|
On Tuesday, August 11th, we met with the CPSC to discuss their proposed response to our request for an exemption from the new lead and phthalate testing and certification requirements. In their proposal, CPSC was only willing to grant an exemption for paper and printing done with the CMYK four color process inks. Since transparent pigments are used in CMYK printing, lead based pigments, which are opaque, are not used in four color printing. CPSC also stated that any adhesive bound book or other product where the adhesive was covered, would be acceptable as the adhesive would be considered “inaccessible” to a child. According to their proposal, any children’s product that was manufactured with any other input material including “spot colors” (PMS inks), coatings, laminates, foil stamped, or bound with plastic or metal coil would have to tested and certified by an independent third party testing lab.
The meeting went much better than I thought, but of course we will have to see how they revise the language. They seemed to be in agreement with all of our points and will take them into consideration. Although there was a lot of back and forth about how representative the test data provided to the CPSC is relative to all of the books and other printed matter made in the world. There are several key staffers in the CPSC that do not think our data is representative. The CPSC is concerned about outliers and we told them it was impossible and unrealistic for them to expect us to represent every possible scenario that could be found in the world. However, we did push back by saying that our data and info does represent 85% of all books that are sold in the US and that the preponderance of the test data and other info such as the need for transparent pigments for CMYK printing is sufficient to support our position. The CPSC is more comfortable with using “we can’t have lead due to some technical reason” approach to exempt materials rather than the test data as they do not feel the test data is completely representative.
After explaining about how coatings are made and applied by printing presses, the CPSC will clarify that the “” used to make books and other printed matter are inks without pigments since they are absorbed by the substrate. Therefore they should be covered by the determination in that they do not contain lead. On the spot colors, we explained that many of the pigments used for these inks are also transparent, but that some of them are opaque as well. We suggested that they revise the determination to exclude those inks made with the 5 pigments we identified as have lead in them and for all others, they would also be under the determination. What was suggested is that they write the determination to say if inks with one of the five pigments are used, then those inks would be subject to testing and certification.
On the , we asked that they add language to clarify that any printing process using CMYK including digital falls under the determination. We also asked that they qualify the language about screen printing as it currently states that all screen printing applications use leaded ink and that is not true. They were reminded about the comments made at the June meeting where it was stated that lead based screen inks only used in very limited applications and these inks cannot be used on presses that are used to manufacturer children’s products. CPSC agreed on both points.
For the , we gave them some additional info that supports the previous info that lead cannot be used in these materials due to the performance requirements and metal manufacturing process. They also agreed to re-examine the foil stamping and laminate info that we gave them. We really pushed hard on the laminate info as almost all text book covers are laminated.
CPSC also said they are moving toward more of a and this rule is setting the ground work for it. They did agree that if we can show that all components meet the limit, then the product is assumed to meet the limit. They did ask about how we felt about making our suppliers test components. We responded that while the printer would initially support the position, the long term issues would be problematic due to the cost and delays in getting materials to the printer. We explained that the just in time approach and lack of money has caused printers to cut their inventory to the bone and that it is not uncommon for a printer to order ink in the AM for delivery in the PM so they can print a job. Under this scenario, there is no time to test the ink and certify it. We also said the costs would have to be borne by someone and it would not be a good scenario for either the printer or their supplier.
In terms of the next steps, there are several options that the CPSC staff was going to discuss and let us know how they want to proceed. They could revise the current language in the draft and reissue in time for the vote (scheduled for today), pull books from the determination to continue working on it and propose it as a separate determination, or get a delay in the vote on this draft and revise the language. I think they were leaning toward the last option.
We did ask if we would get a chance to review the language prior to a vote and CPSC said that they would be open to a meeting next week to review the language, so that is why I think they are leaning toward the delayed voting option.
On the , CPSC was sympathetic to our request for a complete exemption but felt that she did not have the statutory authority to exempt us. CPSC asked for us to suggest an approach that might give her the ability to provide the requested exemption. CPSC felt that there really had to be a change in the legislation to grant our request.
For , it is their opinion that books and other printed matter were not “toys” or child care items and as such are not subject to the phthalate ban. CPSC said that the plasticizer document that they issued would be sufficient to demonstrate that our products were not subject to the requirements as they tried to identify which types of products they felt were covered and which ones were not. CPSC also said that as long as none of our accompanying products to a book did not using any of the regulated phthalates, then testing and certification is not required. CPSC said they are taking a different approach to phthalates than lead as they are addressed differently in the statute. In addition, each component that is “plasticized” using any of the regulated phthalates would have to be tested and not the product as a whole, which is a departure from the statute. For example, each piece in a farm yard play set (e.g., pig, cow, chicken, barn, fence) would have to be tested and shown to meet the limit.
The November 12, 2008, has triggered many questions and requests by print customers for certification statements from printers. This first compliance date has resulted in a misunderstanding by many printer customers of the CPSIA’s requirements regarding certification.
The first date of November 12, 2008 was for the general conformity certification of existing CPSC requirements and does not apply to children’s products including books and other articles made from paper. Therefore, there is no general conformity certification was due.
The second date of December 21, 2008 was for testing the lead content in paint, including paint used on children’s products. The CPSIA establishes limits for the amount of lead in paint. It is important to understand that printing inks are not considered “paint” by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and thus are NOT subject to the lead paint testing requirements that go into effect December 21, 2008.
On January 30, 2009,
The CPSC granted a one-year stay (extended in 2010) of enforcement for testing and certification of certain children’s products and toys subject to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The press release and statements by the CPSC’s acting chairman and commissioners can be found here. The CPSC’s full notice can be found here.
The stay postpones the requirement for printers to test and certify their products against the new lead and phthalate standards. Please refer to Printing Industries of America’s FAQ for more information on the lead and phthalate standards.
In the event that you are being asked about certification by your customers, the attached letter is provided that can be used to send to your customer that will help explain the current and future requirements. Right now, it is important to understand that no testing or certification is required for books or other printed matter.
While the Printing Industries of America supports the intention of the CPSIA, there are many questions about the specifics of this new requirement and we are working with several leading book printers and other trade organizations, including the American Association of Publishers and the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, to get answers to these questions. It is the goal of this group to demonstrate to the CPSC that the majority of children’s printed good products do not pose a health hazard to children, and as such do not require product testing and certification under the CPSIA. If an exemption is not provided, one of the key questions is to clarify the extent and nature of the testing and certification that will be required for all products sold or distributed (including products from inventory). It is not clear if testing of component materials, final products, or both will be required to demonstrate compliance with the new lead and phthalate standards. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the CPSC has not accredited any third party organizations to perform the scope of testing required by the CPSIA.
The full legislative language and frequently asked questions regarding the CPSIA can be found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/legislation.html#summaries
If you have any questions regarding the CPSIA, please contact Gary Jones at 412-259-1794, Rick Hartwig at 412-259-1792, or Christopher Dugan at 412-259-1794.
|
