirements in mid-October will have a much more negative impact of small batch toymakers like those in our membership who generally are crafting and creating product right up until the actual holidays.”

“For almost 3 years now, our membership has been working tirelessly together in order to better understand and manage the CPSIA. The basic language within the law is extremely difficult at best for our membership to comprehend, particularly without the assistance of attorneys and technical support staff,” states Marshall. “We have urged the Commission to author a simplified guide to the ASTM F-963 standards for small businesses, to no avail. Without such clear guidance, small batch manufacturers cannot negotiate fairly or openly with the third party labs they would be required to employ.”

The HTA consists of 653 member businesses, including retail stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country who want to preserve consumer access to unique handmade toys, clothes and all manner of small batch children's goods in the USA. Formed in November of 2008 in response to the CPSIA, HTA members are parents, grandparents and consumers who are passionate about their businesses as well as the safety of the children in their lives. While in support of the spirit of the law, the unintended consequences of the CPSIA have motivated members of the HTA to work to enact change at a federal level. For more information, visit www.handmadetoyalliance.org.

Image from Wee Wonderfuls.

HTA Letter to CPSC on Upcoming ASTM Toy Safety Testing Requirements

2011-07-02T22:39:00.000-07:00

July 3, 2011

Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814

RE: Commencement of ASTM F-963 Toy Safety Testing Requirements and Petition for a Stay of Enforcement

Dear Honorable Commissioners:

We are alarmed to learn that the Commission is proceeding this month with rulemaking to begin certifying third party labs to test for the ASTM F-963 Toy Safety Standard. Unless the Commission's course is altered, the result of this process will be the initiation of third party testing requirements for all toys made after mid-October of this year as mandated by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

To begin requiring third party testing to the ASTM F-963 standard will dramatically and permanently harm small batch toymakers. We are therefore petitioning the Commission to delay the publication of lab certification standards for ASTM F-963 or to stay indefinitely the enforcement of the ASTM F-963 third party testing requirement for small batch manufacturers.

We request this action for four reasons.

First, our members simply cannot afford to pay for third party testing of toys they produce in small batches. ASTM F-963 testing fees range from $500 to $3,500 or more per toy. A manufacturer making only a few thousand units of a toy per year simply cannot afford to absorb this fixed cost, which is borne easily by larger corporations.

Second, the timing of the CPSC's proposed actions is markedly unfair to small batch manufacturers. Many, if not all, small batch toymakers continue to make their toys for the holiday season right up until the third week of December. Large-scale manufacturers, however, almost always complete their holiday production runs by early summer. Imposing third party testing requirements in mid-October will therefore have a much more negative impact on small batch toymakers.

Third, the language of the ASTM F-963 standard itself is extremely difficult for a typical small batch toymaker to comprehend. It is intended solely for the use of product safety engineers. The result of this complexity is that our members are much more at the mercy of third party labs and must rely entirely on these labs to determine which standards apply to a given product. Labs can therefore require and bill for redundant or unnecessary tests under the standard that they could not impose on larger companies which employ a dedicated compliance staff. We have urged the Commission to author a simplified guide to the ASTM F-963 standards for small businesses, but to no avail. Without such a document, small batch manufacturers cannot negotiate fairly or openly with the third party labs they would be required to employ.

Fourth, as the Commission is well aware, Congress is actively considering substantive changes to the CPSIA which would significantly reduce the compliance costs for small batch manufacturers. Leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties have expressed their intentions to modify the CPSIA in order to reduce its unintended consequences for small batch toymakers. While this legislation is pending and progressing it makes little sense to unnecessarily imperil thousands of small businesses.

For these reasons, we urge the Commission to delay the third party testing requirement for the ASTM F-963 standard or stay its enforcement for toys made in batches of fewer than 10,000 units per year.

On behalf of our 653 member small businesses, we appreciate your willingness to consider our concerns. We hope to preserve the long American tradition of hand-crafted children's goods while ensuring safety for the children who enjoy them.

Respectfully,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

Image from mypapercrane.com.

Press Release: HTA Calls on House Energy and Commerce Committee to Support Reform of CPSIA

2011-06-06T08:12:00.000-07:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) representing small batch manufacturers and specialty toy retailers, today called on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to support H.R. 1939 (Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011, ECADA) during House Energy and Commerce Committee markup. ECADA addresses the unintended consequences of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) – a law that threatens to destroy the small batch children’s product manufacturing industry and specialty toy shops in the United States.

Passed by Congress in 2008 in reaction to lead-in-paint toy recalls by multinational companies, the CPSIA’s unintended consequences have devastated small businesses throughout America. The law's third party testing requirements, which will go into force at the end of 2011, and other mandates contained in the law, will force many more small crafters and retailers out of business.

“We need a solution because time is running out,” said Randy Hertzler (PA), HTA Vice President. “The time for politics is past. The Committee can save small businesses by supporting this bill.” “The unintended consequences of the CPSIA fall disproportionately on small batch children's product manufacturers, retailers, and importers. ECADA has language that provides meaningful reform for members of the HTA while still maintaining safety protections for consumers”, added Dan Marshall (MN), HTA President.

The ECADA would amend provisions of the CPSIA to provide relief to small and micro-businesses by requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to implement rulemaking to specify an alternative test or exemption as well as require a cost-benefit analysis to justify testing costs. The bill goes a long way towards restoring and preserving the culture of handmade and specialty children's products in America.

About the Handmade Toy Alliance
The HTA was formed in November of 2008 in response to the CPSIA, and consists of 649 member businesses. Our members businesses include specialty toy stores, toymakers and small batch children's product manufacturers who want to preserve consumer access to safe, unique handmade toys, clothes and all manner of small batch children's goods. For more information, visit www.handmadetoyalliance.org.

Image courtesy of HTA Member Crafty Baby.

Is this YOUR Congressman? We need your help! A CALL TO ACTION

2011-05-26T20:55:00.000-07:00

Cross-posted from HTA Member Milagros Boutique in Portland, OR.

The Handmade Toy Alliance has worked three long years to get to this point. Namely, getting a change to the Consumer Product Safety Improvment Act (CPSIA) that will stem the tide of tainted toys, almost all of which are imported, without imposing a regulatory environment on small, ethical manufacturers and crafters that will literally drive them out of business with red tape.

Since the day we opened our doors, we have been a staunch promoter of our local craft industry. We have been working side by side with countless local crafters trying to improve the CPSIA so that it does not put these small enterprises out of business. Your action to help save these small business is needed now more than ever.

How can you help?

A CPSIA amendment is currently in mark up in the Committee of Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives. This amendment should be presented for a vote in this committee soon but surprisingly, despite all the rhetoric about supporting Main Street, not a single Democrat has voiced support. If this does not change, thousands of small businesses stand to be sacrificed at the alter of partisan politics.

We NEED your help! We need bipartisan support for this legislation to have any hope of it progressing through both houses of Congress. If your Congressman is on this list below, please call them NOW! Ask them to support the CPSIA amendment known as the ECADA. Learn more about the amendment.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI 2nd) (202) 225-2906 - Legislative Director: Ken Reidy ken.reidy@mail.house.gov
Rep. John Barrow (D-GA 12th) (202) 225-2823 - Legislative Director: Hill Thomas hill.thomas@mail.house.gov
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC 1st) (202) 225-3101 - Commerce LA: Saul Hernandez saul.hernandez@mail.house.gov
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA 23rd) (202) 225-3601 - Legislative Director: Jonathan Levenshus jonathan.levenshus@mail.house.gov
Del. Donna M.C. Christensen (D-VI-At Large) (202) 225-1790 - Commerce LA: Angeline Muckle-Jabbar angeline.muckle-jabbar@mail.house.gov
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO 1st) (202) 225-4431 - Legislative Director: Brendan Devine brendan.devine@mail.house.gov
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th) (202) 225-4071 - Commerce LA: Andrew Woelfling andrew.woelfling@mail.house.gov
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA 14th) (202) 225-2135 - Chief of Staff: David Lucas David.Lucas@mail.house.gov
Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-NY 17th) (202) 225-2464 - Commerce LA: Travis Osen-Foss travis.osen-foss@mail.house.gov
Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA 14th) (202) 225-8104 - Legislative Director: Casey Fromson casey.fromson@mail.house.gov
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX 20th) (202) 225-3236 - Legislative Director: Brenda Muniz brenda.muniz@mail.house.gov
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX 29th) (202) 225-1688 - Legislative Director: Abigail Pinkele Abigail.Pinkele@mail.house.gov
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA 1st) (202) 225-6311 - Legislative Director: Beth Osborne beth.osborne@mail.house.gov
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA 7th) (202) 225-2836 - Commerce LA: Ilya Fischhoff ilya.fischhoff@mail.house.gov
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd) (202) 225-3011 - Commerce LA/LD: Shana Beavin shana.beavin@mail.house.gov
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA 5th) (202) 225-7163 - Commerce LA/LD: Kyle Victor kyle.victor@mail.house.gov
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.(D-NJ 6th) (202) 225-4671 - Commerce LA: Tuley Wright tuley.wright@mail.house.gov
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR 4th) (202) 225-3772 - Commerce LA: Kate Callanan kate.callanan@mail.house.gov
Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-IL 1st) (202) 225-4372 - Commerce LA: Tim Robinson timothy.robinson@mail.house.gov
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9th) (202) 225-2111 - Commerce LA: Megan Michaud megan.shannon-winterson@mail.house.gov
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY 10th) (202) 225-5936 - Commerce LA: Lars Hydle lars.hydle@mail.house.gov
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA 30th) (202) 225-3976 - Commerce LA/LD: Zahava Goldman Zahava.Goldman@mail.house.gov
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9th) (202) 225-6616 - Commerce LA/LD: Yuri Beckelman yuri.beckelman@mail.house.gov

EVEN IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN IS NOT ON THE LIST, WE NEED YOU TO CALL NOW! Find you congressman and call BOTH their DC and local offices and urge them to support HR 1939!

Please share this post with your friends and family, post to your facebook page, tweet it, etc. If you value hand crafted goods, we need your help on this today!

Thank you!

HTA Letter of Support for H.R. 1939 (the ECADA)

2011-05-25T06:00:00.001-07:00

Dear Chairman Upton and Chairwoman Bono Mack:

Thank you for your continued attention to the needs of the small business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance, (HTA). Our purpose from the beginning of our organization has always been to mitigate the costs of CPSIA mandated third party testing and to remedy the unintended consequences of the CPSIA that fall disproportionately on small batch children's product manufacturers, retailers, and importers. The preferred solution remains a legislative exemption for these small and micro-businesses.

Although H.R.1939 allows relief for our members in the area of third party testing, we remain concerned about other provisions of the CPSIA which unfairly disadvantage small businesses. These include retroactivity, labeling requirements, the 100ppm lead content standard, and lack of harmonization with the European Union. In the interest of expediency, we have chosen to focus our efforts on providing the most relief for as many of our members as possible.

In surveying our members, our analysis is that the greatest burdens we face are mandatory third party testing for lead in substrate and ASTM F-963 testing for toys, both of which are scheduled to be implemented by the end of this year. H.R.1939 proposes third party testing relief to the members of the HTA through CPSC rulemaking to specify an alternative test or exemption, with the protecting stipulations that the benefits of third party testing justify the costs and that rules impose the least possible burden. This language within H.R.1939 makes compliance more achievable for our membership and for that reason we endorse this bill.

Legislative proposals offered in the last Congress failed to go far enough in providing relief for our small business members. H.R.1939 is closer to meeting the needs of our membership. It is imperative that both the House and the Senate take action without delay to save what remains of the culture of handmade toys and children’s products in the USA.

We remain hopeful that the democratic process can prevail and that a meaningful and bipartisan reform of the CPSIA will be enacted. On behalf of the 647 small business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance, we thank you again for your attention to this important issue.

Respectfully,
The Handmade Toy Alliance Board of Directors

The Handmade Toy Alliance Announces their 2011-2012 Board of Directors

2011-05-21T21:20:00.001-07:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) has announced its board of directors for the 2011-2012 year. The HTA achieved nonprofit status in 2009, and has a board of directors consisting of 9 members.

Dan Marshall, HTA founder and co-owner of Peapods Natural Toys and Baby Care in St. Paul, MN, will serve as President for the upcoming session. Dan served as Vice President during the 2010-2011 year.

Randy Hertzler, owner of euroSource, LLC, a specialty European Toys online store established in 1999 in Lancaster, PA takes on the role of Vice President

Jolie Fay continues for a second year as Secretary. Based in OR, Jolie is the owner and
designer of Skipping Hippos, vintage inspired outerwear with a modern twist.

Mary Newell continues in the role of Treasurer, which she has held since the HTA's inception. Owner of Terrapin Toys, LLC in OR, Mary is known as the maker of Mary's Softdough, established in 1988.

Continuing their service to the HTA are founding Board members Jill Chuckas, the owner of Crafty Baby (CT), known for its fun and functional accessories for children, Rob Wilson, Vice President of Challenge & Fun (MA) and founder of CPSIA-Central, a web forum devoted to discussing all aspects of the CPSIA and Cecilia Leibovitz, founder and Creative Director of leading handmade children’s toy and gift retailer Craftsbury Kids, Inc. Cecilia also served as Board President from 2009 until the present. Marianne Mullen joined the Board last year and is the founder and owner of Polkadot Patch Boutique (VT), a children’s online retail store dedicated to unique, colorful products for children.

Adam Frost joins the Board this year and is the owner of The Wooden Wagon (MA), an online store specializing in natural wood and cloth toys.

Newly elected President, Dan Marshall commented on the election results, “We are very fortunate to have such a dedicated group of talented people make up our Board. Each one of these board members brings a diverse set of knowledge and skill to the vision of the Handmade Toy Alliance."

HTA Responses to House Commerce Committee Followup Questions on CPSIA Reform

2011-05-09T21:36:00.000-07:00

Questions for the Record from the April 7 Hearing on Reform of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)

The Honorable G. K. Butterfield

1. During your oral testimony you stated that the Handmade Toy Alliance endorsed the Republican discussion draft “because of the relief it provides to our members.” You went on to suggest that the draft provides your members an exemption from third-party testing or that your members would be allowed to follow alternative testing procedures. My understanding, based on the advice of lawyers on my staff, and on Chairman Bono Mack’s opening statement, is that the draft does not provide any relief to your members from the mandatory third-party requirements for five specific products or hazards: (1) lead paint; (2) lead in children’s metal jewelry; (3) small parts; (4) compliance with crib standards; and (5) compliance with pacifier standards. Relief is only available to your members from any additional testing requirements that CPSC might require in the future through the rulemaking process outlined in the draft. Small crafters will still have to have their children’s products third-party tested for lead in metal jewelry, small parts, and compliance with the crib standards. In addition, ASTM F-963 will remain a mandatory standard, so your members will still have to comply with all of ASTM F-963 and certify that they have done so.

a. Assuming my understanding is accurate, do you and your members still support the Republican discussion draft even though it does not provide full relief from compliance with CPSIA? If so, please explain why.

First and foremost, we wish to restate that our primary goal is the passage of meaningful CPSIA reform as soon as possible. Although the discussion draft would provide relief for our members in key areas, we remain concerned about many other provisions of the CPSIA which unfairly disadvantage small businesses. These include retroactivity, labeling requirements, the 100ppm lead content standard, lack of harmonization with the European Union, and testing requirements for small parts and lead in paint. In the interest of expediency, we have chosen to focus our efforts on providing the most relief for as many of our members as possible.

Our ideal solution to the unintended consequences of the CPSIA is outlined in our platform. The discussion draft proposes relief through CPSC rulemaking as you indicate, but with the protecting stipulations that the benefits of third party testing justify the costs; that rules impose the least possible burden; and that an exemption is provided by default in the absence of rulemaking. These stipulations make compliance achievable for our membership. However, our preference remains a legislative exemption for micro-businesses.

Our purpose from the beginning of our organization has always been to mitigate the costs of third party testing on small batch children's product manufacturers. The CPSIA established requirements for many types of tests for many different types of products. In speaking with our members, our analysis is that the greatest burdens we face are mandatory third party testing for lead in substrate and ASTM F-963 testing for toys, both of which are scheduled to be implemented by the end of this year. We are not seeking exemptions from the standards themselves, but from the third party testing requirements. In both cases, we believe that small batch manufacturers should be allowed to self-certify based on a reasonable testing program. The discussion draft would make this possible.

We are not pursuing exemptions from testing requirements for lead in paint, metal jewelry, or crib standards. In the case of the lead in paint and metal jewelry standards, we recognize two realities. First, these were the two areas which caused the majority of product safety concerns prior to the enactment of the CPSIA. Second, although we disagree with the need for testing American and European products for lead in paint violations because lead paint has been outlawed in those countries for over 30 years, we recognize that the damage to these companies has already been done. The lead in paint testing requirement has been in place for almost a year and a half. Several respected companies have already ceased operations as a result. The damage has already been done. We hope that component-based testing will mitigate the cost of lead in paint testing in the future.

We are not at this time concerned with the crib standard. None of our members manufacturer cribs.

As for the small parts testing requirement, we believe that the CPSC can and should develop alternative testing methods which would allow small-batch manufacturers to self-certify. This standard is very straightforward and relatively easy to test for. In a perfect bill, the small parts standard would not be excluded from the exemptions available to small batch manufacturers.

Once again, we urge the House and the Senate to work together to mitigate the overwhelmingly negative impact of the CPSIA on small businesses.

Here's the unedited video from the April 7, 2011 Hearing. It includes all the breaks for floor votes, so it's a full 7 hours long. HTA's testimony is at 5:19.

The Honorable John Dingell

1. The draft legislation amends section 101(b) of CPSIA to exempt components of children’s products from the Act’s lead limits if such components do not cause a child to ingest more than a de minimus amount of lead. The legislation would require the Commission to specify procedures for manufacturers to test and estimate this de minimus amount. Do you believe small manufacturers and handcrafters will be able to afford and/or carry out such test procedures?

No. We do not believe that small batch manufacturers will be able to avail themselves of the de minimus exemption process. The costs involved in meeting the requirements of this process would be beyond the reach of our members. However, we hope that the CPSC will rule on de minimus applications made by larger companies in such a way that smaller businesses may benefit as well. For example, if the CPSC rules that a given company's leaded crystal rhinestones meet the de minimus standards, we hope that it will make its ruling categorically, so that all manufacturers which use leaded crystals may also benefit. We would hope that committee report language would communicate the expectation that de minimus rulings should be made as generally as possible and not limited to only a specific product made by a specific manufacturer.

HTA's Testimony on CPSIA Reform to the House Commerce Committee, April 7, 2011

2011-04-08T13:25:00.000-07:00

Hello. My name is Dan Marshall. I am the Founder and Vice President of the Handmade Toy Alliance. The HTA represents 644 small businesses affected by the unintended consequences of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008.

My wife Millie and I own Peapods Natural Toy Store in St. Paul, Minnesota. I am here today with my daughter Abigail and fellow HTA Board members Rob Wilson of Challenge and Fun in Massachusetts and Randy Hertzler of euroSource in Pennsylvania.

The HTA began in November of 2008, after I began to understand how the newly-passed CPSIA would decimate the small batch manufacturers who supply our store. Since then, I've been working with hundreds of other small business owners to save small batch manufacturers from regulatory burdens of the CPSIA, the greatest of which is the cost of mandated third party testing. These fixed costs, which are easily bourn by mass market manufacturers who make tens of thousands of units at a time, are simply impossible for small businesses that make toys, children's clothing and accessories in batches of a few dozen at a time, often in home-based studios.

These required tests are not limited to lead content testing. Toys, for example, will be subject to mandatory ASTM F963 testing, which requires the destruction of multiple units of each toy. The CPSC's current schedule would mandate ASTM testing as soon as this October. Unless the CPSIA is reformed, hundreds of small American toymakers will not survive that date.

Help us cover travel expenses
Please donate today--Any amount helps!

Unlike similar product safety legislation such as The Food Safety Modernization Act, FDA food labeling rules, or California's Proposition 65, the CPSIA makes no allowances whatsoever for small businesses. Nor does it allow the CPSC any discretion in how it applies third party testing requirements to various types of products. Bicycles, books, hand-knit sweaters, and wooden toy cars are all treated the same.

As a result, the CPSIA as it stands is basically unenforceable. Key provisions have been stayed numerous times. The CPSC is slowly being transformed from public safety guardian into an enforcer of procedures and technicalities dictated by Congress at huge cost. Congressional action has dramatically undermined the CPSC, an agency which has effectively protected the American public for almost 40 years.

Meanwhile, we've watched numerous trustworthy businesses fold because of the CPSIA. Untold others have decided not to pursue their dreams as toymakers or crafters. We've even begun to see secondary effects such as the end of Mothering Magazine, which closed in February after 35 years, citing reduced ad revenues due to the CPSIA's impact on their advertisers.

If the CPSIA is not amended, hundreds more small family businesses will perish for no good reason.

Thanks to the work of this committee, we have a way forward. Our alliance endorses the draft amendment because of the relief it provides for our members. This bill requires either an exemption from third party testing or alternate testing procedures, such as XRF screening for lead in substrates, for products that are produced in small quantities. This is exactly what we have been asking for since the formation of our organization. Small batch manufacturers would be given a safety valve which was originally left out of the CPSIA.

We desire a thoughtful and measured reform worthy of meaningful bipartisan discussions. These issues deserve a full hearing to ensure that a high degree of consumer protection is maintained. We do not wish to create loopholes that would benefit the types of irresponsible companies that created the toy safety scare in the first place.

We urge you to reach out to your colleagues in the Senate to reach a bipartisan agreement. The CPSIA was the product of a strong bipartisan effort in 2008 and its reform requires the same effort. We believe this discussion draft is a suitable foundation for that discussion. We urge both houses of congress to set aside differences and find a way to see this reform process through. Our family businesses are watching the process closely. We're depending on you.

In conclusion, on behalf of our members, I would like to thank this committee for addressing this important issue and urge you to quickly pass meaningful reform of the CPSIA. Thank you.

Press Release: HTA sees new momentum as they prepare to testify; endorsing new bill amending the CPSIA

2011-04-05T12:56:00.000-07:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) will testify at the upcoming Congressional hearing on April 7, 2011 regarding a discussion draft to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) from the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade. HTA Founder and Vice President, Dan Marshall (Peapods Natural Toys -MN) is set to testify on behalf of the HTA and its members endorsing the progress this new bill proposes. Board members Rob Wilson (Challenge and Fun – MA) and Randy Hertzler (euroSource – PA) will accompany Marshall at the hearing and attend legislative visits.

During the last year the HTA and its members have continued to work diligently, to bring meaningful discussion and reform to the CPSIA. The proposed amendment is seen as a step in the right direction toward reaching a middle ground, and ultimately saving many small businesses from the unintended consequences of the CPSIA. HTA Board member Jill Chuckas (Crafty Baby – CT) states, "While this new bill does not give us everything we've been asking for, we believe it saves most of our member businesses from extinction."

Help us cover travel expenses
Please donate today--Any amount helps!

The bill focuses on several key issues that give way to reducing the financial burden the original law inflicted on small businesses. Hertzler comments, “Rather than requiring third party testing for every children’s product, the bill seeks to restore the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC's) ability to set its own priorities, allowing the Commission to define specific categories for specific tests, in areas where the benefits from required third-party testing justify the costs.”

The movement towards reform gives the HTA a new wave of momentum as they prepare to travel to D.C. in support of the reform bill. Marshall announced, "The Handmade Toy Alliance plans to endorse this bill both for its text and also for the context we hope it will create—a bipartisan and bicameral dialog which quickly leads to meaningful reform of the CPSIA."

The HTA was formed in November of 2008 in response to the CPSIA, and consist of 643 member businesses, including retail stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country who want to preserve consumer access to unique handmade toys, clothes and all manner of small batch children's goods in the USA.

HTA Endorses New CPSIA Reform Bill

2011-03-31T08:09:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade released a discussion draft of a proposed amendment to the CPSIA. This document is the first attempt to begin a meaningful discussion of CPSIA reform since the demise of Rep. Waxman's bill a year ago, which we had endorsed with reservations.

In the intervening year, we've seen more small businesses fold because of the unintended consequences of the CPSIA. And, we've seen a momentous election which drastically changed the political landscape on Capitol Hill.

While this new bill does not give us everything we've been asking for, we believe it saves most of our member businesses from extinction. Furthermore, we are relieved that the bill is by no means a wholesale repeal of the CPSIA but seeks to find a middle ground. We are hopeful that Senate Democrats will see it as a thoughtful and measured reform worthy of meaningful bipartisan discussions.

In general, this bill would restore the CPSC's ability to set its own priorities and would allow the commission to use the tool of third party testing as a scalpel rather than as an axe. Instead of requiring third party testing for every children's product, the commission could target specific categories for specific tests in areas where the benefits of testing would outweigh the costs. This would restore the commission's volition to analyze risk and greatly reduce the need for businesses to repetitively test perfectly safe products.

Furthermore, the bill would exempt one-of-a-kind items from third party testing and would require the CPSC to either exempt small batch manufacturers from third party testing or allow us to use alternative testing methods such as XRF screening for lead in substrates. Small batch manufacturers would be given a safety valve which was originally left out of the CPSIA.

This by far the best bill we've seen to date. The Handmade Toy Alliance therefore endorses this bill both for its text and also for the context we hope it will create—a bipartisan and bicameral dialog which quickly leads to meaningful reform of the CPSIA.

Image by Robert Mahar.

Our (Unpublished) Letter to the Editor of the New York Times

2011-03-03T07:17:00.000-08:00

We sent the following letter to the New York Times in response to their staff editorial opposing reform of the CPSIA. One week later, we have received no response and our letter has not been published--nor has any other response to their extremely shallow editorial.

February 24, 2011

Dear Editors,

The past two years have been heartbreaking. Since the passage of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in 2008, we've seen dozens of our friends and colleagues lose their family businesses. They were forced to close not because their products were unsafe, but because they simply could not afford the costs of third party testing which is mandated by the CPSIA.

Imagine our dismay this morning when your newspaper described the plight of these families as a “canard”, as a misleading fabrication. Much as we wish that the CPSIA effects on small businesses were make-believe, they are, as your own paper has reported, very real and very painful.

A large multinational company like Mattel can afford to spend a few hundred dollars to test a production run of 200,000 plastic toys in China, but a small-batch toymaker in the US simply cannot afford to spend the same amount on batch of 20. The mathematics of the CPSIA are skewed entirely in favor of big business.

As many Democrats, Republicans and even the CPSC itself has said, we need common-sense reform of the CPSIA which protects small businesses while preserving safety. We hope that your newspaper will look past the canard that this is all “part of a standard antiregulation litany” and appreciate the real effects of the CPSIA on real small businesses owned by real people.

Sincerely,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

Video of Jolie Fays's CPSIA Testomony to the House Commerce Committee

2011-02-27T23:01:00.000-08:00

Here is Jolie's main testimony from the February 17th CPSIA hearing in the House Commerce Committee:

Jolie also fielded a number of questions from representatives. In the video below, Jolie responds to Representative Harper about the cost of third party testing, based on quotes she received shortly after the CPSIA was passed in 2008:

Mothering Magazine Ceases its Print Publication After 35 Years, in Part Due to CPSIA

2011-02-20T18:01:00.000-08:00

We were saddened to learn that Mothering Magazine has ceased it's print publication after 35 years and will now be online only. In a statement, longtime editor Peggy O'Mara wrote:

"Many of our advertisers have been hard hit by the economy. Toy manufacturers have been burdened by the cost of complying with the new regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Many of our sling and baby-carrier advertisers experienced declining sales or went out of business altogether in 2010 as a result of loss of sales due to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalls of infant carriers."

This serves as a very unfortunate reminder that the CPSIA has not only affected the small businesses which are burdened by its excessive regulations, but also other small businesses like Mothering which rely on them for support. We wish Mothering the best as it transitions to online-only.

Jolie Fay's Testimnony to House Commerce Committeee CPSIA Hearing

2011-02-17T08:51:00.000-08:00

Good afternoon, my name is Jolie Fay. I am the owner of Skipping Hippos. I make
children’s ponchos in my home in Portland, Oregon. I am testifying on behalf of the 619 Handmade Toy Alliance members. We are the people knitting hats on the train, we are the mothers in line with you at the store, and we are the people from your church and home towns who have grown up in families that craft. We are your neighbors, your families and your constituents and we need your help to bring common sense changes to the CPSIA.

Our businesses were born from the desire for safe children’s products. We make them
with care and attention, most often from materials purchased from our local craft stores.Our dreams were to build heritage products that will be cherished and remembered, and saved for generations.

Our broad membership experiences the unintended consequences of the CPSIA indifferent ways.

Micro-sized businesses that craft and retail toys and children’s products make up half of our membership. Often, these businesses are family or single owner businesses with no employees who produce and sell products in very small batches. The CPSIA makes no provision for these businesses to be able to operate. People crafting in their homes are expected to third party test the same way as mass market manufacturers. The costs of 3rd party testing for lead and ASTM standards are prohibitive in very small batches, tracking and labeling requirements are too burdensome and these micro-businesses find the law and its requirements too complex to interpret, understand and apply.

HTA Board members Jolie Fay and Randy Hertzler

For example, at the Hollywood Senior Center in Portland, there is a small retail shop. The items in the shop are exclusively made by their members. Handmade trucks and planes are made by retired loggers in their 70’s and 80’s. They are on an incredibly small fixed income and would never be able to afford a single ASTM laboratory test. The workmanship that has developed over a lifetime helps contribute a small, but very substantial supplement to their monthly income. These projects keep them active and give them meaning to each day. These are artisans, but this law makes them criminals.

Another segment of HTA members are small batch businesses, producing multiple items
and selling in boutiques and on line. They also are not able to absorb the testing costs for their products as the CPSIA makes no provision for these entities to continue to be economically viable after absorbing the costs of full CPSIA compliance. Again, they are treated equivalent to mass market manufacturers. Companies, who create only 20 or so products, producing in batches of 10 and 20 units, simply can not absorb the testing costs and still expect to charge a reasonable price for the added expense.

Representing 19% of our membership, a third group hurt by the CPSIA is small specialty toy retailers. These are the “mom and pop” toy stores tucked into towns all across America. The CPSIA removes the ability for them to sell almost all of the safe local products and many international products. Loss of specialty products from Europe, particularly, tilts the children’s products marketplace in favor of mass produced items and removes an opportunity for specialty retailers to differentiate themselves. Without the ability to offer products unique, which sets their store apart from the competition, there is little reason for the existence of the small specialty toy retailers. So the CPSIA limits consumer choice unnecessarily and creates a regulatory barrier to international small batch manufacturers.

The final group is specialty toy importers, representing 2% of our membership. It is a small percentage, but a big component in the culture of specialty toys in America. Within this “melting pot” culture that we live in, these importers provide access to many safe products from our ancestors’ and countries of origin, enriching the value of play and helping the specialty market survive. The CPSIA treats these small scale importers as if they were mass market manufacturers and therefore they suffer alongside USA based small batch manufacturers.

I grew up in Wyoming, where my great grandparents were homesteaders. For generations, my family has made clothes, toys, saddles, and belts for their children. I cherish these items because they are from my family, and they were made with care, just like what I make. Our members are people like me, from all across the country, making safe products that we simply cannot afford to third party test. I am here today because I want my children to understand and learn from our entrepreneurial spirits. Crafting gives them joy, selling it gives them reward.

While the HTA has worked closely with the CPSC – submitting comments on pending
rules, attending CPSC sponsored workshops, regular email and phone contact with CPSC staff - we feel strongly that the current legislation does not grant the CPSC the flexibility to address our members’ needs. Our membership is in need of a legislative fix that only you, in Congress, can give.

Solving the problems of the CPSIA is not only for our members’ immediate financial
relief, but will save generations of future handmade products. For thousands of years, cultures have been studied through their handcrafted toys. In every museum around the world, there are artifacts of handmade toys –connecting the cultures of the past to societies of today. What will our legacy be if the CPSIA destroys our generations’ ability to share in this piece of history?

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. Please note that in my written testimony, I have shared some of our ideas to rectify the unintended consequences of the CPSIA.

HTA's Jolie Fay to Testify this week in House Commerce Committee

2011-02-15T08:24:00.000-08:00

Jolie Fay

Handmade Toy Alliance board member Jolie Fay, owner of Skipping Hippos in Oregon, will testify this Thursday before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in a hearing entitled "A Review of CPSIA and CPSC Resources." Jolie will be representing all of the HTA's over 600 members who are seeking reform of the Consumer Product Safety improvement Act (CPSIA), which unfairly punishes small businesses for the sins of large corporations.

Fellow HTA board member Randy Hertzler, owner of euroSource, LLC, will also attend the hearing. Both He and Jolie are meeting with congressional staff and council to promote the HTA platform before and after the hearing. Follow @eurotoyshop or the #CPSIA hash tag on twitter on Thursday for updates throughout the day.

Once again, we are asking for donations to help offset the cost of travel so that we can continue to lobby congress for reform of the CPSIA. Please visit www.handmadetoyalliance.org to donate. Any amount will help!

HTA's Letter to the CPSC About the Feasibility of a 100ppm Lead Content Limit

2011-02-10T09:16:00.000-08:00

On February 16, the CPSC will hold a public hearing on the feasibility of lowering the lead content standard in children's products from 300ppm to 100ppm. We have submitted the following letter as our testimony.

February 10, 2011

Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814
cpsc-os@cpsc.gov

Re: 100 PPM—Technological Feasibility Public Hearing

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

On behalf of the Handmade Toy Alliance, an alliance now numbering 620 toy stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country who want to preserve unique handmade toys, clothes, and children's goods in the USA, we respectfully submit the following comments for consideration during the Commission's hearing on the feasibility of imposing a 100ppm lead content limit on children's products.

To begin with, we would like to refer the Commission to our earlier letter on the subject, dated September 27, 2010. We would like to reiterate that letter's conclusion, which stated:

As small manufacturers, we lack the wherewithal to demand consistent compliance to such a low standard from our component suppliers, many of whom do not specifically manufacture for children's products. We lack the resources to test repeatedly to ensure that any given test's results are actually within a 100ppm limit given the tests' margins of error. And, in an environment where the Commission blurs bright lines, we lack the patience for such a low limit that has no impact on human health but could well jeopardize our family businesses.

After reading the other responses to the Commission's initial requests for comments on the feasibility of a 100ppm standard, we were struck by the near unanimity among manufacturers and trade groups representing manufacturers. Almost all these respondents agreed with us that a 100ppm would be difficult to achieve consistently, would be difficult to measure, would add unnecessary and untenable compliance costs, and would not directly correspond with any health risks associated with lead content in different materials.

Voltaire: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Now, we are being asked to clarify our position regarding how the feasibility of a 100ppm standard would vary according to the type of material and the extent to which 100ppm-compliant components are “commercially available”.

Unfortunately, none of our members are chemists or materials scientists. Nor do we posses the resources to engage a scientific study of the vast myriad of products our members produce in order to fully answer these questions. The best we can do is describe our businesses and the difficulties we would encounter if we were required to meet a 100ppm lead standard.

For this hearing, the Commission asked, “What factors or considerations should we evaluate in deciding whether a product complying with the limit is 'commercially available?'” Unlike mass market manufacturers, we do not always begin our production with raw materials. We frequently purchase component goods like zippers and buttons from Jo-Ann Fabrics, beads and polyfill from Michael's, and screws and hinges from Home Depot.

These components have not been tested by a CPSC-accredited third party lab and do not indicate their lead content. Nor do the manufacturers of these components make any claim or guarantee regarding the consistency of materials used that would suggest that a hinge or button purchased in June would have the same lead content as the same item purchased in August. Indeed, many of these component parts are sold by distributors such as Dritz Notions or Stanley Hardware and bear no indication of the company which actually manufactured the part in the first place.

So, before the CPSC decides the extent to which 100ppm-compliant components are “commercially available”, we ask that the Commission should first conduct a thorough survey of the lead content of the component parts on sale at Jo-Ann Fabrics, Michaels, and Home Depot (or other comparable retailers). We urge the Commission to test a few dozen screws, buttons, zippers, and hinges—and then do the same test again in a month. This would be the best and only way determine the commercial availability of 100ppm-compliant parts for our members.

Unfortunately, we were not able to initiate such a study in the 15 days from when the Commission posted notice of this hearing and the date our comments were due. Nonetheless, the difficulty and expense of conducting such a survey is the exact same difficulty and expense small batch manufacturers will be facing if they would be required to comply with a 100ppm lead content standard.

While we recognize that it would be problematic for larger companies as well, we believe that small batch manufacturers, who have little or no negotiating power with their component suppliers, would be most adversely affected by a 100ppm standard. Much as we'd like to see the development of marketplace of pre-tested component parts, the truth is that, in most cases, this marketplace has so far failed to materialize. The burden of compliance, therefore, remains almost exclusively with the end-product manufacturer. A 100ppm standard would vastly aggravate this burden.

We believe the Commission can and should consider the economic feasibility of a 100ppm standard. And, we believe that any such consideration of the economic impact would logically lead to the conclusion that a 100ppm standard is not, in fact, feasible.

Finally, as discussed in our previous letter, we believe that a 100ppm total lead limit which does not take bioavailability into account is an inappropriate standard for measuring the health risk of a children's product. We have read the comments by consumer groups which reiterate the facts that lead accumulates in a child's body over time and that there is no safe amount of lead exposure. And, while we agree with these assertions, we can not find any logic which would justify a blanket 100ppm limit for all types of materials in all children's products.

It simply does not make sense to us that the lead content in brass, steel, plastic, vinyl, or glass should all be subject to the same limit, since each material behaves differently when exposed to human skin or saliva. Nor does it make sense to us that a baby rattle, puzzle, football, or bicycle should pose the same risks of lead ingestion or that these various products should all be subject to the same 100ppm standard.

We therefore urge the Commission to conclude, as we have, that a 100ppm lead standard is not technologically feasible; that 100ppm compliant component parts are not commercially available, especially for small batch manufacturers; and that a 100ppm standard would not relate to the risk of lead exposure as it varies from one material to another and from one type of product to another.

Our members are personally dedicated to making safe, quality products. We represent centuries of American craftsmanship which has nourished generations of American children.

Please consider the impact of 100ppm on our member businesses. Please do not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Thank you again for taking the time to read and consider our comments.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

A listing of all 620 business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance is available at http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/AllianceInfo/OurMembers.aspx .

HTA Letter to House Commerce Oversight Committee Regarding Regulatory Reform and the CPSIA

2011-01-26T07:35:00.000-08:00

January 26, 2011

To:
The Honorable Cliff Stearns
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

The Honorable Diana DeGette
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

CC:
The Honorable Fred Upton,
Chairman, Commerce and Energy Committee

The Honorable Mary Bono Mack
Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade

RE: House Commerce Committee, Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing to Examine Administration's Regulatory Reforms

To the Leadership of the House Commerce and Energy Committee:

On behalf of the 613 small batch children's product manufactures and independent retailers we represent, we would like to express our appreciation for the committee's attention to President Obama's recent executive order calling for less red tape in government regulation.

The President wrote in his recent Wall Street Jounal editorial, “Rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs”. We believe that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) provides a vivid illustration of the unreasonable burdens to which he refers.

Passed in 2008 as a response to quality failures in mass market toys, the CPSIA mandates third party testing for all children's products including toys, clothing, shoes, science kits, sporting equipment, and even compact discs and DVDs. This testing, which costs between several hundred and several thousand dollars per item, is required whether a business makes 100 units or 100,000 units per year. In this way, the law grossly discriminates against small batch manufacturers who must pay for the same testing as multi-national companies like Mattel.

These tests are mandated not only for lead content, but also, in the case of toys, for ASTM use and abuse tests, which add significant additional costs per toy.

Since the inception of the CPSIA, numerous small businesses have already ceased production, cut back on their offerings, introduced fewer new items, moved production overseas to reduce costs, and/or raised prices—all as a response to increased compliance costs. And, fewer new businesses have entered the marketplace.

We have asked the CPSC to simplify and narrow the scope of the CPSIA. Although the commission has made certain beneficial rulings such as exempting fabric and natural materials from lead content testing, we have been told by the Commission that compliance burdens cannot be further reduced without Congressional action. And, far from simplifying the law, the Commission has created confusion in many areas. In particular, its definition of a “children's product” is a 62 page document which provides more vagueness than clarity. Indeed, much of the CPSC's rulemaking on the CPSIA would not satisfy President Obama's executive order that “Regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.”

We are also concerned about the possibility that the CPSC may retroactively lower the lead content standard to 100ppm from the 300ppm standard which was previously mandated by the CPSIA. This lower standard, which is lower than the amount of lead the FDA allows in food, is impractical, not scientifically justified, and nearly impossible for small businesses to achieve.

We believe that the CPSIA can and should be fixed to make it less complicated, more focused on legitimate safety hazards, and fairer to small businesses. Our platform of proposed reforms is attached with this letter. We sincerely hope that Congress will act to reform the CPSIA. As President Obama wrote, “Small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.”

On behalf of our 613 member small businesses, we appreciate your willingness to consider our concerns. We hope to preserve the long-standing American tradition of hand-crafted children's goods while ensuring safety for the children who enjoy them.

Respectfully,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

HTA Letter to the CPSC about Extending the CPSIA Stay of Enforcement

2011-01-02T21:44:00.000-08:00

January 3, 2011

Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814

RE: CPSC Lifting of Stay of Enforcement under Section 102 of the CPSIA

Dear Honorable Commissioners:

As the Commission prepares for the lifting of the stay of enforcement for the CPSIA in just five short weeks, we would like to share our members’ concerns regarding this action and how it affects their abilities to produce children’s products in small batches.

A toy by Selecta Spielzeug of Germany,
now celebrating 2 years of extinction under the CPSIA.
Courtesy of HTA member EuroToyShop.com

We appreciate the opportunities the Commission has granted us to share our concerns regarding the CPSIA. Our fundamental belief continues to be that the CPSIA focuses resources on processes rather than safety and needlessly hampers the Commission's ability to make product safety determinations based on risk.

While the Commission has been able to address some of our concerns, there continue to be a number of issues that require resolution prior to our members being able to effectively implement testing protocols under the CPSIA. Our greatest concern remains the cost of third-party testing, which disproportionately affects small-batch manufacturers. We have testified in congressional hearings in both the House and the Senate that lifting the stay now will unnecessarily doom hundreds of small family businesses.

In the last month, Congress has shown it's determination to amend the CPSIA. At the December 2, 2010 Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing, both Chair Tenenbaum and Commissioner Northup testified about ways Congress could add flexibility to the CPSIA. The Senate also heard from industry stakeholders, including the HTA, who shared concerns with the legislation and urged for common sense amendment to rectify the many unintended consequences.

We strongly believe that a properly crafted amendment can and will protect small businesses, maintain a vibrant selection of children's products in the marketplace, reduce compliance costs, create a more effective CPSC, and promote common sense without sacrificing safety. But, until this legislative amendment is completed, lifting the stay would create chaos for our member’s businesses.

Furthermore, the component part testing rule has yet to be finalized and manufacturers are still working to understand the draft rules. While we have been advising our members that this ruling will be forthcoming and doing our best to share what their responsibilities will be, we have yet to receive clear, concise guidance. Without this formal ruling, we continue to have difficulty explaining to our component part suppliers the necessity for their testing information.

To that point, many of our member’s suppliers are refusing to test altogether, or refusing to supply their certifications to our members. In addition, for those members who purchase supplies direct from fabric and craft shops, such as JoAnn Fabrics or Michael’s, supplier certifications are not readily made available. Finalized rulings are necessary to push compliance upstream and help our members prove their testing protocol under the CPSIA.

Finally, while we appreciate the work of Neal Cohen, the CPSC's new small business ombudsperson, he has had only a few short months to initiate his outreach and education efforts. We would very much like to see these efforts more firmly in place before the stay is lifted.

For these reasons, we urge the Commission to further extend the stay of enforcement under Section 102 of the CPSIA.

On behalf of our 609 member small businesses, we appreciate your willingness to consider our concerns. We hope to preserve the long American tradition of hand-crafted children's goods while ensuring safety for the children who enjoy them.

Respectfully,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

A listing of all 609 business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance is available at http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/AllianceInfo/OurMembers.aspx

Board members:
Cecilia Leibovitz, Craftsbury Kids, VT
Dan Marshall, Peapods Natural Toys, MN
Jill Chuckas, Crafty Baby, CT
Mary Newell, Terrapin Toys, OR
Jolie Fay, Skipping Hippos, OR
Marianne Mullen, Polka Dot Patch, VT
Rob Wilson, Challenge & Fun, MA
Randy Hertzler, euroSource, PA
Kate Glynn, A Child's Garden, MA

cc: Neal Cohen, Small Business Ombudsman, CPSC

Full Text of the Handmade Toy Alliance Testimony for The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee

2010-12-03T18:37:00.000-08:00

Watch the entire hearing on C-SPAN.
Jill's testimony begins at the 1:27:45 mark.

In our verbal testimony, we were limited to five minutes of speaking. Here is our full testimony, which was entered into the official record.

December 2, 2010

Hello. My name is Jill Chuckas and I own a small hand crafted children’s accessories business called Crafty Baby. For the last 12 years, I have been crafting children’s products from my home based studio in Stamford, CT. When Congress first spoke of toy safety legislation, I applauded your efforts. In December of 2008, though, I began to read the fine print. I became acutely aware that this law, meant to regulate large, multi billion dollar companies that had betrayed the countries trust, could effectively put me out of business. Not because my products are unsafe, but because I simply could not afford the mandatory third party testing and labeling requirements, which disproportionately affect small batch manufacturers and specialty retailers. I quickly joined a rising grass roots effort to amend the CPSIA and took on a leadership role within the newly formed Handmade Toy Alliance.

So today I come before you to speak, not just for myself, but as a Board member of the Handmade Toy Alliance, an organization that owes it very existence to the CPSIA. The HTA now represents 592 member businesses, including specialty retail stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the United States. I am here today with fellow Board members Kate Glynn of A Child’s Garden and Impish in Massachusetts and Randy Hertzler of euroSource in Pennsylvania.

The deadline for third party testing is February 10 of next year – just ten weeks from now. After that point, our member businesses face extinction. Although many of us have already paid for XRF testing of our products, we simply cannot afford to pay for the services of a CPSC-certified lab. Throughout the last two years, we have slowly witnessed many of our members who manufacture products close their businesses, or change their business models as to not include children’s products. These equate to lost jobs, not because the company couldn’t make safe product, but because the companies couldn’t navigate the costly and burdensome regulations the CPSIA puts forth to prove that their products are safe. I have brought with me today a few examples of these businesses.

First, you see before you a wooden toy airplane. This toy, made by our member John Greco in New Jersey, sold for $110 and is made from Cedar, Oak, Poplar, Birch, and Maple. It is unfinished, so it doesn't need to be tested for lead, but quotes from labs to perform ASTM F963 Use & Abuse testing makes it too costly to continue making. Just one round of testing requires 12 toys to be sent to the lab for destructive testing, resulting in $1,320 in lost gross sales –and this does not include shipping and lab fees. Rather than continue to make children’s products, Mr. Greco decided to close that aspect of his business this past September. As he shared with me, “I was never looking to get rich making wooden toys- I did it because I enjoyed making toys that made kids happy.”

Second, you see before you an award winning custom designed fabric toy monster created by Stephanie and Michael Estrin, owners of Curly Q Cuties in Texas. Children and their parents can go on line and design their own personal monster. After much research, Curly Q Cuties found that they could never afford to test each unique design to ASTM standards and decided to close their business at the end of this year. Mrs. Estrin cites the reason for the company’s closing due to “a law that does not address our particular manufacturing scenario.” Put simply, the fact that this is a one of a kind item, makes it impossible to adhere to all the stipulations within the CPSIA.

Third, my fellow board member Randy Hertzler’s family business focuses on often hard to find toys, primarily imported from the European Union. These toys, that represented 44% of his sales in 2006-2007, have disappeared from the US market because of the CPSIA’s lack of alignment with European standards. Many quality European toy companies will no longer sell to American retailers like Randy. He fears that he will have to liquidate and close in 2011.

While the HTA has worked closely with the CPSC – submitting comments on pending rules, attending CPSC sponsored workshops, regular email and phone contact with CPSC staff – we feel strongly that the current legislation does not grant the CPSC the flexibility to address our members’ specific needs. This was most recently shown by the CPSC definition of a children’s product. The final rule was issued in 63 pages of text that we now understand to mean “if it can be construed as a children’s product, it is.” Our view was that the CPSC could have offered relief to countless small businesses, but the ambiguity of their definition, rather than exempting product categories and providing guidance, has only served to create additional market confusion.

We have offered a number of suggestions that we feel will ensure the safety of children's products, yet amend the CPSIA to be more workable for the businesses we represent. The majority of these ideas were outlined in our January 2010 letter to the CPSC. We are more than happy to further discuss these suggestions throughout this hearing.

Most importantly, Congress should grant the CPSC the authority to use risk analysis to allow flexibility of third party testing requirements and hazardous content limits. High risk items like paint or metal jewelry should be held to higher verification standards than low-risk products like bicycle valve stems and brass zippers on children's garments.

Second, the definition of what is a children’s product should be changed to items intended for children 6 years or younger, except where the CPSC identifies a product requiring a higher age limit based on risk analysis.

Third, educational products intended for use in a classroom environment should be excluded from the definition of a children's product.

Fourth, harmonize CPSIA standards with the European Union's EN-71 standards to remove the regulatory trade barrier which the CPSIA created between the US and the EU. This would include changing the lead content standard from an untenable total lead standard to an absorbable lead standard.

Fifth, exempt manufacturers who make less than 10,000 units per year from all third party testing requirements and allow them to comply instead with the 'reasonable testing program' requirements which apply to manufacturers of non-children's products under the CPSA. This would protect small batch manufacturers and specialty product manufacturers, including companies that make adaptive products for children with disabilities. These manufacturers would not be exempted from the standards themselves, only from the third party verification requirements.

Sixth, tracking labels should be voluntary except for durable nursery items and products which are most likely to be passed down to younger siblings or resold where the CPSC's risk analysis determines that tracking labels would be most likely to prevent harm. Manufacturers who choose to implement tracking labels would benefit from a lesser burden in the event of a recall.

Seventh, instruct the CPSC to not lower the lead content limit from 300 parts per million to 100 parts per million, a standard so low that it multiplies the difficulties of compliance.

Over the last two years, we have been told countless times that the CPSIA was never meant to adversely affect my business or the member businesses the HTA represents. We have worked tirelessly, along with many others, to enact common sense change within this legislation, always holding on to the fact that the products we create are safe. On behalf of our members, I thank this committee for addressing this important issue and urge you to quickly pass meaningful reform of the CPSIA, correcting these unintended consequences. Thank you.

A full list of our 592 member businesses can be found at http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org.

Press Release: HTA's Jill Chuckas to Tesify in Seante Commerce Committee

2010-12-01T08:56:00.000-08:00

Help us Cover our Travel Expenses!
Please donate today.

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) will testify on Thursday December 2nd at a Senate Commerce Sub-Committee oversight hearing regarding the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). HTA board member Jill Chuckas (Crafty Baby – CT), Board Member Randy Hertzler (euroSource – PA) and Board member Kate Glynn (A Child’s Garden and Impish – MA) will travel to DC to participate in this very important process. The HTA was formally invited to testify and looks forward to this opportunity to continue the discussion of the need to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). As a new Congress begins, the HTA is hopeful that this will be a large step towards meaningful reform.

This past April, the HTA testified in a House Energy and Commerce Sub-Committee hearing. HTA Vice-President Dan Marshall (Peapods –MN) stated “Our focus now is to help this process proceed quickly. It has been a very long road to common sense changes to the CPSIA. The time for waiting is over. Congress needs to move swiftly to fix the issues with the CPSIA.”

”We now have an opportunity to address issues with the CPSIA in front of the Senate Commerce Sub-Committee. This is an important move to continue our fight to keep specialty retail stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from having to close and go out of business due to the constraints of the CPSIA,” stated Board member, Jill Chuckas (Crafty Baby – CT).
Board member Mary Newell (Terrapin Toys –OR) shared “The CPSIA has caused me to step backwards in how I run my company. To comply with the CPSIA is confusing, changing and very costly. I am just trying to focus on tried and true products and feel very uncertain about trying anything new. I have tested to safety standards for the past 15 years at a reasonable cost to my business but with the new testing protocol, my testing costs have dramatically increased. Without some reform it will be a struggle to stay in business.”

Chuckas continues, “Over the last two years, we have been told countless times that the CPSIA was never meant to adversely affect small toy companies and the member businesses the HTA represents. Yet time and time again we have hit brick walls when trying to get meaningful reform passed to fix the CPSIA.” The HTA reports that this lack of reform has left their member’s business’ and countless other companies confused and unable to move forward, struggling to navigate the costly labeling and third party testing protocols, without adding to overall product safety.

Newell adds “We have worked tirelessly, along with many others, to enact common sense change within this legislation, always holding on to the fact that the products we create are and have been safe. We have also seen numerous member’s companies go out of business, change product lines or get out of the children’s market altogether. Not because they were unsafe or harmful products but because the CPSIA has made it impossible to continue what they love and enjoy doing - making and selling creative handmade toys.” The HTA remains hopeful about this opportunity to address the committee and looks forward to having meaningful reform of the CPSIA, thereby correcting these unintended consequences.

Press Release: The HTA Reaffirms Commitment to Buy Handmade and Local

2010-10-13T21:32:00.000-07:00

In celebration of American Craft Week 2010, the Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) outreached, in conjunction with bloggers across the country, an open call to all to pledge to buy handmade and local products this upcoming quarter. Throughout the ten day period, HTA promoted their members, and artists in all mediums, by utilizing social media outlets such as facebook and twitter to create a community of energy around the current thrust to buy hand crafted and local goods.

Gnome Family by The Original Tree Swing as
Featured on Sara's Toy Box blog (both HTA Members)

“We are always overwhelmed by the outpouring of support – not just from the artist community – but from individuals and families throughout the country,” stated Jill Chuckas (CT), owner of Crafty Baby and Board member of the HTA. “Once again, we were affirmed that people really do value the products our members create - the love, time, energy and story behind each creation is so very important.”

Over 40 blogs cross posted with the HTA during American Craft Week. All posts were shared on the HTA facebook and twitter pages. In addition, a twitter newspaper was created to highlight the event.

Participating Blogs included:

Thanks to everyone who blogged and everyone who pledged to buy handmade!

Why Pledge to Buy Handmade?

2010-10-07T21:09:00.000-07:00

This week we’ve been celebrating American Craft Week by sharing the reasons why we do and why we should buy handmade and locally produced goods, and pledging to do so whenever we can. It’s been inspiring to read everyone’s stories and one can really feel the love and care that people are expressing. Sort of one big warm hug for all things hand crafted. That’s a good thing – a very good thing.

This morning, though, a curious post was pointed out to me about why the buy handmade pledge doesn’t work. Needless to say, the title made me stop for a moment. Handmade not work? How can that be? It goes against most of what we, at HTA, have been saying and proclaiming for the last 2 years since the creation of our organization.

So, I read the post – albeit with a bit of trepidation. Turned out, it was a thoughtful expression of some pretty clear, concise points. It took the stance that to pledge buy handmade is a directive and that folks need more than a directive to connect with something and actually change behavior. They need to understand the whys and hows of the initiative. When a directive such as “Buy Handmade” is given, it often just preaches to the choir, so to speak. Those who already engage in this behavior, will say “Yeah, sure, I’ll sign your pledge”, but it doesn’t necessarily change behavior in those that don’t already subscribe to the directive.

The Gilbert Toymaker Kit, circa 1920's, by A.C. Gilbert.

The question then formed, how do we reach out to the unbelievers? Just because something is handmade or locally produced doesn’t necessarily make it a quality product. We need to recognize what makes these products better and why it is better to spend our money on them rather than mass produced items or at the big box stores. In many ways it comes back to American manufacturing. Many, many years ago (at least that’s how it feels), America was known for its manufacturing. Indeed, the US was the center of the industrial revolution and just about everything was made here. This is no longer the case. That is not to say that there are not reputable and incredible overseas manufacturers. There are. But things have certainly changed in our society regarding how and where things are produced.

The pledge to buy handmade could then be seen as an extension of a return to American manufacturing. Some would say that this is an impossible dream. But, every good dream started with an idea. Not every locally produced or hand crafted item will have value to you as a consumer. Not every locally produced or hand crafted item will be something you choose to purchase. But, taking the time to hear the story, to be thoughtful with your purchases and to think before you buy is something everyone can commit to do.

We continue to be faced with uncertain financial times as a nation. Many leaders have said “If you are not part of the solution, than you are part of the problem.” Here is one way to be part of the solution. Time to take a stance--sign the HTA Buy Handmade Pledge!

--By HTA board member Jill Chuckas, owner of Crafty Baby in Connecticut.

An Open Letter on Pending CPSC Actions Against Baby Slings

2010-10-06T09:04:00.001-07:00

October 6, 2010

Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814

Re: An Open Letter on Pending CPSC Actions Against Baby Slings

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

As you know, the Handmade Toy Alliance represents more than just toymakers, but small batch clothing and children's product manufacturers of all kinds. In particular, several of our members make or sell baby slings and work to promote the benefits of babywearing.

We understand that the Commission has been applying increased scrutiny to baby slings in the past few months. We also understand that several manufacturers of baby slings have been investigated and that one well-respected company may be facing a forced recall.

Before the Commission takes any further actions in these investigations, we urge it to consult closely with the Baby Carrier Industry Alliance (BCIA), which has been working tirelessly to develop ASTM standards for baby slings.

Babywearing is a time-honored practice all around the world. We agree with the BCIA that babywearing is safe and promotes the health and well-being of babies while strengthening the bonds betweens parents and babies. We urge the Commission to carefully consider the BCIA's white paper on the safety and benefits of babywearing, which can be found at http://tinyurl.com/35o67t7, before taking any further actions.

We join the BCIA to ask that: 1) all baby sling recall actions be stopped immediately; 2) the ASTM sling carrier standard should be voted on so that sling carriers may be tested for this safety standard; 3) the CPSC should provide baby sling manufacturers with scientific evidence of a product defect before forcing a recall.

There is a strong network of babywearing safety advocates and volunteer groups, including many HTA members, throughout the nation whose mission is to teach caregivers how to use their baby carriers safely and effectively. Baby carriers are absolutely safe; perhaps even safer than many other baby care devices such as swings, playpens, and car seats. Additionally, ASTM International just sent the baby sling voluntary standard to ballot this very week. This standard is the result of 3 years of hard work by consumer advocates, manufacturers, and members of the CPSC's own staff.

Please, do not rush to judgement on baby slings.

Thank you again for taking the time to read and consider our comments.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

A listing of all 548 business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance is available at . http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/AllianceInfo/OurMembers.aspx

---------------------------------

Image: A 2000 US Dollar Coin, featuring Sacagawea carrying her son Jean in a Baby Sling.

More information on this issue, along with sample letters to Congress, can be found on the Babywearing Safety Facebook Page.

Join the Handmade Toy Alliance and Pledge to Buy Handmade!

2010-09-30T18:36:00.000-07:00

Click Here and Pledge to Buy Handmade!

Buying local, living within our means, supporting small business and the US economy – these are all things that many of us are doing more and more often these days. With money being so tight, we are all living with less, and putting more thought into the purchases we do make.

So, this lends the question, what are we doing to improve all of our situations, build up American businesses and put our money where our mouth is (literally)? What can each of us do to help charge up the economy and support each other? We certainly have less than we did this time last year, so how can we look ahead to the future and still buy, well, things?

Image courtesy of Little Allouette

Buy handmade – it’s as simple as that. We can’t afford to buy as much as we used to, but we can make conscious choices to support specific businesses. We can go to the local mom and pop toy shop, rather than the big box store. Sure, we might only get 2 items, rather than 4, but those products will generally be better made, more thoughtful items. And, a local company will benefit from your choice, rather than a large corporation. We can choose to frequent farmers markets and craft shows. These events allow us to meet the maker and hear the story behind the product. It instills the value of American craftsmanship in our families and our children. We can choose to look to Etsy and the Handmade Toy Alliance for gift items. Our product options and the sheer beauty of the items we find will be multiplied ten fold to what we find in large department stores.

If everyone made the pledge to buy just one hand crafted product for someone on their gift list this year, think of the thousands of businesses that will grow and nourish our communities. It may mean reframing how we go about our purchases, taking a little more time to choose what we need, or want, going back to a simpler way of life. But, it will be so worth it.

Join the business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance and pledge to buy handmade. It will be the easiest choice you made yet!

HTA Comments on the Technological Feasibility of Lowering CPSIA Lead Limits to 100ppm

2010-09-26T23:34:00.000-07:00

September 27, 2010

Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814

Re: Comments Regarding the Technological Feasibility of 100ppm for Lead Content Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0080]

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

On behalf of the Handmade Toy Alliance, an alliance now numbering 548 toy stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country who want to preserve unique handmade toys, clothes, and children's goods in the USA, we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the technological feasibility of a 100ppm lead content limit.

We wish to reiterate that the CPSC and the Congressional leadership from both parties have openly acknowledged that the broad sweep of the CPSIA has created unintended consequences for products and industries which had nothing to do with the toy and jewelry safety scare of 2007. In light of the fact that Congressional Democrats and Republicans have so far been unable to work together to craft a solution for the small businesses we represent, it remains up to the Commission to promulgate rules that serve to help businesses large and small to understand what is needed to comply with the CPSIA.

As with the rulemaking process regarding the definition of a children's product, we believe that Congress has given the Commission an important opportunity to avoid further unintended consequences by ruling that the 100ppm limit on lead in substrates is not a feasible standard.

First and foremost, we believe that total lead is not a reasonable standard for evaluating the risk of lead poisoning from a consumer product. Whether the limit is 300ppm or 100ppm, a total lead standard is a purely political, not a scientific, assessment of risk. Despite the fact that no scientific study directly correlates total lead content with the risk of lead poisoning, consumer groups insisted during the drafting of the CPSIA that a “bright line” total limit, which was easier to measure, enforce, and explain to the public, was preferable to a soluble standard which more accurately reflects risk.

This key difference has unnecessarily set the US market apart from other markets, in particular the European Union, and has cost millions of dollars worth of redundant testing.

We have been arguing for two years that the US should adopt the European Union's method of evaluating the risk of lead exposure by measuring the bioavalibility of soluble lead in substrates. By defining the limits based on total lead, the CPSIA has effectively outlawed materials such as brass, crystal, and rhinestones which are perfectly safe biologically yet violate the CPSIA's limits on total lead.

Now we are being asked to comment on whether a 100ppm standard would be “technologically feasible”. Most of the comments the commission will receive on this issue will likely focus on the word “feasible”. We, however, would like to argue that a 100ppm limit is not technological.

The simplest definition we found of the word “technology” is: The practical application of science to commerce or industry.

Because science shows that a total lead limit does not actually measure the risk of lead poisoning, such a limit, whether it is 300ppm or 100ppm, cannot be described as the application of science to commerce or industry. It may represent the application of political expediency or good intentions, but it is not an application of science. Therefore, reducing the limit from 300ppm to 100ppm would merely be compounding and increasing the side-effects of an unscientific principle. Whether or not 100ppm is feasible, it is not technological.

We agree that consumer products should be regulated by “bright line” standards, but these should be based on science and common sense. For example, we had hoped that the Commission would adopt clear and and easy to understand standards when it recently considered the definition of a children's product. Instead, our comments seeking clear standards were ignored, as were the comments of many other stakeholders. The Commission staff chose to issue a 63 page definition which provides no bright lines and no clear definition. HTA member Sarah Natividad, the owner Curious Workmanship, a home-based business in Utah, observed:

[The CPSC] could have saved hard drive space, several forests of trees, and a lot of time and effort by just making the rule say “It’s a children’s product if we say it is, so just ask us and if we feel like it, we’ll decide for you.” Because that’s what it boils down to. Now, besides the fuzzy line between kids and adults, we also have the fuzzy line between infants and kids and whether a child might reasonably be assumed to touch and use a lamp or a piece of furniture. Why on earth did they think TWO fuzzy lines constituted clarification?

Indeed, in the weeks since the final draft of the definition was published, the CPSC has illogically re-defined the intended age of at least two products so that it could initiate recall procedures. The first was a recall of Click Armband Bracelets by Fun Stuff, Inc., which were clearly marked as designed for ages 3 and over. Despite the fact that no responsible parent would give these throwaway plastic toys to a toddler, the Commission chose to initiate recall proceedings by redesignating them as toddler toys.

In the second recent case, a line of mood rings were reclassified by the Commission as a children's product despite the fact that they were clearly labelled with sexually suggestive language which was specifically designed to appeal to teenagers and adults, not children.

By issuing an obfuscating definition of a children's product and by creatively reclassifying products so that it can force recalls, the Commission is doing everything except promulgating bright line standards. These actions do not go unnoticed. They tell children's product manufacturers both large and small only one message: there are no bright line standards, only the will of Commission.

The end result of this uncertainty is a growing realization that any children's product business, no matter how responsible or how ethical, is just one incident report away from terrible penalties and overwhelming legal fees. Small businesses like our members lack the resources to defend themselves from the Commission's unilateral actions and are increasingly choosing to exit the children's' product marketplace altogether.

So, in this environment, is a 100ppm limit feasible? Consider the analysis by Sarah Natividad, who is also a former mathematics professor. She concludes that the more we test and the stricter we make our standards, the more impossible it is to comply with the law. She writes:

It is mathematically impossible to find all defective objects without going to the expense of testing them ALL. And that's assuming testing is 100% accurate, which it's not. And to add insult to injury, the more zealously you test by sampling, the more confused you will be about the safety of your product. CPSIA was supposed to reduce confusion about product safety, but now you have mathematical proof that it does exactly the opposite.

This mathematical paradox will be dramatically aggravated by lowering lead limits to 100ppm--a limit which makes sampling errors, random chance, and the accuracy of testing equipment much more likely to play a decisive role in the outcome of both pre- and post-market product safety evaluations. Testing costs will increase, uncertainty will increase, risk of destroying finished inventory will increase, and the number of CPSC recalls will increase. The result will be weakened businesses, undermined consumer confidence, and a public even more inured to the product recall process.

As small manufacturers, we lack the wherewithal to demand consistent compliance to such a low standard from our component suppliers, many of whom do not specifically manufacture for children's products. We lack the resources to test repeatedly to ensure that any given tests results are actually within a 100ppm limit given the tests' margins of error. And, in an environment where the Commission blurs bright lines, we lack the patience for such a low limit that has no impact on human health but could well jeopardize our family businesses.

Thank you again for taking the time to read and consider our comments.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

A listing of all 548 business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance is available at . http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/AllianceInfo/OurMembers.aspx

Custom Plush – CPSIA Testing & Compliance

2010-09-25T00:24:00.000-07:00

The following is a cross-post by HTA members CurlyQ Cuties, makers of custom plush toys. It is reposted here by permission.

If you’re manufacturing plush, you must make sure the product you’re making is safe.

While this has always been the case, the government has decided — after the lead scares in imported products a few years ago — to legislate a “solution.” If you make a child’s product — as defined by the government, not by you — you must comply with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This legislation is quite broad and far ranging. Its implementation was left to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Although 2010 is almost over, the rules resulting from this legislation are still evolving.

If the government decrees your product a children’s product, you better have your ducks in a row. This is not as easy as it sounds. A primary requirement is to understand the legalise (or have an attorney interpret it for you) in the Act and in the CPSC rulings. You must also become familiar with the Federal Register — this is where the official rulings from the CPSC is published.

While we believe we comply in principle with the various requirements of the Act, I’m sorry to say that I don’t personally believe we will ever be in full compliance. Don’t get me wrong — our products are safe. It’s just the Act was not written with small batch toy manufacturers in mind. The particular nature of our products — you select the design — means each product is relatively unique. While the CPSC has provided for some component testing, the guidance they’ve provided in this area is somewhat lacking for our manufacturing scenario.

To further complicate matters, the laboratories “accredited” by the CPSC for CPSIA-related testing each seem to have their own interpretation of CPSIA requirements. We’ve had different labs give us different scenarios (and widely different pricing). This testing stuff isn’t free or cheap and ultimately you, our customer, pays for it.

One lab told us woven textiles must be tested for lead — when the CPSC has published that textiles are exempt from lead testing.

Another lab told us that we’d have to test all of the unique variations of our products. Our custom products are made from a finite number of components each applied in the same way. If you calculated the number of “unique” products we’re capable of making, the number currently runs in the sextillions (10 to the 21st power). If we had enough money to pay for the testing of each of these, we would be on our own tropical island enjoying the sun (and, regretfully, not busy making plush).

After much searching, we found a lab with a representative that we were able to communicate with and who provided sane advice on what testing was considered reasonable. We’ve undertaken lead testing in advance of the third-party lead testing requirements set to go into effect in early 2011 (and which have been twice-delayed by the CPSC). Our products pass third-party accredited lab lead testing (CPSIA Section 101). We comply with the CPSIA’s tracking label requirements (CPSIA Section 103). Our products don’t have plastic components — phthalate testing is not required. Our products comply with the ban on small parts.

In addition to the federal requirements imposed by the CPSIA (and other federal Acts), individual states have begun to impose their own testing requirements. We agree that all products — particularly those used by children — should be safe. The requirements to do so, however, have become quite onerous for our small business (and many others like it). In an era where manufacturing jobs have disappeared en masse overseas (and any job is hard to come by), it boggles my mind that our government is making it more difficult — not less — to manufacture products in the United States.

If you’re thinking about manufacturing plush (or any other children’s product), know in advance what you’re getting yourself into. As a small batch manufacturer, you’re not exempt from any of these regulations. There are a lot of requirements. And fulfilling those requirements costs money.

Letting Go of a Dream

2010-09-16T21:46:00.000-07:00

The following was originally posted by HTA member John Greco of Greco Woodcrafting and is reposted here by permission.

Fall is almost here, and for the past 2 years that has meant time for me to begin preparing my inventory for the Holiday sales season. I started Greco Woodcrafting in April of 2008 to make children’s toys, something I had dreamed of doing since the early 1990′s. It was something I always thought would be for when I retired, with a little storefront for people to browse and shop with the workshop in the back. Little step stools for children to see over the half wall, watching the toys they were hoping would some day be theirs being made right before their eyes behind a pane of glass. Maybe even sparking the magic that was sparked in me long ago, to have a desire to work with their hands and ‘create’.

What spurred me to open up shop, so to speak, in my mid-30′s instead of my golden years? Toy recalls. Racing frantically, panicked, day after day with the latest toy recall list in my hand praying none of the items in my daughter’s toy box would match the list. After our son was born, I decided to move forward with my plans.

Unfortunately for me and so many others like me, the government also decided to take action, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) was soon passed nearly unanimously in both Houses and signed into law by President Bush. The law is immense, cumbersome and seems to have gone through a constant stream of changing definitions under the CPSC. The Commission claims to be compassionate for the little guys like me. It’s just that they have to put the interests of children first. Which hurts, because it implies that I wasn’t doing exactly that. First and foremost, I’m a father- I have never made anything that I haven’t given to my own kids first.

The CPSIA is written in a way that creates a barrier for small toy makers like myself to enter the market. I have never used any finishes on my products, and wood was declared to be free from needing lead testing, so many people think I am in the clear (my own Representative among them- I don’t know what my Senators think, they never returned my calls or emails but did add me to their mailing list). But lead testing is just one aspect of this law. As of August 14th of 2009 I needed to add permanent tracking labels to every toy I produce. I already had a branding iron with my company name that was used for everything, but that was no longer enough. Now the toy must also include country, state and city of manufacture, as well as date of manufacture. Something that, for me, was a significant cost.

Although I only had to discontinue some of my less expensive (albeit bes selling) toys, I was able to continue making children’s toys. But lurking in the unseen distance is the final nail in the coffin of my dream: Use & Abuse testing.

I’ve taken courses on materials and processes, where we would test for weaknesses in materials using different methods. It was those courses that this post was derived from 2 years ago. Everything I design is designed with safety and strength in mind, using what I took away from these courses. But at some point, the CPSC will determine Use & Abuse testing guidelines as they are required to do under the CPSIA. For a lab to accurately perform these tests, they require 12 copies of the toy which will then be destroyed. Between lab fee’s, the cost of materials + labor and lost sales of those items, I figured my full children’s toy line would cost me approximately $15,000 to test. And this will need to be done for every new toy BEFORE I can sell it. In other words, I’d be taking a huge gamble just to see if a toy sells. And if it doesn’t do well, too bad.

I don’t know exactly when this will take effect. The CPSC hasn’t made their ruling on the guidelines yet, but once they do it will be 90 days after that. In the meantime I can’t continue with business as usual making children’s toys. It would be senseless for me to continue down a path that I know is only a matter of time before I reach a dead end. Time and money already spent on promoting my children’s toys are essentially down the drain, I need to cut my losses.

I’m fortunate that I can make other things from wood, and I’m enjoying the woodworking I still get to do. But it doesn’t make letting go of my dream hurt any less.

What is the CPSC's definition of a Children's Product under the CPSIA? Two years and 63 pages later, we're still not sure.

2010-08-31T22:29:00.000-07:00

Last week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission published its final rule on the definition of a children's product, three months after soliciting and receiving input from dozens of stakeholders, including the Handmade Toy Alliance.

This was an opportunity for the CPSC to listen to voices of hundreds of businesses affected by the CPSIA. It was a chance to reduce the law's sweeping impact on thousands of children's products which have never posed any safety risk, including school learning materials, music CDs, riding saddles, and craft tools. This definition is incredibly important because any product which is defined as a children's product is subject to expensive third party lab testing for lead and other elements which does not apply to general use consumer products. All the CPSC had to do was to state clearly that certain classes of products are, by definition, not children's products.

Instead, the CPSC chose to ignore, disregard, or refute virtually every commentator's perspective and issued a 63 page document that does little to define a children's product and creates surging gulfs of ambiguity that threaten to drown entire businesses, especially small businesses who don't have access to teams of lawyers to explain the CPSC's reasoning.

In short, instead of taking the opportunity to create bright lines and clear definitions, the CPSC has created a world in which virtually any product may be considered a children's product depending on how it is decorated, where it is sold, and what consumers' perceptions are.

Under these rules, there is nothing that a manufacturer of a general use product can do to ensure that a product does not fall under the definition of a children's product, including stamping "Not for use by children," all over it or packaging it with a portable flame thrower. This means assuming coverage or facing ex post facto liability. A manufacturer of tools, for example, might have no idea that their product was repackaged by a retailer as part of a kid's tool kit, yet under these rules the manufacturer would still be liable for for third party testing.

That leaves every manufacturer at the mercy of where and how the product is sold (which they often have no control over), whether it appeals to a certain age group (which they often have no control over), how it is perceived by the public (which they have no control over), how it is used or misused by the consumer or their children (which they have no control over), entertainment industry ratings (which they have no control over) and the subjective judgment of the CPSC (which we obviously have no control over). All of the CPSC's "examples" of non-covered items are padded with counter-statements making them ambiguous.

None of this makes a single child more safe.

To highlight the absurdity of this document, consider how the CPSC will determine whether a music CD or DVD is a children's item:

“The...rule states that the CDs and DVDs with content intended for children younger than 4 years old were not determined to be children’s products because children younger than 4 are usually not allowed to use household digital media players. However, having defined use to mean physical interaction with the product, because DVDs and CDs and other digital media may be handled by older children to load and unload DVDs in their appropriate media devices, CDs and DVDs could be considered children’s products if such movies, video games, or music were specifically aimed at and marketed to children 12 years of age or younger and have no appeal to older audiences.”

In order words, a Baby Loves Mozart CD is not a children's product because it is marketed to children under 4 who are unable to operate a CD player, but a Dan Zanes CD is a children's product because it is marketed to children older than 4 but younger than 12.

Music labels will be forced to test each batch of CDs they make, which will be the death knell for independent children's music. Why would any label pay for such testing when they can stop publishing CDs altogether and sell exclusively via iTunes? How will the CPSC explain this to Pete Seeger, who was blacklisted by McCarthy in the 1950's only to have his right to publish children's music curtailed by the government in 2010?

In its wisdom, though, the CPSC had defined iPods, DVD players, CD Players, video game consoles etc., as general use items as long as they aren't decorated with children's themes or marketed to children, even though a child will be “interacting” with these devices much more than with a CD or DVD itself. This is reasoning reminiscent of Lewis Carroll.

We keep hoping that, at some point, the CPSIA will become more understandable and easier for small businesses to manage. Instead, the CPSC continues to add layers of ambiguity and confusion on top of an already overwhelming law. This latest document makes it abundantly clear that businesses who make children's products and the CPSC itself are not ready for enforcement of the third party testing requirement, which is scheduled to begin in five short months. It also makes it clear that Congress needs to correct its mistakes and reign in a safety law that's running amok. Congress has stalled on passing any type of real relief and that in and of itself has limited the CPSC’s ability to make better rulings on the CPSIA.

We keep expecting answers about the CPSIA, but between Congress and the CPSC, all we're getting is more questions.

Press Release: The Handmade Toy Alliance launches new website

2010-08-03T19:43:00.000-07:00

This past month, the Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) launched a new web site with improved member and navigation features. The updated site will allow the HTA to more easily support small batch manufacturers and specialty retailers as well as share information with the public.

“Since our inception in November of 2008, and later incorporation in April of 2009, the HTA has grown by leaps and bounds – now supporting over 400 small businesses nationwide,” stated Randy Hertzler, Board Member and owner of EuroToyShop (PA) and BigWindow LLC (www.bigwindow.net), a web design and programming company. “The new site will allow us to connect with members quicker and easier with new forums, interactive features and an eventual marketplace.”

“This has been a massive undertaking,” Hertzler shared. “Since we began as a grassroots organization, our information was stored in 3 or 4 different locations and formats. Installing the new web site allows us to organize our data in one central location and helps to move our alliance forward as it develops into a professional trade organization.”

"We were lucky that Randy was able to combine his experiences as a toy store owner and programmer for our cause," said HTA vice president Dan Marshall of Peapods Natural Toys (MN). Layout and navigation design for the new site was also donated by graphic designer and branding consultant, Lizzie Sorensen (www.lizziesorensen.com). "Many hours of work went in to this effort which will benefit our members for years to come," Marshall added.

HTA Blog Week Recap

2010-07-14T09:53:00.000-07:00

The week of June 21 was a big one for the Handmade Toy Alliance. Not only did we get our new website (http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org) up and running, our first annual blog week took place!

Over 50 bloggers wrote about HTA members of their choosing. This resulted in some fantastic publicity for the wonderful handmade children’s items they produce. It was a lot of fun to see what the various reviewers chose to focus on. This eclectic selection would serve as a neat ‘around the blogosphere’ gift guide to anyone looking for a unique handmade kid gift. Here is a complete list of the participants for your reading pleasure.

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday and Sunday

HTA Comments on the Definition of a Children's Product under the CPSIA

2010-06-20T16:29:00.000-07:00

The following is our letter to the CPSC regarding their definition of a Children's Product. This definition is important because products which are defined as general use products will not be subject to the same standards and 3rd party testing requirements as a children's product.

July 20, 2010
Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland, 20814
http://www.regulations.gov

Re: Comments Regarding The Definition of a Children's Product Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0029]

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

On behalf of the Handmade Toy Alliance, an alliance now numbering 442 toy stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country who want to preserve unique handmade toys, clothes, and children's goods in the USA, we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the CPSC's definition of a children's product under the CPSIA.

The CPSC and Congressional leadership from both parties have openly acknowledged that the broad sweep of the CPSIA has created unintended consequences for products and industries which had nothing to do with the toy and jewelry safety scare of 2007. We believe that the Commission's task in defining what constitutes a children's product is an important opportunity for the Commission to address and repair some of these unintended consequences and provide relief for several industries whose products have been placed under a cloud of uncertainty and potentially overwhelming costs by the CPSIA.

Although the Commission's draft definition provides helpful and needed relief for several categories of goods, particularly décor, we feel that the Commission should be much more specific in the types of products which will not be considered children's products. We would like to suggest a number of areas where more specificity is needed.

Under the category of Art Materials, the draft definition states: “Crafting kits and supplies that are not specifically marketed to children 12 years of age or younger would likely be considered products intended for general use.” while simultaneously stating that “Materials sized, decorated, and marketed to children 12 years of age or younger...would be considered children's products.” We feel that this emphasis on marketing will lead to contradictions, misunderstandings, and needless compliance costs. The Commission should instead focus on the intended function of a product and the context in which it will be used.

Under the proposed marketing-based framework, for example, the same pair of small knitting needles would be considered a general use product or a children's product depending only upon how they are packaged. It goes against reason to argue that the same product either does or does not require extensive testing based on the type of label it uses, especially when craft stores often sell these products side by side and consumers can easily substitute one for the other.

The importance of this issue was illustrated by one of members, Eric Vought of The Misty Manor, Mercers in Missouri, who manufactures fiber art tools:

We still have questions on the status of many of our products. We operate a fiber farm...But the real trouble spot is that we produce craft tools and educational materials for many of our crafts. For instance, we sell Learn-to-Spin kits consisting of a drop spindle, fiber, and instructions. We also produce Learn-to-Knit kits, tools for weaving and so forth. These products are not targeted at children, but certainly (older) children, parents, and teachers are among those who purchase them. We have no way of knowing the use for which the kits are intended and we make the products, often from recycled materials, specifically to encourage people to try learning a craft before spending a lot of money on expensive tools...Certainly, these are not intended as 'toys' but we would like a clear statement that they are not covered and that we do not need to send reusable materials to the landfill out of fear that someone will chew on them. As written, the CPSIA's broad age range potentially covers an enormous variety of non-toy products.

A more compelling and logical framework is to consider the circumstances under which a child will be using a product. There are hundreds of art and craft supplies which are designed for children, but are intended for instructional purposes under the supervision of an adult. We believe that such instructional products should be regulated as general use products and not as children's products.

Under this framework, we believe the following products should be specifically defined by the Commission as general use products:

Child-sized craft tools such as knitting needles, child-sized looms, drop spindles, corking tools, leatherworking tools, sewing needles, woodworking tools, etc. Tools that could also be used by an adult and which are meant to be used under adult instruction for the purpose of learning a craft should be considered general use products. Toy versions of these products which are meant for a child to use by themselves should be considered children's products.

Child-sized musical instruments such as guitars, violins, flutes, clarinets, drums, etc., which are substantially similar to adult-sized instruments in everything except scale. These instruments are meant to be used by a child under the instruction of an adult at school or at home, are fully capable of holding a tune, and should be considered general use products. Toy versions of these instruments which are not designed for instructional use should be considered children's products.

Child-sized saddles and equestrian equipment. Specially-made saddles for children are also used by adults with small stature and, when used by children, are only used under the direct supervision of an adult. They are almost always installed by an adult and should be considered a general use product.

Classroom science kits which include general use items such as paper clips; rubber bands; electronic components such as resistors, capacitors, transistors, batteries, motors and wires; geological specimens; lenses, etc., which are sold for educational purposes and intended for use in schools or homeschools under the direct supervision of an adult should be considered general use products.

We are arguing that the context in which are product is meant to be used is more important than the packaging in determining whether it is a children's product or a general use product. We feel that an instructional product intended to be used by a child with the help of an adult poses far less risk than a product which is meant to be used by a child on his or her own. Furthermore, these products represent the core of our nation's hands-on learning structures. Learning crafts, music, and science will be made considerably more difficult and expensive if these instructional tools must be subject to the same rules as toys.

Music CDs

We would also like to change the Commission's approach to children's musical CDs, which are sold or distributed by several of our members. The Commission's proposal that “certain CDs and DVDs that contain content for very young children would not be handled or otherwise touched by children because they do not have the motor skills to operate media players and because such products, by themselves, do not have any appeal to children.” The Commision has proposed that such CDs would therefore not be considered children's products while a nearly identical CD encoded with music designed to appeal to an older child would be considered a children's product. Under this logic, a “Baby Loves Mozart” CD is not a children's product, but Dan Zanes album is.

This distinction is entirely false for two reasons. First, as any parent knows, an older child will only be allowed to handle a CD once he or she has learned to hold it by its edges so that it won't be scratched. In short, the child must learn how to touch a CD without actually interacting with it. Since they are not interacting with it, a CD should not be a children's product. Indeed, a child will interact much more with the CD player or computer which plays the CD (which the Commission has ruled to be a general use product) than he or she will with the CD itself.

Second, the Commission's proposed guidelines regarding CDs provide no clear mechanism for manufacturers and distributers to interpret or implement the definition. Children's music is not marketed like toys as “age 3+” or “suitable for under 3”. Any such distinctions in children's music would be entirely arbitrary and meaningless.

We strongly recommend that the commission define all CDs as general use items. Otherwise, the children's music industry, especially small independent labels, will face years of uncertainty and needless costs. Unless this is changed, independent children's music will no longer be published in CD form and will only be available through digital downloads. This would be no win for safety, but would certainly be a win for Microsoft and Apple.

Thank you again for taking the time to read and consider our comments.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

A listing of all 442 business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance is available at . http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/AllianceInfo/OurMembers.aspx

Press Release: Announcing HTA Blog Week 2010

2010-06-19T11:17:00.000-07:00

Stamford, CT – June 20, 2010 – The week of June 21^st will be the first annual Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) Blog week. Journalists and bloggers from across the country will come together during the third week in June to celebrate hand crafted children’s goods. Throughout the week, writers will share news about the HTA and their mission to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), while showcasing some of the unique products offered by the diverse and creative members of the Alliance.

“This is an opportunity to not only promote the amazing products our members make and sell, but also a chance to again highlight the need to amend the CPSIA before these businesses are forced to close their doors due to an inability to prove compliance under the law,” stated Jolie Fay (Skipping Hippos, OR).

“We’ve developed some great relationships with well followed bloggers over the last eighteen months, who have worked with us to help save handmade,” Cecilia Leibovitz, HTA President added (Craftsbury Kids, VT). “The outpouring of support for our cause was shown again by the number of bloggers that wanted to participate in our first blog week.”

Participating blogs include:

We'll be updating our twitter feed and facebook page as posts from each blog appear. Keep in touch and learn more about the human costs of the CPSIA.

HTA Member Phebe Phillips' Commencement Address to the Texas Women's University on how the CPSIA has affected her business and her outlook on life

2010-06-01T22:41:00.000-07:00

HTA member Phebe Phillips was asked to present her life story to the TWU class of 2010. Her theme was adaptation and change, with an emphasis on how the CPSIA forced her to put her successful business on hold. We can only hope that every politician who created the CPSIA will take a few minutes to listen to Phebe's story.

"Then in 2008 and 2009 the U.S. economy tanked...retail dwindled and a new toy regulation was enacted in response to the poor quality and mass quantity oversights by some really big toy companies. This new law raises the testing price for each product and in some cases, doubles or triples the costs. For some small companies, it can cost one year of total revenue just to meet the requirements of this law. The law is for any product marketed to a child age twelve and under and for any product made anywhere...even here. It has frozen many small and midsize companies leaving the companies that caused the problems in the first place as some of the only companies that can afford to stay in business. Financially, it caused me to temporarily halt my business...I changed!"

We wish Phebe the best as she adapts to the consequences of the CPSIA. Hopefully, it can be changed, too, so that she can resume her remarkable business.

Our letter to the House Commerce Committee on CPSIA reform and the CPSEA bill

2010-05-13T07:53:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, we sent the following letter to the leadership of the House Commerce Committee. Our primary purpose was to help the minority and majority as they move forward in finding common ground and common sense change to the CPSIA. We only hope that everyone can now come together and do the hardest work of all – putting together an amendment that can be embraced by both sides of the aisle, ensures safety, and meets the needs of the many stakeholders who are acting in good faith.

May 12, 2010

To:

The Honorable Bobby Rush
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Honorable Ed Whitfield
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Honorable Henry Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce

The Honorable Joe Barton
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Commerce

Re: The Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA)

To the Leadership of the House Commerce Committee:

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before your committee and for your continued attention to the needs of our small businesses. We would like to reiterate our position on the CPSEA and the relief we are seeking for our members.

We have previously endorsed the CPSEA because it is the only opportunity currently available to save small batch manufacturers from extinction after February 10, 2011, when the CPSC's stay of enforcement of third party testing requirements expires. Under the CPSIA as it currently stands, many of our members are substantially limiting the products that they offer--some foregoing children’s products altogether--while others are laying off employees or limiting their business growth.

We have stated clearly that the CPSEA can and should be improved to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on small businesses without compromising safety. The CPSEA as currently written will likely save some of our member businesses. With improvements, however, you can save almost all of them. For the record, we would like to review the improvements we would like you to consider.

First and foremost, we would like the CPSEA to clearly state that small batch manufacturers are exempt from third party testing requirements. While report language to that affect would be helpful, a more explicit exemption within the language of the bill itself would provide more immediate and substantial relief. You can accomplish this by allowing:

the use of XRF testing as an alternative testing method for lead in paint and lead in substrate
alternative testing methods for products intended for use in classrooms or for children ages 7-12
EN-71 testing as an alternative testing method
CPSC rulemaking to allow for alternative testing methods based on risk analysis
exemptions for small batch toymakers from ASTM F-963 testing

This language should be in the bill itself, not just in the report language. In the intervening days since our initial endorsement of the CPSEA, we have heard conflicting answers from several different CPSC commissioners as to the commission's willingness or ability to provide affordable alternative testing methods for small batch manufacturers. If this bill is truly meant to benefit small batch manufacturers, it must be more clear and explicit in the exemptions it provides.

Second, we wish to reiterate our belief that alternative testing methods should be available to all companies. The Small Business Administration defines toy and clothing manufacturers with less than 500 employees as small businesses, which is far in excess of the CPSEA's $1 million limit. If a revenue limit is used, it should be based only on income generated by the manufacture or importation of children's products without including other unrelated business income. A manufacturer's ability to pay for testing any given product is a function of the revenue it generates from that particular product, not the overall size of the company.

Third, we stated publicly during the April 29 hearing that the functional purpose exemption for products exceeding 300ppm/100ppm lead will not benefit our members because of the narrow scope of the exemption and the cost required to obtain it. The CPSC should instead be given authority to make exemptions to specific materials or product categories based on risk analysis. For example, the commission should have the power to exempt brass as a material and children's saddles or microscopes as a product category. This is the only way in which small businesses would be able to take advantage of the functional purpose exemption.

Fourth, we believe that small batch manufacturers should be entirely exempted from mandatory labeling requirements.

Finally, we hope to settle any confusion regarding our intent in endorsing the CPSEA. We endorsed it as our only available alternative. We truly believe that many of our members will be forced out of business after February 10, 2011 without meaningful, clear reform provided by your committee. We believe that the CPSEA can and should be improved to better target risk and provide more comprehensive relief for our members, who were never the source of unsafe products in the first place.

We remain hopeful that the democratic process can prevail and that a meaningful and bipartisan reform of the CPSIA can be enacted. We urge members of the committee to mark up the CPSEA and allow open discussion within the product safety subcommittee. The CPSIA was a bipartisan bill—its reform should be, too.

You hold the livelihoods of hundreds of small businesses in your hands. Please, make this work.

On behalf of the 435 small business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance, we thank you again for your attention to this important issue.

Respectfully,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

savehandmadetoys@gmail.com
http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/

Board members:

Cecilia Leibovitz, Craftsbury Kids, VT
Dan Marshall, Peapods Natural Toys, MN
Jill Chuckas, Crafty Baby, CT
Mary Newell, Terrapin Toys, OR
Jolie Fay, Skipping Hippos, OR
Marianne Mullen, Polkadotpatch, VT
Rob Wilson, Challenge & Fun, MA
Randy Hertzler, euroSource, PA
Kate Glynn, A Child's Garden, MA

Beloved Minnesota toy store The Essence of Nonsense Closed by the CPSIA

2010-05-10T22:00:00.000-07:00

The following is a cross-post by permission from AmendtheCPSIA.com:

CPSIA Casualty of the Week for May 10, 2010:

Beloved Minnesota toy store The Essence of Nonsense Closed by the CPSIA

Tom Fletcher and his business partner Barbara Anderson-Sannes opened The Essence of Nonsense toy store 14 years ago dedicated to selling unique, high-quality toys out of their St, Paul, Minnesota shop. Offering an array of the best handmade toys from small domestic toymakers and traditional European manufacturers, The Essence of Nonsense became an important retail destination in the local community.

After the CPSIA imposed new restrictions on the toy industry, Tom and Barbara found that their suppliers greatly reduced the range of products available. Even more disturbing, they also noticed that the quality of products was rapidly deteriorating. Rather than sell inferior quality products, they decided to close the store. This was no “victory” for safety – their store had never experienced a recall of any of its specialized products.

“CPSIA cut our choices in half,” says Tom Fletcher. “Some small companies stopped selling or disappeared and the bigger companies, realizing they were the only options, started to reduce quality to save money for themselves. So, we decided to close in large part because the quality of our product offering was changing and the choices were becoming so limited.”

“It’s not that we’re against the [CPSIA-imposed] testing,” Fletcher continued. “It’s just that we need a fair application across the board. Small businesses can’t afford to hire the necessary testers which puts them at a significant disadvantage and can even put them out of business.”

Tragically, the closing of The Essence of Nonsense is a cautionary tale about how the overly-restrictive burdens of the new product safety regime can destroy small businesses and imperil their unique products. On the back of a precautionary law, a wave of destruction is carrying away the life’s work of many small businesspeople.

“When you pick up a handmade toy,” Fletcher says, “you can feel the dedication and effort that went into making it. Someone really loved making that toy. If something isn’t done to protect small businesses, handmade toys will be gone soon. People will look back and say, ‘we had this when I was a kid and we don’t have it anymore.’”

Call to Action! Contact Congress to urge reform of the CPSIA

2010-05-06T09:59:00.000-07:00

Will small batch makers and specialty retailers of children’s products survive the CPSIA? This has always been the question, as from the beginning, this law has left us suddenly on the verge of extinction. Eighteen months of hard work has resulted at least in recognition of the fact that our preservation was not considered when this law was passed. However, we are still very much endangered, and action is needed now more than ever.

Thanks to the collective voices of American small businesses and citizens, we were heard by the media and our representatives, and could not be ignored. Once again, we must raise our voices, to prevent handmade children’s products from becoming a casualty of Washington’s inner partisan disagreements.

Recently a bill was introduced by the House Energy and Commerce committee to amend the CPSIA, offering important relief to thousands of small batch business owners. Called the CPSEA, this relief would prevent many from closing their doors. However, Democrats and Republicans in Washington can not see eye to eye on the provisions of the proposed agreement.

We need to tell our representatives today that it is time to take a stand, and show their commitment to keeping our businesses alive. We at the Handmade Toy Alliance urge you to call your representative in the House Commerce Committee and ask for the CPSIA draft bill to go to mark up and become open for discussion. We have been told time and time again, that we must call, call, and call if we are to be heard. The combined power of our voices is what it will take to keep small batch children’s products from becoming a distant memory in America. Please help!

First, call your local representative's office. Then, contact the Commerce Committee Minority side at 202-225-3641, and Majority side at 202-225-2927. You are likely to get an answering machine. Leave your name, city, state, House Representative's name and share that they must work together openly in committee to bring about an amendment to the CPSIA now.

HTA Press Release: "We strongly urge both sides to work through their differences and move forward on this important reform of the CPSIA"

2010-05-05T18:23:00.000-07:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) testified on April 29th at the House Energy and Commerce Sub-Committee hearing regarding the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA). HTA Founder and Vice President, Dan Marshall (Peapods Natural Toys -MN), Board member Jolie Fay (Skipping Hippos – OR) and Board member Randy Hertzler (euroSource – PA) traveled to DC to participate in this very important process.

“The HTA has endorsed the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act”, Marshall stated during his testimony before the Sub-Committee. “The provisions of the bill which allow alternative testing methods for small batch manufacturers are imperative to the survival of our members.” Marshall went on to share various aspects of report language that would further serve to clarify Congress’ intentions with the amendment.

In the few days since the hearing, however, Democrats and Republicans on the committee have signaled that they might not be willing to negotiate a bipartisan bill. “We strongly urge both sides to work through their differences and move forward on this important reform of the CPSIA,” said Jill Chuckas (Crafty Baby -CT), HTA Secretary. “The livelihoods of thousands of families hang in the balance.”

In addition to testimony from the HTA, the Sub-Committee heard from representatives from Goodwill Industries, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), American Apparel and Footwear (AAFA), Motorcycle Industries, Consumers Federation of America (CFA) and Rick Woldenberg (Chairman, Learning Resources).

Following opening statements, there was a question and answer period which focused around the difficulties of small batch manufacturers and specialty retailers to understand and comply with the CPSIA. “We were pleased to hear a series of questions surrounding harmonization with EN-71 which is of special concern to those in our membership who import product directly from the European Union,” stated Hertzler. “Dan (Marshall) had the opportunity to discuss this issue in depth.”

HTA Board members also had the opportunity to visit with many of the House Committee members, as well as a number of members of the Senate Commerce Committee. “It was an incredibly busy few days, squeezing in as many legislative visits as possible,” Fay shared. Marshall added “Our focus was to share the HTA story and collective concerns with a large number of Congressional members, furthering our efforts to provide relief to small batch manufacturers, crafters and specialty retailers. It has been clear from the beginning that we were not the intended targets of this legislation, but unfortunately, our members have the most to lose. It is time to remedy these unintended consequences of the CPSIA.”

The House Sub-committee will now decide whether or not to move forward with mark up and presentation of the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA), as the bill has been named, to the House floor. “Our focus now is to help this process proceed quickly,” Marshall continued. “It has been a very long road to common sense changes to the CPSIA. The Subcommittee members now need to openly discuss this bill, come to an agreement and move forward. The time for waiting is over. Congress needs to move swiftly to fix the issues with the CPSIA.”

Handmade Toy Alliance House Testimony to the House Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on CPSIA, April 29, 2010

2010-04-30T22:14:00.000-07:00

Hello. My name is Dan Marshall. I am the Founder and Vice President of the Handmade Toy Alliance. The HTA represents 435 small businesses affected by the unintended consequences of the CPSIA. I would like to submit this statement, two letters, and our issue statement to the official record.

My wife Millie and I own Peapods Natural Toy Store in St. Paul, Minnesota. For the past 12 years, we've supported our family selling cloth diapers, baby carriers, and wood toys, many of which are handcrafted by artisans in the US and Europe. I am here today with fellow HTA Board members Jolie Fay of Skipping Hippos in Oregon and Randy Hertzler of euroSource in Pennsylvania.

When Congress first spoke of toy safety legislation, we all applauded your efforts. As we learned the details of the actual law, however, we realized that it applied not just to companies like Mattel that had betrayed the publics’ trust, but would apply broadly to all children's products and effectively outlaw many small family businesses--not because our products were unsafe, but because we simply could not afford the mandatory third party testing and labeling requirements, which disproportionately affect small batch manufacturers and specialty retailers.

The deadline for third party testing is February 10 of next year. After that point, our member businesses face extinction. Although many of us have already paid for XRF testing of our products, we simply cannot afford to pay for the services of a CPSC-certified lab.

For that reason, The HTA has endorsed the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act. The provisions of the bill which allow alternative testing methods for small batch manufacturers are imperative to the survival of our members. We hope that it can proceed through this committee, the House and the Senate as quickly as possible.

However, we have made clear that we have two primary concerns regarding the language of this bill. First, we desire clarity and simplicity in the definition of “alternative testing method.” We believe the standard for small batch manufacturers should be the same reasonable testing methods applicable to non-children’s' consumer products under the CPSIA. Leaving “alternative testing method” ambiguous places new rulemaking burdens on the CPSC and extends the uncertainty about compliance for HTA businesses.

We are willing and able to work with the CPSC through this additional rulemaking process, but feel that more flexible language would greatly simplify the standard. In particular, we would like committee report language or, preferably, the bill itself, to stipulate:

1. That small batch toymakers be exempted from third party testing for ASTM compliance. These destructive tests cost $200 - $350 per toy, which is a significant impediment to small batch toymakers.

2. That the CPSC allow the use of XRF testing as an alternative testing method for lead in paint, lead in substrate, and other mineral content standards.

3. That EN-71 testing certification qualify as an alternative testing method. This provision is critical for preserving access to quality European children's goods and removing the regulatory trade barrier created by the CPSIA.

4. That small batch manufacturers be fully exempted from labeling requirements.

Even with these stipulations, we fear that non-business hobbyists and crafters will lack the resources and understanding to fully comply with the law.

Our second primary concern with the bill pertains to its definition of small batch manufacturer. In particular, we are concerned about the $1 million company revenue cap. We feel that this limit should either be removed altogether or should be based only on income generated by the manufacture or importation of children's products without including other unrelated business income. If this limit is not changed or removed, we fear that this committee will continue to hear from constituents wondering why specialty products like adaptive toys for children with disabilities are no longer available.

Finally, we have long argued that meaningful reform of the CPSIA should grant the CPSC the authority to make adjustments to the law based on risk analysis. In particular, we would like the CPSC to be given the flexibility to adjust certification requirements based on the age of a product's intended user and the risk of injury the product poses.

In conclusion, on behalf of our members, I would like to thank this committee for addressing this important issue and urge you to quickly pass meaningful reform of the CPSIA. Thank you.

Photo: HTA Board members Jolie Fay, Dan Marshall, and Randy Hetzler.

Below is a clip from the Q&A portion of the hearing in which Representative Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) asks about EU Harmonization:

Press Release: The Handmade Toy Alliance to Testify at House Commerce Subcommittee Hearing

2010-04-27T18:04:00.001-07:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) will testify at this Thursday’s Commerce Sub-Committee hearing regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). HTA Founder and Vice President, Dan Marshall (Peapods Natural Toys -MN), Board member Jolie Fay (Skipping Hippos – OR) and Board member Randy Hertzler (euroSource – PA) will travel to DC to participate in this very important process.

”Over the last seventeen months, we have worked tirelessly to bring about common sense changes to the CPSIA,” Marshall stated. “This is our opportunity to share our story and formally present our ideas for change directly to Congress. We are honored to be included within the short list of those invited to testify.” Marshall will represent the HTA as part of the panel presentation, as well as the question and answer period of the hearing.

HTA has worked directly with the House Commerce Committee over the last 3 months, developing draft legislation that could offer relief to small batch manufacturers. “Thursday’s sub-committee hearing is the culmination of all of our hard work,” Fay discussed. “It is important for our members – all of whom are very small businesses – to see us speak and share all of their stories.”

Following the hearing, House Sub-committee members will discuss whether to move forward with draft legislation known as the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA). Last week, the HTA officially endorsed this legislation. “We recognize that this legislation could offer significant relief to the small batch manufacturers, specialty retailers and importers that the HTA represents,” Marshall shared. “We’ve also asked for some specific inclusions to the report to further clarify the needs of our members. But, we also have to stress the need to have an amendment signed into law prior to the February 2011 lifting of the stay of enforcement.”

HTA invited to testify at House Commerce Committee CPSIA Hearing

2010-04-25T21:27:00.000-07:00

The HTA has received an invite to testify at this Thursday’s Commerce Committee hearing for the CPSIA. For the event, we will send three of our Board members on our behalf. Dan Marshall, Jolie Fay and Randy Hertzler will make the trip to DC to participate in this very important process.

Earlier in the week, we officially endorsed the proposed amendment, with a number of stipulations to include in the report language. We recognize that the amendment isn't perfect, and that it in fact increases the amount of work we will need to do with the CPSC (working for flexible reasonable testing protocols and alternative testing methods). That being said, it does serve to offer many in our membership significant relief from the third party testing protocols the CPSIA imposes. We understand that the amendment does not change the overall language of the CPSIA (specifically, it does not change the wording of “no risk” to “de minus” risk), but it has become fairly clear to us that the CPSIA will not be changed in this way. Our hope at this point is that an amendment will move through the House and Senate and be adopted into law.

After the HTA and others signed on endorsing the amendment, a meeting was scheduled for the committee to “mark up” and discuss the bill. This meeting was canceled. Instead, Rep. Waxman, Rep. Barton and Rep. Dingell met and scheduled the hearing that will take place this coming week. The consensus was that stake holders needed to be given the opportunity to discuss and vocalize any and all concerns regarding the proposed amendment.

We are very excited and honored to be included within the short list of those invited to testify. We will have the opportunity to read a prepared statement, and then participate in a panel question and answer period. Please know that we will work extremely hard to share with the committee all of your stories and all of your concerns with the CPSIA. Our understanding is that the event will be web cast, you should be able to find it here or here.

Any and all donations to help send our members to DC would be greatly appreciated. To Donate, visit http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/ (click on button on the left side). Thanks!

Join the HTA and CPSC Officials for a Chat Addressing CPSIA and Small Businesses

2010-03-24T11:02:00.001-07:00

Friday, March 26, 2010

In cooperation with the Handmade Toy Alliance, the Consumer Product Safety Commission will be joining us in a Webinar to talk about what the CPSIA means for our community. This is your opportunity to get answers to your questions both specific and general about how the CPSIA affects your business.

Here are the details:

On Friday, March 26 at 11 a.m. EDT, (8 a.m. PDT) Senior CPSC Officials Jay Howell and Gib Mullan will be live on a Webinar for our members to talk about how the CPSIA has impacted small businesses.

Jay and Gib will share their insights and experiences about how the CPSIA is being implemented and enforced, how compliance with the law is possible, what has been stayed and what is in effect, what needs to be tested and what does not, and what the future holds.

Presentations by both officials will be followed by a question and answer session. Jay and Gib are doing this webinar as part of an effort by CPSC to connect with organizations like ours and to demystify the CPSIA for small business owners.

CPSC will record the session for those who can't make it.

You can help move the presentation into your areas of concern by sending in advance questions to the web address below. That will help us decide which topics will be most useful for you!

To participate in the webinar go to: www.cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html

Send in your questions before, during and after the webinar to:

HTAquestions@cpsc.gov. (This email address will be active until a month after the webinar to follow up on all questions.)

Engaging in the process of CPSIA reform

2010-03-18T21:51:00.000-07:00

During the past several days, we've been working on understanding and reacting to Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) draft CPSIA technical correction bill. After over a year of activism, we were extremely pleased to see that Waxman's Commerce Committee has begun to address the unintended consequences of the CPSIA, especially the effects on small batch manufacturers.

We recognize that this bill is only the beginning of a long and imperfect process. And, we know that whatever emerges from this process may not contain everything we've been asking for. But, we feel that our input has been heard and continues to be considered, as evidenced by the bill's third party testing exemptions for "low volume manufacturers". Although this bill represents a true milestone for our cause, we feel that the draft bill's definition of "low volume" should be adjusted to reflect the per-unit testing costs of products produced in small batches rather than the overall size of the company. We are actively working on sharing those concerns with Waxman's office. Hopefully, we can arrive at a workable solution.

None of us in the Handmade Toy Alliance are lobbyists. In fact, we are all looking forward to the day we we can stop lobbying and go back to making and selling goods for children. But, we've been arguing for relief from third party testing requirements for small businesses from the beginning and we intend to keep trying until we succeed. For now, we feel that this draft bill should be viewed as the beginning of a process. And, we are extremely grateful to be included in that process.

Who we are: Results of our CPSIA Small Business Survey

2010-03-08T09:55:00.000-08:00

Below are the results of our survey of small batch children's product manufacturers and retailers which we conducted this past weekend. 223 business owners participated in the survey, 135 of whom are HTA members. That means that we achieved a 95% confidence rate with a +/- 4.9% confidence interval for the purposes of describing the entire population of 420 businesses who are members of the HTA.

We're sharing this report with congress and the CPSC in hopes that it will help guide their legislation and rulemaking. One thing this survey makes clear is that there are a lot of very low volume toymakers and children's products manufacturers in this country who should not be overlooked.

Handmade Toy Alliance CPSIA Survey Results

Note: Revenue data was also collected and shared with congress and the CPSC but was omitted from this public version of the report for privacy reasons.

Cadmium Fears Set to Spark a New CPSIA Nightmare for Small Manufacturers (Potentially 50 times Worse)

2010-02-27T11:14:00.000-08:00

We've been spending the past 15 months trying to get Congress and the CPSC to understand how the CPSIA threatens to destroy small manufacturers and handcrafters for the sake of an unobtainable set of safety standards. And, we've made progress. Natural materials, paper, and fabrics were exempted from third party testing. Component testing is now allowed. Congress is even listening to our concerns, although offering only a little hope for improvement.

And then, last month, the Associated Press discovered cadmium in a few pieces of mass market children's jewelry. Congressional Democrats reacted by drafting legislation to ban cadmium in children's jewelry, since it is already banned by the CPSIA in toys. CPSC Chair Tenenbaum, also a Democrat, said that she already had all the authority she needed to regulate cadmium under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and was already exercising that authority. More or less, the situation seemed under control--the federal government was acting to keep this toxic heavy metal away from children.

But, this time around, state politicians wanted credit for protecting children from cadmium. Now, a slew of bills aimed at both jewelry and toys are now pending in at least eight states: Illinois, Florida, California, Connecticut, Mississippi, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. The worst of this maddening crowd are from CA, IL, NJ and CT--these bills would basically ban cadmium in any amount from any children's product--an impossible standard for any product. Cadmium, after all, is a naturally occurring element and is found in trace amounts in almost everything from carrots to carpet.

Not only are these requirements totally out of synch from federal requirements and bear no relation to established science or any documented risk, but they also multiply the problems that manufactures of all sizes are already facing under the CPSIA.

We repeat: CADMIUM IS ALREADY REGULATED IN TOYS by the CPSIA and is being effectively eliminated from children's jewelry by the CPSC. These laws will not improve upon current law or reduce the public's exposure to cadmium.

If we truly want to kill small American manufacturers and handcrafters, these state by state bills are surely the way to do it. We already know that we can't afford to test to federal CPSIA requirements--how can we afford to test to 50 very different state requirements?

If you live in any of these states, now is the time to write to your state representative and demand changes to these bills. Write both to your precinct's representatives and to the author of the bill. Point out that the federal government already regulates cadmium in both toys and jewelry and that even crafters are now participating in a global marketplace where state-by-state legislating only causes problems without creating solutions.

As we have learned from the CPSIA, its a LOT easier to change a bill than it is to change a law.

"Hoard" Shadow Puppets by Orange Moon Toys

Rick's easy to understand guide to the CPSIA

2010-02-27T09:27:00.000-08:00

This helpful reading list was compiled by Rick Woldenberg and was originally posted to his blog:

Allowing XRF Testing for CPSIA Compliance Could Save $3.7 Billion and Save Small Businesses

2010-02-11T12:10:00.000-08:00

The following was written by Seth Goldberg, President of Essco Safety Check, a product safety firm based in Redmond, WA. Seth has calculated the potential savings of using XRF scanning technology instead of the destructive chemical dissolution tests mandated by the CPSIA. In particular, he finds that small businesses would save tremendously with no erosion of product safety. The Handmade Toy Alliance believes that this approach would be a tremendous help to small busineses struggling to comply with the testing requirements of the CPSIA.

This is an objective view of how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is potentially affecting small businesses, the testing costs and methods, as well as a common sense approach to certification and job creation.

The CPSIA was written in 2008 to ensure that children’s products don’t contain harmful amounts of certain elements, like lead and cadmium. All children’s products must eventually be certified by an accredited 3rd party laboratory who utilizes specific testing methods. With these laboratory results a company can create the required general certificate of conformity (GCC).

There is also a stay of enforcement with the CPSIA until 2/10/11 for the GCC on all children’s products other than those that are painted, children’s jewelry, cribs or pacifiers. Additionally, there is regulation in total content of lead and regulation in soluble content for eight elements (including lead), this method (soluble) ASTM F-963 is currently voluntary. There is also regulation for the amount of certain phthalates, a chemical added to plastics to make them softer.

All current approved testing methods are destructive, they are very costly, can take extensive periods of time to get results. This testingcan only done by a select group of laboratories (only 227 worldwide and 60 within the United States, many of these labs have one parent company).

While researching this article, I attempted to find an economic impact analysis that was performed for CPSIA, but was unable to find one. I even contacted a state representative with Washington State, in April 2008, four months prior to the federal CPSIA regulation, Washington State passed the Children’s Product Safety Act, but apparently no impact study was done either.

How does one figure out the economics behind this piece of legislation?

I thought to try and simplify things and try to figure out how many businesses would be impacted, what size of business they are and ultimately how products that would be affected. I will compare an approximate cost of traditional testing methods, to a technology that is mobile and non-destructive (X-Ray Fluorescence). And I will show how many jobs could be potentially created.

Number of businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA

Businesses that are potentially affected by the CPSIA include; Manufacturers, importers, retailers, charities and re-sellers who make, distribute in commerce, children’s products, those designed and marketed to children 12 and under.

I found two main sources for this data, the US Census and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The US Census numbers were from 2006 and the numbers from the NAICS are from 2009.

Here is data from the North American Industy Classification System (NAICS) their data was used to calculate the number of potentail businesses affected by the CPSIA.

Total number of manufacturers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 52,544***
Total number of wholesalers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 125,624***
Total number of retailers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 511,240***
Total number of businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA according to the NAICS 689,408***

The US Census provided data on the size of the businesses affected and is broken down by percentage. My use and definition of small business is based on <500 href="http://www.essco-safetycheck.com/CPSIA" target="_blank">CPSIA.

Total Manufacturers potentially affected have 0-4 employees 46.3%, <20>

What does all of this mean? More small businesses are going to be affected by this regulation than large businesses. 40% of all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA are very small with only 0-4 employees. 61% of all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA have less than 20 employees. All businesses classified as small businesses, less than 500 employees, 71% of them potentially will be affected by the CPSIA.

Number of products potentially needing testing

Attempting to figure out the amount of SKUs or total products potentially affected was an even larger task than trying to figure out the number of businesses potentially affected. There is no single source of data about the number of products manufactured or sold, so I took a slightly different approach. I researched a few key consumer websites and contacted a few experts to make my assumptions.

Yes, I said assumptions. The problem with figuring out some specifics is that I’m guessing on a few key points. Here we go!

I first visited ETSY.com. ETSY.com is a website that sells handmade consumer products, you know, made by your friends and sold online. When I looked on their site earlier this week, they had over 280,000 children’s products listed.

I decided to go to two other major consumer product retail sales websites, Buy.com and Amazon.com. At Buy.com when I tallied all the potential products that could be affected by the CPSIA I found over 66,000 different products. On Amazon.com the amount was much more. I will add one caveat, at amazon.com they did not separate jewelry into a product category “children’s jewelry” so I used the total of all jewelry in my tally. With all jewelry listed and all other products I found that could be potentially affected by the CPSIA, the total was almost 1.18 million products on Amazon.com. Without the jewelry the total was over 150,000 products.

In a conversation I had with a regulatory agency employee in the State of Washington, she suggested that the total number of potential products on the market is in the tens of millions.

Based on these numbers and suggestions, I’m going to split the middle and suggest that there are five million different products on the market that could be impacted by the CPSIA.

The Cost Breakdown

First we need to look at the traditional testing methods. I’m only going to look for three things, amount of lead, amount of cadmium and phthalate testing (traditionally this is tested using a Gas Chromatography machine). For this analysis, disregard all other potential costs.

Traditional ICP-MS testing for heavy metals can easily be hundreds of dollars per test, per color, per substrate. I have been quoted ranges from $75 to $300 per test for heavy metal testing; phthalate testing has been a bit lower from $75 to $150. For this comparison, I’m going to use the low end of $75 per test.

I am also going to assume that every item needs to be tested a total of five times. Every product is a little be different, they’re made with different colors, different substrates and materials. Take an old childhood favorite Rubik’s Cube. It has six different colors and is made of one substrate (black plastic), that item would require a minimum of seven tests. As I said, I’m going to use a five test average.

If there are five million items and each has to be tested five times, that is a total of twenty-five million tests. Considering we are looking for three things (lead, cadmium and phthalates at $75 per test) the total for traditional testing methods would be $5.625 billion.

If all the accredited laboratories split this testing evenly, that would be approximately $25 million per lab worldwide.

Other testing method

There is a technology that is mobile and non-destructive that can simultaneously look for lead, cadmium and PVC in one simple push of the button. Unfortunately, it is not the approved testing method for the CPSIA.

This technology is called X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and is readily available to use for consumer product testing. It is the approved testing source for HUD Lead inspections, and is used by the EPA, FDA and CPSC.

Data that I have collected from over 8000 test results using XRF analyzers shows that of all consumer products tested only 16.3% are found with any amount of lead, 4.3% are found with any amount cadmium and 11.1% are identified to be made of PVC. In total only 31.7% of all consumer products I have tested using XRF analyzers have been found with lead, cadmium or PVC, yet all products are required to be tested destructively.

I used these percentages to help figure out the comparable numbers.

Comparison

If all products are tested by traditional testing methods using ICP-MS and GC machines the cost for testing for lead, cadmium and PVC would be $5.625 billion. However, if you were to use XRF analyzers to screen all these products, at a cost average of $5.00 per test the total cost would be $125 million.

At this point, all items that tested positive for lead, cadmium or PVC should be further tested by the traditional testing methods. Using the percentage of items found with lead, cadmium or PVC (31.7%) traditional testing methods would cost $1.784 billion. If you add up the XRF screening and then the re-testing by traditional testing methods, the costs would be approximately $1.9 billion.

That would be a cost savings of $3.7 billion or 66.1% for consumer product testing for the CPSIA.

That is a tremendous amount of money that these businesses can put back to work in our economy, hiring people, investing, building business all while keeping compliant with the regulations.

Number of jobs created

I’m going to specifically look at this as the formation of XRF Certified Consumer Product Inspectors. If a total of twenty-five million tests need to be done annually, and each inspector can do two hundred tests per day, two hundred and fifty days per year, that could create five hundred jobs. That is not including managers and office staff to handle additional work. Overall, I would suspect that close to one thousand jobs could be created, but that is only based on five million products that need to be tested.

What if that total number is closer to twenty million? That would potentially be upwards of four thousand jobs and a potential economic impact of close to $15 billion going back in to the pockets of businesses of which almost 71% are considered small businesses.

Conclusion

What I’m suggesting is a common sense approach to testing and the certification that consumer products meet the regulations of the CPSIA. If XRF testing is approved to simply screen products for certain heavy metals and PVC, and only those found to contain these elements or chemicals would be further tested, there can be a huge positive economic impact for small businesses, as well as the creation of jobs.

***These figures were calculated from two sources, the US Census and the NAICS.

CPSC to Fund a Small Business Ombudsman to Help Small Businesses Comply with the CPSIA

2010-02-09T10:51:00.000-08:00

For some time, we have been calling for the CPSC to appoint an ombudsman to help small businesses understand and comply with the CPSIA. We've discussed this with Chair Tenenbaum, Commissioner Adler, and numerous legislative representatives. Last week, we learned from Commissioner Nord that the CPSC will be funding this position for fiscal year 2011, which begins on October 1, 2010.

This is wonderful news because it means that small businesses will have someone to talk to when they can't find answers to their questions. We also hope that the ombudsman will be able to effectively communicate small business's concerns about the implementation of the CPSIA.

We knew this position was desperately needed because the HTA and other trade groups such as Fashion Incubator have shouldered most the burden of helping small businesses to understand what's required of them. As Nancy Nord points out, even Mattel's team of lawyers has trouble understanding the CPSIA. Take a look at the HTA's very active Facebook page for a preview of the type of questions that the CPSC Ombudsman will be facing.

In the meantime, we very much appreciate that the Commission has created this position.

Photo: Wooden Doll Playbox by The Enchanted Cupboard.

Reaction to the CPSC's Report to Congress on the CPSIA

2010-01-18T22:04:00.000-08:00

This past Friday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), released their report to Congress regarding implementation issues relating to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) as requested within the Omnibus Appropriations Bill of 2010. For the first time, the CPSC formally acknowledged that the CPSIA requires legislative changes to ensure “A more orderly implementation of the statute and enhance Commission enforcement efforts”. Specifically addressed within the report are small manufacturers’ and crafters’ concerns.

“This is the first concrete, upfront acknowledgement that there are issues hindering the effective implementation of the CPSIA”, Jill Chuckas, Crafty Baby (CT) and Secretary of the HTA stated. “Still, there were many specific recommendations that we had hoped would be included with the report. We will continue our efforts until we see common sense changes that will allow crafters and other small batch manufacturers to easily show their compliance under the law and stay in business.”

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) has been a continuous voice for small batch manufacturers and retailers since November of 2008. In a letter dated January 14, 2010, the HTA called upon the CPSC to include within their report to Congress thirteen specific recommendations for legislative change that would serve to alleviate burdens the CPSIA places on the businesses the HTA represents while continuing to ensure safety in children’s products.

“While we greatly appreciate the work the CPSC has done and continues to do – reaching out to our membership and addressing our concerns – a legislative change to the CPSIA is necessary to fully address the many unintended consequences of the CPSIA”, Dan Marshall, Peapods Natural Toys (MN) and Vice President of the HTA discussed. “The recent reports of increased cadmium use in children’s jewelry only serves to highlight the need for risk analysis to be reinstated in the actual legislation.”

Four out of five Commissioners issued their own personal statements with further recommendations designed to improve implementation of the Act. Specifically, Commissioner Northup outlined a detailed list of legislative suggestions, including allowing for a level of de minimis risk of absorbable lead.

“We applaud Commissioner Northup for advocating open government by listing letters that we have all sent to the Commission over the months, as an appendix to her comments”, Rob Wilson, Challenge and Fun (MA) and HTA Board member stated. “Commissioner Northup is clearly advocating the middle ground between business, safety, regulatory necessities, and common sense.”

Image: Capitol Blocks by Haba, which was once made in the US, then moved to Germany, and is now made in China.

Reacting to the CPSC's Report on Congress on Reforming the CPSIA

2010-01-16T21:14:00.000-08:00

The following is a cross-post of an entry on the CPSIA-Central website by Rob Wilson, Vice President of Challenge & Fun and HTA board member.

Some of you might be wondering where I disappeared to recently. Like many of you, I am in the children's products business, and we just finished our Christmas season, and we are now feverishly finishing our 2010 catalog---yes amazingly enough, despite the CPSIA we will have a 2010 catalog, albeit much different from our 2008 catalog.

This has been a busy couple of weeks with panic (hysteria?) over cadmium in children's jewelry and an informal recall that ensued of all "cheap" children's jewelry irrespective of brand, model, manufacture date (nothing like using those permanent labels that are putting companies out of business!), actual testing results per product, etc.

The other big story is the request from Congress for the CPSC to submit a list of recommended fixes to the CPSIA. Hmm, where to start! Well, while most (including Commissioners Northup & Nord) would have hoped for an open process of the Commissioners meeting together and to discuss this and strive to come up with the optimal recommendations, particularly in light of the complexity of this law, and the broad ramifications that an inferior response would bring, this was denied by the other Commissioners. I can only speculate that there was pressure/concern from the powers that be that an open airing of the problems with this law would not look good (hence, no proper Congressional Hearings either!).

Regardless, the split Commission did issue a "unanimous" "bipartisan" set of recommendations yesterday. Now, the fact that they agreed on these recommendations, does not mean that they agree these recommendation are complete. Indeed Commissioners Nord & Northup were very clear in their comments about additional specific things that they recommend, which for some reason, despite making perfect sense (at least to me), could not be agreed upon as a Commission.

In contrast, I was frankly disappointed by the additional comments of Chairman Tenenbaum and Commissioner Adler. It was clear from the beginning that the Commissioners would end up submitting a watered down set of recommendations, given their different approaches to this law. Commissioners Nord & Northup took the opportunity to follow-up the recommendations with their own set of concerns & recommendations. I did not see anything compelling from Chairman Tenenbaum & Commissioner Adler other than an effort to rationalize the weak set of recommendations that were agreed upon. I can understand they might have a different approach to fixing the clearly documented problems of this law. But what is it? I essentially see a recap that lead is bad, that the CPSC is enforcing the standards, and a request for a little more flexibility in enforcing the CPSIA. What about the laundry list of problems businesses of all sizes have been hounding the CPSC with for the 14-15 months?

In particular, I felt that Chairman Tenenbaum's comment that it is as simple as telling manufacturers to "Get The Lead Out" misses the point entirely. Last I checked, there are a growing number of companies (see Commissioner Northup's comments for a list of some of the more notable ones) that have either closed or no longer doing business in the USA. Did these companies have lead in their toys? No. Were they part of the recalls of 2007? No. Are they respected globally for quality and safe toys? YES! But why are they not here? They have "gotten the lead out", yet the cost of duplicate testing, the complexity of the law, not to mention permanent labelling, and other administrative burdens, make it simply untenable to do business in this country.

Comments like these make me think that Chairman Tenenbaum assumes that the only people selling children's products are the manufacturers. In fact, we have developed a highly complex network of manufacturers, brands, brokers, importers (of all sizes & shapes), sales reps, retailers (that also import directly from Europe or elsewhere) etc. It is a reasonable request to "get the lead out", except that by and large, the lead is out. Furthermore, it is not reasonable to think that this one size fits all regulation will fit all. It doesn't it; it won't; and it never will, until there is one size left---and that is the mega corporations. May we never see that day.

I do recognize that the unanimously agreed upon document contains a section calling on greater flexibility of the Commission to work with "Small Manufacturers' and HandCrafters' Concerns" but I didn't see any specific recommendations for technical amendments, nor do I really know what constitutes a "Small Manufacturer." Brio is not a small manufacturer...but they are gone. Does the CPSC unanimously understand how the CPSIA has affected this important supplier of children's toys? I don't know; I can only see concerns of this type in the comments by Commissioners Northup & Nord.

On the other hand, I want to express my appreciation to Commissioner Northup for once again standing up for, and finding middle ground between business, safety, regulatory necessities, and common sense. I also applaud her for advocating open government by listing letters that we have all sent to the Commission over the months, as an appendix to her comments. For those naysayers that say there are just a few "implementation" problems with the law, or it is something a few tweaks can fix, I urge you to read (or at least scan through---there are many!) each letter. They all tell personal stories, many tragic, of the impacts this law has had on businesses & consumers across this country.

CPSC Commissioner Anne Northup argues for CPSIA reform on the John Stossel Show

2010-01-15T09:23:00.000-08:00

HTA's Recommended Changes to the CPSIA

2010-01-14T09:56:00.000-08:00

Late last year, Congress required the CPSC to report on what technical corrections the CPSIA might require. Below is the Handmade Toy Alliance's letter to the CPSC which details the changes we'd like to see.January 14, 2010

Dear Honorable Commissioners:

As the Commission prepares its report to Congress regarding its suggestions for improvements needed to the CPSIA, we would like reiterate our concerns with the CPSIA and how it affects our 403 member businesses who specialize in small batch children's products.

We appreciate the opportunities the Commission has granted us to share our concerns about the CPSIA. As we wrote in our letter dated October 25, 2009, our fundamental belief is that the CPSIA focuses resources on processes rather than safety and needlessly hampers the Commission's ability to make product safety determinations based on risk. Although the Commission has been able to address some of our concerns, including the need for exempting natural materials and allowing component testing, many other common-sense reforms require Congressional action.

The following is a list of legislative changes to the CPSIA that our member businesses need in order to survive:

Grant the CPSC authority to use risk analysis to allow enforcement flexibility of third party testing requirements and hazardous content limits. High risk items like paint or metal jewelry should be held to higher verification standards than low-risk products like bicycle valve stems and brass zippers on children's garments.

The definition of what is a children’s product should be changed to items intended for children 6 years or younger, except where the CPSC identifies a product requiring a higher age limit based on risk analysis.

Educational products intended for use in classroom or homeschool environment under the direct supervision of an adult should be exempted from the definition of a children's product.

Harmonize CPSIA standards with the European Union's EN-71 standards to remove the regulatory trade barrier which the CPSIA created between the US and the EU. This would include changing the lead content standard from an untenable total lead standard to an absorbable lead standard.

Exempt manufacturers who make less than 10,000 units per year from all third party testing requirements and allow them to comply instead with the 'reasonable testing program' requirements which apply to manufacturers of non-children's products under the CPSA. This would protect small batch manufacturers and specialty product manufacturers, including companies that make adaptive products for children with disabilities. These manufacturers would not be exempted from the standards themselves, only from the third party verification requirements.

Tracking labels should be voluntary except for durable nursery items and products which are most likely to be passed down to younger siblings or resold where the CPSC's risk analysis determines that tacking labels would be most likely to prevent harm. Manufacturers who choose to implement tracking labels would benefit from a lesser burden in the event of a recall.

Revisit the retroactivity of the CPSIA based on a risk-based approach with the goal of preserving the market for second-hand children's products.

Inaccessible components, metals, minerals, hard plastics, natural fibers and wood should be exempted from phthalate testing.

Re-calibrate CPSIA penalties based on the scale and potential harm of any violation to protect small business owners' access to financing and insurance.

Allow the use of XRF technology to verify lead content in substrates.
Establish rules and procedures protecting manufacturers from false claims in the public incident database.

Require and fund an ombudsperson within the CPSC to help communicate with small businesses. Such an ombudsperson would serve to expedite answers to questions and give input to CPSC staff about policy decisions.

Require the CPSC to implement an education strategy for consumers. Media attention in the wake of mass market toy recalls has improperly skewed the public's understanding the primary sources of lead poisoning, which remain lead in house paint, dirt near highly-travelled roads, and workplace exposure. Lead awareness campaigns from the 1970s and 80s have now been forgotten by today's parents even though the same problems persist. The CPSC should take steps to re-educate the public about the highest-risk sources of lead exposure.

We strongly believe that all these changes, if implemented, would protect small businesses, maintain a vibrant selection of children's products in the marketplace, reduce compliance costs, create a more effective CPSC, and promote common sense without sacrificing safety.

On behalf of our 403 member small businesses, we appreciate your willingness to consider our concerns. We are hoping to preserve the long American tradition of hand-crafted children's goods while ensuring safety for the children who enjoy them.

Respectfully,

The Handmade Toy Alliance

A listing of all 403 business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance is available at http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/members-of-the-handmade-toy-alliance

Cadmium, Lead, and the CPSIA: Another Unintended Consequence

2010-01-12T10:07:00.000-08:00

Like many people, we were shocked to learn this week that children's jewelry sold at Wal-Mart and other national retailers were found to contain extremely high concentrations of cadmium, a heavy metal which is even more toxic than lead.

When the CPSIA banned lead content in children's jewelry in August 2008, most manufacturers switched to zinc. A few Chinese manufacturers, however, chose cadmium instead, which was apparently cheaper. Although cadmium is regulated in toys by the CPSIA, these standards do not apply to jewelry.

So, while Wal-Mart pulls these poisonous pendants from their shelves, what lesson can we learn from this?

The problem is, even the best law cannot stop the bad actors whose only motives are profits. In this, Wal-Mart is directly culpable, with its price rollbacks forcing manufacturers of all kinds to make decision like, "cadmium is cheaper than zinc and isn't illegal, so let's use cadmium." It's called the Wal-Mart Effect, a global race to the bottom that involves consumer products of all kinds.

In addition to cadmium-laced jewelry, we have seen at least two other examples of substances not regulated in the US which were nonetheless extremely hazardous: powdered asbestos used in a detective kit and a chemical substitution in the "Aquadots" toy that produced the toxin gamma-hydroxybutyric acid. Outside of toys, there's the example of melamine in dog food baby formula.

What could be next? Uranium in toy cars? Arsenic in baby bibs? What set of regulations could possibly prevent the next irresponsible outsourced manufacturer from switching to a cheap toxin that isn't technically illegal?

Sure, we can make every responsible children's product manufacturer pay to test their products for cadmium, which will work just fine until another unsuspected heavy metal finds it's way into Wal-Mart or a chain of dollar stores. No amount of regulation can protect us from products which are simply too cheap to be safe.

What we need is a system that rewards responsible manufacturers who maintain strict control over their entire production process. Small batch manufacturers are our particular concern, but many large companies, even many who manufacture in China, maintain strict control of their supply chains. In the media, in regulations, and in our buying, we need to nurture and protect responsible manufacturers. For every jewelry maker who used cadmium, there are nine others who chose zinc.

The CPSC has been burdened for over a year with implementing the extremely complex CPSIA. This may or may not be why they seem to have missed a growing use of cadmium in the wake of the CPSIA's lead ban, but we have long argued that this is exactly the kind of threat the agency currently faces, which we've called the darker(er) side of the CPSIA. Because the CPSIA forces the agency to spend most of it's time regulating responsible manufacturers' adherence to the proceedural requirements of the CPSIA, it has far less energy left to identify and control the irresponsible manufacturers.

And, because the CPSIA doesn't allow the CPSC to require more stringent controls for higher risk products, it must apply the same rules to all, regardless of country of origin or whether production is outsourced.

Meanwhile, those of us who make things by hand, who control and take direct responsibility for our products, are forced to abandon our work because of the CPSIA's onerous testing requirements. And, somewhere in China, a subcontractor of an outsourced subcontractor just discovered an even cheaper way to make a throwaway toy.

Image: an ingot of cadmium

CPSC Commissioner Anne Northup's Wall Street Journal Editorial on CPSIA

2009-12-23T19:20:00.001-08:00

CPSC Commissioner Anne Northup published an editorial today in the Wall Street Journal about the need for congress to make common sense reforms of the CPSIA.

Northup, who was appointed to the commission by President Obama, wrote:

The [CPSIA] also imposes onerous product testing by outside labs that smaller manufacturers and handicraft makers simply cannot afford. Instead of spending money to expand and create jobs, companies have diverted billions of dollars so far to destroy innocuous but noncompliant inventory, as well as to understand and meet complex new compliance obligations.

We couldn't agree more. Thank you, Commissioner Northup, for giving your voice to the cause of small batch manufacturers and the need for amending the CPSIA.

An Anniversary of Sorts

2009-12-17T17:29:00.000-08:00

It is an anniversary of sorts. It has been one year since I learned about the CPSIA and started my journey to amend the law. And my journey with the Handmade Toy Alliance. The last week has been a flurry of information and frankly, I am on information overload. I have taken it upon myself to read the bulk of the actual legislation, much of the news reports that have come out throughout the last year, as well as the multitude of rulings that have been promulgated by the CPSC. That’s a heck of a lot of information, to say the least.

Last week, I traveled to DC for the third time since April – this time to participate in workshops at the CPSC offices in Bethesda. In addition to the enormous amount of information presented in the workshop itself, and the large number of informal conversations that went on within the halls of the CPSC, I came home to read about report language within the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (now cleared for the President’s signature) and pending legislation written by Rep. Waxman allowing for a very partial revision of the CPSIA (which was later cut from the bill it was attached to). This is the first time that Congress has formally acknowledged that perhaps there is a need for a legislative amendment to the original legislation. Big news indeed.

As a group, the Handmade Toy Alliance has always worked towards a legislative amendment, while developing a constructive relationship with the CPSC to ensure a common sense approach to implementation of the act. We believe in the intent of the law, but feel that the narrow wording (specifically the use of the word “any lead”, rather than “de minimis risk of lead”), eliminates the ability to utilize risk assessment in the implementation process. Our member businesses only want the opportunity to continue crafting beautiful, safe products for children. It is as simple as that.

Today, the CPSC voted to extend the stay of enforcement for the testing and certification requirements of Sec 102 of the CPSIA for an additional year (through February 10, 2011). This was a highly debated decision and, although not a focus of the workshops last week, was definitely a large part of behind the scenes discussion. The topic of the workshops – testing requirements and implementation – include rulings which will soon be promulgated. And, are of the utmost concern to our membership as they will dictate for most if they are able to stay in business.

So, what do I make of these developments? As I shared in the beginning, I am on information overload, but I am encouraged. The report language that now sits on the President’s desk states the following: “The CPSC is directed to assess enforcement efforts of section 101(a), including difficulties encountered, as well as recommendations for improvement to the statute, and to report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, no later than January 15, 2010.” There is also specific mention to address the concerns experienced by small batch manufacturers.

Is this the beginning of the open hearings that we have been requesting? I don’t think so. Could this be the beginning of an amendment to the CPSIA? Possibly. Is it acknowledgement that there are issues that the CPSC may not be able to address? Probably. The conundrum now is that if open hearings do not occur, but the Democratic leadership makes the changes necessary to allow our member businesses to continue doing what they love, is that okay? We have always recognized that we would need the force of the Democrats to truly make a change, and that change may occur behind closed doors. If the end result is the same – a legislative amendment to the CPSIA – do we really need to speak in an open hearing? Perhaps not, but I would still like to. We’ll see what happens.

For now, I am grateful for the additional time the continued stay of enforcement brings us. I feel encouraged that many of the formal requests the HTA has made over the last year appear to be on the table and being openly discussed. I believe that the work we have engaged in for the last year is being acknowledged. And, I have hope. For now, that will need to be enough.

Jill Chuckas
Secretary, Handmade Toy Alliance

The HTA Make Their Case at the CPSC's Workshops on CPSIA Testing

2009-12-14T12:39:00.000-08:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) sent five of their nine Board members to the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) workshops this past Thursday and Friday, December 10th and 11th, 2009.

HTA President, Cecilia Leibovitz (VT), HTA Vice President, Dan Marshall (MN), HTA Secretary, Jill Chuckas (CT), HTA Treasurer, Mary Newell (OR), and Board Member, Kate Glynn (MA) represented the 399 members of the Handmade Toy Alliance as active participants at the workshop. In addition, HTA members Paul Bingaman (AToyGarden.com -CA) and Randy Hertzler (Euroshop.com - PA) traveled to DC, adding their perspectives as small retail business owners.

Representatives from across the children’s product industry gathered in very crowded rooms, listening to prepared presentations from members of the CPSC staff and participating in roundtable discussions on various implementation issues. “It was remarkable the breadth of groups that attended the workshops,” Leibovitz stated. “It was vividly clear that HTA members are very different from other manufacturers, in terms of both number of employees and style of manufacturing.”

“We repeatedly spoke in the roundtable discussions about the process our members take in their production lines - from sourcing to quality control and everything in between - always emphasizing that small batch manufacturers must be regarded differently than large scale factory manufacturers,” said Marshall.

Clear recognition of this difference was heard in day two, when David Pittle, former CPSC Commissioner (1973-82) and former Senior VP at Consumers Union (1982-2005) stated:

There is something I've heard over the last few days, which I'll never be the same on because it was new to hear it all...and that is the important distinction between large batch manufacturers and small batch manufacturers... The small batch manufacturer...needs a very careful and judicious way of making sure they can do it and survive.

In addition to participation in the CPSC workshops, HTA members presented their petition to CPSC Chair Tenenbaum and Commissioner Adler that included over 24,000 signatures in support of an amendment to the CPSIA. They also got the chance to share their thoughts with Commissioner Adler. “This was just another indication that we (HTA) are being heard loud and clear,” Newell stated. “After participating vigorously in the panel discussions, it was very encouraging to meet Commissioner Adler and help him to see the faces of the folks who are the HTA membership. It was a powerful and meaningful opportunity.”

HTA members also had an opportunity to discuss compliance issues with several representatives from Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and Public Citizen. “It was important for us to show the consumer groups first hand just how much we have in common,” stated Glynn. “HTA is all about children’s product safety and we hope to build an open dialogue with as many consumer groups as possible. We feel that there are many issues that we can be partners on, working together to further all of our interests.”

“Still on the top of the HTA to do list are pushing for a continued stay of enforcement, approval of a component testing rule and encouraging the CPSC to bring problems with the legislation to Congress’ attention,” Chuckas reiterated. “As we have stated many times in the past, we believe in the spirit of the CPSIA, we just want to be sure that small batch manufacturers can continue to survive. After all, we all started in this business to bring safe and unique products to consumers – we just want to keep doing what we love.”

In the photo: CPSC Chair Inez Tenenbaum, HTA members Kate Glynn, Cecilia Leibovitz, Dan Marshall, Mary Newell, and CPSC Commissioner Robert Adler.

The Elf's Lament

2009-12-14T12:38:00.000-08:00

Thanks to the Barenaked Ladies for understanding.

Press Release: HTA members to attend CPSIA workshop at CPSC this week

2009-12-08T08:42:00.000-08:00

The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) will send five of their nine Board members to the upcoming Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) workshops this Thursday and Friday, December 10th and 11th, 2009. HTA President, Cecilia Leibovitz (VT), HTA Vice President, Dan Marshall (MN), HTA Secretary, Jill Chuckas (CT), HTA Treasurer, Mary Newell (OR), and Board Member, Kate Glynn (MA) will represent the 399 members of the Handmade Toy Alliance as active participants at the workshop.

"Our mission remains clear. We continue to seek an amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) that includes risk assessment,” states Marshall. “But, we are excited to be included in this opportunity to enact policy that may assist our members.”

The workshop is designed to address issues relating to test programs, material changes to children’s products and third-party testing, component testing, and product labeling. Those present will have the ability to present comments, views, and questions. Marshall, Chuckas and Newell have been selected to participate as panelists in some of the roundtable discussions during the workshop. In addition to these discussions, there will be formal presentations from CPSC staff relating to the implementation of the CPSIA.

“We were not present when the original legislation was being written,” Chuckas stated. “This is our chance to share our concerns with the regulatory agency in the hopes that our voices will help shape the policy surrounding the CPSIA.”

“Our members continue to have multiple questions,” added Newell. “This is a lengthy and difficult act to understand and implement into basic business practice. Our members are generally small, micro businesses that often do not have access to lawyers or others that can help them interpret the CPSIA in an effort to prove compliance. We will do our best to represent all of our concerns directly to the staff at the CPSC.”

Lo, the hamster shall explain to us the CPSIA.

2009-12-07T23:23:00.000-08:00

Well, there's been a lot of acrimony in the past few days about antimony and toy hamsters. If you're reading this blog, you're probably aware that the "Good Guide", the self-appointed arbiters of product safety and responsibility, released a press release on December 5th in which they claimed that the Zhu Zhu pet hamster "Mr. Squiggles" exceeds federal limits for antimony.

Yes, they said, the inexplicably runaway hit of this holiday toy season is poisonous.

Then, after some excellent investigation by non-toxic toy advocate The Smart Mama and others, it became clear that the Good Guide got its facts wrong. They used an XRF gun (a portable x-ray machine that analyzes chemical content) to determine Mr. Squiggle's antimony levels. Federal law, however, uses ASTM's limits based on soluble antimony. This means the standard is based on how much antimony leaches from the toy in an acid solution, not how much total content exists in the toy--two very different standards. And, it turns out, Mr. Squiggles passed his soluble antimony test just fine, which the CPSC affirmed.

(By the way, if you're actually concerned about antimony in your home, you should read how much is in some mattresses, where it is often used as a fireproofing agent to meet CPSC-mandated federal guidelines.)

Today, the Good Guide issued a retraction, no doubt hoping they won't be sued:

"Since issuing our release, we have learned that the testing methodology used in the federal standards (a soluble method) is different than the methodology we used in our testing (a surface-based method) ... We should not have compared our results to federal standards. We regret this error."

We feel compelled to point out that, under the CPSIA, if a well-meaning toymaker made a similar mistake, they would face potential fines of $8,000 to $100,000 for each violation [pdf], not including possible state attorney general actions.

But even more than that, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the Good Guide got this wrong even though they have a board of 10 "trusted scientific advisors", 9 of whom hold doctorates. Here we might raise our voice a bit: If the Good Guide has these scientists and doctors at their disposal and still can't properly interpret CPSIA and ASTM standards, how can small businesses like ours even hope to comply?

The CPSIA regulates not only lead levels in toys, but also antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and mercury, all of which require third party lab testing. This burden on small toy manufacturers is enormous and untenable.

Finally, we agree that the Good Guide has done a great disservice to the cause of safer children's products with their misinformation this week. As the Smart Mama writes,

"You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop believing you. You can’t cry ”wolf” when the standard doesn’t apply...So shame on the Good Guide."

Hamster FAIL indeed.

Press Release: Buy Handmade this Holiday Season

2009-11-30T07:05:00.000-08:00

Montpelier, VT – November 30, 2009– The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA) urges parents and grandparents to give handmade gifts to the children in their lives this holiday season. This year more than any other, small batch makers of toys, clothes, and accessories need their customers' support.

It's been a challenging year for all of involved in making or selling handmade children's goods,” said HTA President Cecilia Leibovitz of Craftsbury Kids (VT). “We've all been working all year to understand and adapt to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008, which requires us to perform many of the same tests as Mattel and other large manufacturers. Now that the Holidays are here, though, we're happily focusing our energies on what really matters—delighting children with unique gifts”.

To help connect shoppers with unique gifts, the HTA has developed an easy to use listing of featured members, which includes business profiles and links to member websites. “It's an easy way to find a special gift,” said HTA board member Heather Flottmann of Liliputians NYC (NY). “We have so many wonderful little companies offering gifts that you'll never find at Wal-Mart or Target.”

When you buy handmade, you're getting something that can't be found in a factory made product,” said Jolie Fay of Skipping Hippos (OR). “You're getting a gift made with love, not just for money. It's a tangible connection to thousands of years of human history in which toys and clothes were made by people, not machines. Children really do understand and appreciate the difference.”

As for the CPSIA, HTA members remain hopeful that common sense will prevail in Washington so that their businesses will survive. “This is a long term struggle,” said Leibovitz, “But one way or another I'm sure we will prevail. We'd just like to get back to making wonderful and delightful children's goods instead of writing letters to Congress.”

So, on behalf of the 399 business members of the Handmade Toy Alliance, we wish everyone a very happy holiday season,” said Leibovitz.

The HTA includes retail stores, toymakers and children's product manufacturers from across the country who want to preserve consumer access to unique handmade toys, clothes and all manner of small batch children's goods in the USA. Formed in November of 2008 in response to the CPSIA, HTA members are parents, grandparents and consumers who are passionate about their businesses as well as the safety of the children in their lives. While in support of the spirit of the law, the unintended consequences of the CPSIA have motivated members of the HTA to work to enact change at a federal level.

"Holly Berry Girls" ornaments by mooshoopork via the Flikr catalog of endangered childrens' goods.

Are You Really A CPSIA Victim?

2009-11-19T19:32:00.000-08:00

The following is a repost of a blog entry by Whimsical Walney, a fellow CPSIA activist:

Main Entry: vic·tim Pronunciation: \ˈvik-təm\Function: noun Etymology: Latin victima; perhaps akin to Old High German wīh holy Date: 15th century

1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent s of the social system>: as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions cancer> auto crash> (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment b : one that is tricked or duped >

Source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I wanted to wait a little bit before posting my reaction to the NY Times piece about the CPSIA. The CPSIA Twitter stream showcased a positive reaction from those involved and Walter Olson did a usual spot-on post how it’s about time the NY Times weighed in.

So the fact that I seemed to be the only one (at least that I could tell) for whom the article left a bad taste made me take pause. Add to the mix that the Handmade Toy Alliance has been working so hard to bring this issue to the fore; to bring the facts about how CPSIA hurts small business to consumers nationwide and I felt it would diminish their efforts. I was proud to see people I have worked with over the course of this year quoted in this well respected publication.

Enough time has passed now, though, that I feel I can weigh in. Remember that quote from Jerry Maguire, “You had me at hello”? Well, I am finding that Ms. Wayne lost me at, “portray themselves as victims of bureaucrats and consumer advocates.”

The entire paragraph reads:

These homegrown toymakers are banding together to portray themselves as victims of bureaucrats and consumer advocates, and have started letter-writing campaigns to Congress.

There is no question that many businesses are victims of this law. By saying that people are banding together to “portray” themselves as victims is really just saying to me that the author doesn’t actually believe that those businesses, that WE, are really victims. This is not a made-for-television mini-series or big box office comedy where everything is made right in the end once the nasty politician sees the err of his ways and finds true love in the very small business owner he was once trying to squash.

I recognize that journalists often have to leave a certain level of distance from their subjects, but the use of that word made me think she didn’t believe at all in what so many hoped was the point of her piece: CPSIA unnecessarily hurts small business.

So in my usual form I wanted to see if I was being oversensitive and decided to determine if, by definition, I am a victim. I therefore went straight to the source: the dictionary. And the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary verified that I was not overreacting. Not only that but it reminded me what we have all known all along. Not one single business is trying to play the role of a victim because they are, in fact, victims of this terrible law.

Shall we explain to Ms Wayne that this is more Erin Brokovich than You’ve Got Mail? Nah, maybe we should just keep reminding Congress instead.

The time is ripe for legislative change to CPSIA

2009-11-10T07:06:00.000-08:00

Below is a list of high priority members on Commerce Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee to lobby for legislative change to CPSIA. Please consider setting up a face to face meeting if you are a crafter or small business owner in one of these states. I spoke with Congressman Peter Welch's (VT) aide today and he stressed that our move toward legislative change will go much more quickly, if more of us set up *face to face* meetings with committee member staffers. Our efforts are really starting to take shape and this is the time to turn up the heat.

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection

Bobby L. Rush, Illinois
Chairman Jan Schakowsky, IL
Vice Chair George Radanovich, CA
Ranking MemberJohn P. Sarbanes, MD
Cliff Stearns, FL
Betty Sutton, OH
Ed Whitfield, KY
Frank Pallone, Jr. NJ
Joseph R. Pitts, PA
Bart Gordon, TN
Mary Bono Mack, CA
Bart Stupak, MI
Lee Terry, NE
Gene Green, TX
Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX
John Sullivan, OK
Anthony D. Weiner, NY
Tim Murphy, PA
Jim Matheson, UT
Phil Gingrey, GA
G. K. Butterfield, NC
Steve Scalise, LA
John Barrow, GA
Joe Barton, TX (ex officio)
Doris O. Matsui, CA
Kathy Castor, FL
Zachary T. Space, OH
Bruce L. Braley, IA
Diana DeGette, CO
John D. Dingell (ex officio)
Henry A. Waxman, CA (ex officio)

CPSC releases CPSIA guidance document with preliminary rules for component testing and product retesting

2009-11-06T08:29:00.000-08:00

On Friday, the CPSC issued draft guidance on component testing, retesting requirements, and one-of-a-kind items which should benefit many of our members if the CPSC grants enough time for these rules to be implemented.

In a first step toward allowing component-based testing, the CPSC's preliminary guidance would allow manufacturers to utilize testing performed by their component suppliers instead of testing each component in a finished product.

Component-based testing has been a keystone of the HTA's proposals for change and we view it as crucial to the survival of hundreds of small batch manufacturers. It would allow suppliers of our raw materials to provide a manufacturer with certification of compliance within the law, which would eliminate the need for redundant and costly unit-based testing.

We are very pleased that the CPSC rules for component-based testing included not just notions and hardware like button, zippers, and hinges, but also paint and other surface coatings such as varnish and silkscreen ink.

We welcome the CPSC's decision to allow component-based testing, which is not explicitly authorized by the CPSIA legislation. However, it will take years for our component suppliers to realize the need to perform these tests as economic pressure pushes upstream in the supply chain. We have only three months until the deadline for testing and certification on 2/10/10, which is not long enough for small manufacturers to take advantage of these new rules, which will not even be voted on until after Januray 11, 2010.

We therefore reiterate our call for an additional one year stay of enforcement. The CPSC and manufacturers alike need more time to comply. And, we urge the CPSC to announce a continued stay as soon as possible instead of waiting until the last minute as was done in January 2009.

Fridays's guidance document also addressed retesting schedules and one-of-a-kind items, which are also key concerns for our members.

The CPSC has adopted the HTA's proposal to allow an exemption to annual retesting requirements for small batch manufacturers. Basically, they're allowing a flexible retesting schedule based on risk factors and relief from retesting until the number of units produced exceeds 10,000. This is very welcome relief for our members and will help ensure the continued availability of low-volume specialty and handmade children's products.

For the first time, the CPSC addressed the unique situation of one-of-a-kind items, encouraging manufacturers to utilize component-based testing and the testing of similar products to assure compliance. We welcome the CPSC's willingness to address this issue, which is of critical importance for many of our members.

Combined with previous CPSC rule making that exempted fabric, paper, and natural materials, this ruling does a lot to address the concerns of small batch manufacturers. However, we still require adjustments that only Congress can fix, including harmonization with EU standards, flexibility on lead limits for de minimus risks such as rhinestones and brass, and legislative affirmation of component-based testing.

The CPSC has clearly shown its intention to create reasonable rules when they can. However, they have also clearly indicated that there are multiple issues in which their hands are tied by the inflexible language of the law. The time is now for Congress to address these issues and fix the CPSIA.

Congressman Charles Dent of Pennsylvania endorses the HTA's requests to the CPSC

2009-11-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

In a November 4 letter to the CPSC, Representative Charles Dent of (R-Pennsylvania) asked the Commission

to fully consider each of the recommendations submitted by the Handmade Toy Alliance, specifically the requests to extend the existing stay of testing and certification requirements for an additional year and not prosecute makers of one-of-a-kind items for failure to test their products.

The full text of his letter appears below. We thank Representative Dent for his attention to our concerns about the CPSIA and his support for another one year stay of enforcement.

Letter to CPSC from Congressman Dent -

A very busy day for the HTA and the CPSIA

2009-10-31T19:20:00.000-07:00

After a full year of efforts trying to save their small businesses from the mandates of the CPSIA, the Handmade Toy Alliance met two important milestones on October 30.

First, assisted by Senator Merkley (OR), the HTA met via video conference with CPSC commissioners Inez Tenenbaum and Robert Adler, an aide to Senator Dodd (CT), and a team of about a dozen CPSC staffers to discuss policy actions to protect small batch children's product manufacturers.

Second, the New York Times reported for the first time on the CPSIA's impact on small businesses. A little handmade wooden airplane even found itself on the front page. The report focused on the HTA's efforts to convince congress to amend the CPSIA.

“It was a very busy day,” said HTA secretary Jill Chuckas, owner of Crafty Baby (CT). “In the morning we got the chance to tell the CPSC what we need. And then in the evening I found myself quoted in the New York Times.”

During the morning CPSC meeting, Commissioner Adler expressed a desire to protect small manufacturers as much as possible within the constrains of the CPSIA. Speaking about the difficulty small business have affording the testing required by the law, he said “You're the folks who keep us awake at night.” He also reiterated that “The CPSC did not write this law.”

The meeting centered on nine requests the HTA submitted to the CPSC, the most important of which would stay enforcement of testing requirements for another year so that the CPSC can finalize rule-making on a host of important issues. “Our goal is not to create loopholes in the law for unsafe products,” said Dan Marshall of Peapods Natural Toys (MN) “We just want to save our small businesses.”

In the Times article, titled “Burden of Safety Law Imperils Small Toymakers”, Nancy Cowles of the consumer group Kids in Danger was quoted as opposing the HTA's efforts to reform the CPSIA, claiming that big industry players “are not above using the small crafters to reopen the legislation and get the changes they want.”

“This is the absurd logic that we've been hearing for a long time,” said HTA board member Rob Wilson of Challenge & Fun (MA). “We are not agents for big companies. We have been highly critical of Mattel and other multinationals for their role in shaping the CPSIA in their favor. What Cowles is basically saying is that handcrafters and small batch manufacturers are closing their businesses as a favor to Mattel.”

“If Kids in Danger and other consumer groups would just respond to our repeated requests for dialog, I'm sure we could reach an understanding that serves both our interests,” said Marshall. “If they could have listened to our morning meeting with the CPSC, they would understand our desire to fix this law without compromising safety. Unfortunately, they seem more interested in protecting the status quo.”

The HTA's next steps are to include more meetings with the CPSC, which will hopefully lead to policy actions and the clarification of a number of issues. The HTA is also offering to help the CPSC reach out to small batch manufacturers.

“Even though we feel very encouraged by the CPSC's willingness to work with us, we need to keep in mind that their hands are tied on many issues,” said Wilson. “We need Congress to pass a technical amendment to the CPSIA, and we need Senator Pryor to begin that process with an open hearing in his Senate commerce committee."

In other coverage of the day's events, Walter Olson reacted to the NYTimes article in his Overlawyered blog, writing:

Okay, so the Times was — well, not a day late and a dollar short, but more like 300 days late and many billions of dollars in overlooked costs short. Still, let’s be grateful: the paper’s news side has now implicitly rebuked the editorial side’s fantastic, ideologically blinkered dismissal of “needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises”. And the Times’s belated acknowledgment of the story can serve as permission for other sectors of the media dependent on Times coverage — including some magazines and network news departments — to acknowledge at last the legitimacy of the story and begin according serious attention to the continuing CPSIA calamity.

We feel compelled to agree--by our count, the NYTimes was scooped at least 426 times on this story. But, better late than never. Now, let's fix the CPSIA!

The Handmade Toy Alliance Requests CPSC Policy Actions under CPSIA

2009-10-30T09:06:00.000-07:00

With February 10, 2010 fast approaching, the Handmade Toy Alliance has made a formal request to the CPSC for regulatory relief from the CPSIA through policy actions. We feel that these actions are absolutely necessary to save small batch childrens product manufacturing in the US.

Our fundamental belief is that the CPSIA focuses resources on processes rather than safety and needlessly hampers the Commission's ability to make product safety determinations based on risk. While we believe that only Congress can correct these issues, we have identified a number of areas where CPSC rulemaking based on common sense and risk analysis will prevent the needless destruction of hundreds of responsible small businesses.

The role of a federal agency is not just to enforce laws, but to give guidance to Congress. Our first request is for the CPSC to formally communicate to Congress that a technical amendment is needed to the CPSIA in order to correct its unintended consequences. Chief among these corrections would be to grant the CPSC discretion to apply risk analysis to the application of third party testing requirements and lead content limits.

We are also requesting a further one year stay of testing and certification requirements. We understand that the Commission will soon be issuing guidance on component testing rules under Section 102 of the CPSIA. However, these rules will arrive less than three months before the end of the current stay on February 10, 2010. This timeframe will provide little relief for manufacturers seeking to take advantage of component testing rules, who will need time to work with their component suppliers to assure upstream compliance.

Although the small batch community has already begun documenting CPSIA-compliant component suppliers (see cpsia-compliance.blogspot.com), without CPSC-issued regulations in place we have had little power to force suppliers to test and certify.

Third, we want the CPSC to consider the needs of small businesses when they issue rules regarding retesting requirements under Section 102(d)(2)(B) of the CPSIA. We understand that large toy manufacturers, represented by the Toy Industry Association (TIA), have been arguing for a tiered schedule for retesting. Their proposal would define three tiers of manufacturers based on whether their factories have obtained ISO-9001 ratings. Under this scheme, “Tier 1” factories would be allowed to test less frequently and under more favorable conditions while “Tier 3” would have to test more often under less favorable conditions.

While we can appreciate TIA's intention to reward higher volume factories that have demonstrated quality and safety control, their scheme is unfair and unworkable at the scale of small batch manufacturers. ISO-9001 certification can cost tens of thousands of dollars and is not applicable to home workshops and small domestic manufacturers.

We are therefore requesting that TIA's standards not be applied to our small businesses. Instead, we request a retesting schedule based on the number of items produced, not on any chronological time line. Retesting should be required every 10,000 units for small manufacturers, not every 15 months.

Fourth, many small toymakers are facing huge compliance costs because of required ASTM testing, which the CPSIA requires for all toys. We are asking the CPSC to issue an enforcement policy which would remove the threat of prosecution for small batch toymakers who are unable to afford ASTM testing. The products made by these manufacturers should still be required to meet ASTM requirements and the manufacturer shall be required to act in good faith

This would allow a company to deal with products based on volume. Small businesses will most likely be able to afford to test higher volume items, but they should still have an incentive to bring in niche, low volume items that meet ASTM but are not third party tested. This policy would be entirely justified based on risk analysis, since toys distributed in smaller quantities pose a smaller potential public health risk than mass market toys.

Although the Commission has issued exemptions from lead content and phthalate testing for many toys which are made from natural or other exempted materials, ASTM testing remains an insurmountable burden for many small toymakers. Even though ASTM testing is usually somewhat straightforward and simple to do, many testing labs have instituted minimum per-item testing fees of $300-$350, which largely negates any savings from natural material exemptions. Many of our members simply cannot afford to pay these fees and will be forced to cease operations without this relief. This issue not only affects handmade items, but also adaptive toys for children with disabilities, classroom supplies, and other low-volume specialty toy products

Fifth, we are asking the CPSC to issue a statement of enforcement policy that it will not prosecute makers of one-of-a-kind products for failure to test. Dozens of our member businesses earn their living by making custom products ranging from ceremonial Native American costumes to fabric dolls to hair bows. Testing these one-of-a-kind products is both physically and financially impossible.

And, we are asking the Commission to improve its education and outreach to small businesses by publishing a simplified explanation of testing requirements and ASTM toy standards, and by answering all of the questions posted on the site WhatIsTheCPSIA.com, where the small batch community has been attempting to share knowledge and interpret the requirements of the CPSIA.

We have also requested the CPSC to appoint an ombudsperson to help communicate with the small batch manufacturing community. Such an ombudsperson would serve to expedite answers to questions, give input to CPSC staff about policy decisions on behalf of small batch manufacturers, and work with organizations such as Etsy and the Handmade Toy Alliance to communicate with small batch manufacturers.

We also feel that CPSC-approved third-party testing labs require more transparency and oversight. We are requesting that the Commission require that all CPSC-certified labs, as a condition of their certification, abandon their per-item minimum fees and post itemized per-test costs so that small manufacturers can easily compare testing services. Our members have found the process of obtaining quotes from testing labs to be extremely arduous and time consuming. And, third party testing firms have been less than forthright about their fees, often quoting for tests which the CPSC does not require. These independent operators need more oversight from the CPSC to ensure that they are treating small businesses fairly.

Finally, we would like the CPSC to implement an education strategy for consumers. Media attention in the wake of mass market toy recalls has improperly skewed the public's understanding the primary sources of lead poisoning, which remain lead in house paint, dirt near highly-traveled roads, and workplace exposure. Lead awareness campaigns from the 1970s and 80s have now been forgotten by today's parents even though the same problems persist. The CPSC should take steps to re-educate the public about the highest-risk sources of lead exposure.

We feel that these actions, if adopted by the CPSC, would save hundreds of small American businesses whose companies had nothing to do with the recalls of 2007. Hopefully, the CPSC will respond favorably to our requests. Someday, perhaps, we will also have the chance to tell Congress directly about the effects the CPSIA is having on our businesses.

photo: Plush Dollhouse by Abbydid.

Press Release: The Handmade Toy Alliance Urges the Senate to hold Hearings on the CPSIA

2009-10-30T06:57:00.000-07:00

Stamford, CT – October 29, 2009– The Handmade Toy Alliance (HTA), along with thirty nine other trade associations, is calling on Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas to hold an open hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on the unintended consequences of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

The HTA endorsed a letter dated October 28, 2009 from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to Senator Pryor urging him and his committee to review implementation of the CPSIA. Although a hearing was held in the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection last month, only one witness, Inez Tenenbaum, Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was called to testify—manufacturers and retailers who are facing extinction because of this sweeping law were excluded.

“This is just another reminder to our members of Congress that the issues plaguing small businesses and the hand crafted community from the CPSIA have not gone away,” Jill Chuckas, Secretary of the HTA and owner of Crafty Baby (CT) stated. “A hearing that fully discusses these issues needs to be held very soon.”

Dan Marshall, HTA Vice-President and co-owner of Peapods Natural Toys (MN), went on to state “At this point, there is not enough time for the CPSC to issue enough rulings to help small batch manufacturers address their compliance issues prior to the lifting of the stay on February 10, 2010. Congress needs to begin an active hearing process that engages manufacturers large and small in a meaningful way and finally correct this law.”

View the full text of NAM's letter here.

Author of CPSIA Seeks to Protect Children from Weather Balloons

2009-10-16T07:41:00.001-07:00

We saw this on the wire and wanted to share, since many news outlets overlooked it yesterday:

WASHINGTON, D.C. October 15, 2009
Rep. Henry Waxman Calls for Regulation of Weather Balloons to Protect Children

Citing today's episode in Fort Collins, Colorado, in which 6-year-old Falcon Heene was briefly thought to have perished in a homemade balloon, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is calling for tighter regulation of weather balloons.

"As chair of the House commerce committee, I have been a tireless advocate for children's safety," Waxman said at a late afternoon press conference. "Poor Falcon narrowly escaped certain death today due to his exposure to an untested weather balloon in his own backyard. My committee will see to it that no child will suffer this fate again."

Waxman said he is concerned that the American public generally considers weather balloons to be tested and certified by the federal government. "The American public already believes such regulation is currently in place. Today's incident proves that the public has been mislead and their trust has been violated."

Noting that the media frenzy surrounding Falcon's adventure was eerily similar to the frenzy during the 2007 toy recall crisis, Waxman said "this is exactly like Thomas the Tank Engine all over again. The same sense of shock, the same types of probing questions from the media--even the number of children maimed and killed was statistically similar! Only this time, it's not poison toys, it's weather balloons."

Waxman's newly introduced bill, the Help Our Tots Avoid Injury from aiRships Act, or HOT AIR, will require all weather balloons to be tested in a third party lab approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ensure that they do not contain any children. The CPSC will also be empowered to conduct searches at the ports and in citizen's garages to ensure that no weather balloon contains an excessive amount of child.

Consumer groups are cheering Waxman's proposal. "We hope this gets fast-tracked through Congress ahead of health care or climate change legislation," said a spokesperson from U.S. PIRG. "This issue is too big to ignore. We'll surely be able to increase our canvassing receipts with this one--everyone wants to protect children."

Waxman stressed that his bill contains no loopholes that might cause further harm to children. "Just as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 allows no amount of lead in any children's product under any circumstances, HOT AIR will not allow even a negligible amount of child in any weather balloon," Waxman said.

Baltel, the largest weather balloon manufacture, and Bal-Mart, the world's largest retailer of weather balloons, have already endorsed Waxman's bill. "It's obvious to us that the public demands accountability," a Bal-Mart representative said. "This bill will help us restore trust and squash those upstart handmade balloon operations that have been eroding our profits."

"We also appreciate Waxman's willingness to allow us to conduct our own testing--that will save us a lot of money," said a spokesperson for Baltel.

Meanwhile, as young Falcon Heene was tucked into bed this evening, Waxman sent his best wishes via a Hallmark e-card with the message "Sleep well, Falcon. By this time next week your parent's balloons will be illegal and you won't have to hide in a box ever again." Surely, young Falcon will sleep better knowing that Henry Waxman is on his side.

Hand-felted Waxman puppet by mullishmuse, available on Etsy.

Wisconsin Police Stop Giving Teddy Bears to Children Because of CPSIA

2009-10-15T08:25:00.000-07:00

Police in Wisconsin, concerned about their potential liability under the CPSIA, have switched to giving out books instead of teddy bears to children in distress.

The retroactivity of the CPSIA has had a chilling effect on everyone involved in used children's goods. The CPSC might likely argue that they would never go after police officers handing out teddy bears, but like most people, Wisconsin police are eager to follow the law, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Still, we can't help but think these kids would appreciate a teddy bear a little more than a book.