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
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Handmade Toy Alliance Announces their 2011-2012 Board of Directors
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.
Randall 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."
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.
Randall 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."
Monday, May 9, 2011
HTA Responses to House Commerce Committee Followup Questions on CPSIA Reform
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.
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.
Friday, April 8, 2011
HTA's Testimony on CPSIA Reform to the House Commerce Committee, April 7, 2011
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 Randall 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.
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.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Press Release: HTA sees new momentum as they prepare to testify; endorsing new bill amending the CPSIA
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 Randall 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."
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.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
HTA Endorses New CPSIA Reform Bill
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.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Our (Unpublished) Letter to the Editor of the New York Times
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)