CPSIA – USA Today Highlights Damage Inflicted by CSPIA

Lead testing can be costly for mom and pop toy shops

Read more here:
CPSIA – USA Today Highlights Damage Inflicted by CSPIA

CPSIA – FOIA Request re Schylling Acknowledged 6-11-10

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
4330 EAST WEST HIGHWAY
BETHESDA, MD 20814

June 11, 2010

Mr. Richard Woldenberg
Learning Resources, Inc.
380 North Fairway Drive
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

RE: FOIA Request #10-F-00738: Request copies of all documents relating to Schylling Associates, Inc. Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order.

Dear Mr. Woldenberg:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and also assigns your FOIA request number.

Due to certain procedural steps we are required to take under our statute, there may be delays in providing the records. Please be assured that every effort is being made to process each request as equitably as possible, and that the records or information that you have requested will be made available to you at the earliest possible date.

If you have any questions concerning the status of your request, contact our office and provide your assigned FOIA request number.

Sincerely,

Todd A. Stevenson
Director
Office of the Secretary

Read more here:
CPSIA – FOIA Request re Schylling Acknowledged 6-11-10

CPSIA – Cadmium Crisis Explained

Scratching your head about the mounting crisis over cadmium? Let’s see, the CPSC declares the Shrek glasses “not toxic” but still pushes for a recall of these safe products “in an abundance of caution”. Apparently, the CPSC either believes that perfectly safe products should be recalled in an abundance of caution or that they themselves can’t figure out what’s “dangerous” anymore. Not a single article or a single person to my knowledge has identified a single injury caused by cadmium in a consumer product – EVER.

[Oops, SORRY, there is a consumer product closely associated with cadmium intake: " Tobacco smoking is the most important single source of cadmium exposure in the general population. . . . The absorption of cadmium from the lungs is much more effective than that from the gut, and as much as 50% of the cadmium inhaled via cigarette smoke may be absorbed. On average, smokers have 4-5 times higher blood cadmium concentrations and 2-3 times higher kidney cadmium concentrations than non-smokers. . . . No significant effect on blood cadmium concentrations could be detected in children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke." Time to stop smoking, guys - that's big news, apparently.]

Of course, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that the people who are terrorizing America over cadmium are the very same people who are pushing for deep and invasive regulation of all chemicals throughout our society. It’s the anti-chemicals crowd behind the cadmium panic. Mr. Waxman’s big goal is the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Arguably, the CPSIA is the opening shot in his TSCA battle, which explains his utter intransigence in the face of well-documented catastrophes caused by the CPSIA. Cadmium is perfect for that purpose, especially since no one seems to understand the nature of the threat. Just mention cadmium and “bone softening” and the media and politicians melt.

Anyhow, I was wondering how cadmium became so scary. I realize that cadmium is dangerous under certain limited circumstances – but so are many other things that Americans like to use, such as fire, water . . . and guns. It is obviously time for some research. To help you out, I have provided many useful links below. The history of cadmium is VERY revealing. Here’s what I found out:

The discovery of cadmium came long after Rachel Weintraub and Henry Waxman attended school. Back in the olde days when they were educated, the Periodic Table had a different look:

In those days, when chemistry teachers taught the periodic table, position 48 was known as Puppy Dogs. Chemistry instructors typically explained that this element was responsible for sunshine, candy, love and (of course) puppy dogs. Everything that was good and sweet in our idyllic lives were attributable to Puppy Dogs. Element 48, also known as “Smiley Face”, was always the element children liked best. Most lessons were taught staring dreamily out the window at the playground, watching small children frolic and play. Puppy Dogs was good stuff.

The role of Puppy Dogs in our lives and the American Way was a foundation belief in the scientific community for many years.

Later, science took a dark turn. In 2007, scientists in Congress discovered to their horror that lead (Pb) was not only present on the periodic table just two squares away from Puppy Dogs but that lead was a contaminant in certain consumer products. At this time, science had not advanced far enough for Congressional scientists to know that lead has been on the Earth since creation and is found in everything including our food, water and air. Once Congressional scientists were able to detect trace levels of lead in consumer products, a specialist in the Top Secret Congressional Skunk Works connected the dots – “What about kids? If they play with Puppy Dogs, it’s just two squares away from LEAD!” This is what prompted passage of the CPSIA.

Am I being too science-y? Sorry.

As you know, science marches on and in a very recent 2010 development, scientists at the Consumer Federation of America, led by Rachel Weintraub, and at the CPSC discovered that Puppy Dogs was actually NOT the 48th element. After urgent research into how sunlight was created if not by Puppy Dogs, cadmium was discovered accidentally when someone pulled on their earlobe while deep in thought.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about this Nobel Prize winning discovery:

“Cadmium is a chemical element with the symbol Cd and atomic number 48. Cadmium represents a low point in American science education. In a little known provision of the “Treaty of the Meter” signed by the United States in 1878 signalling the promising beginning of the metric movement in our country, the 48th position of the periodic table was deemed to be a Smiley Face and called “Puppy Dogs”. American science, never questioning this regulation, eventually traced the origins of sunshine and love back to this phantom element. In early 2010, scientists at the U.S. House of Representatives noticed that lead (Pb) was located near Puppy Dogs on the periodic table, and in a rapid series of science-y experiments, determined that Puppy Dogs was actually a soft, bluish-white metal chemically similar to the two other metals in group 12, zinc and mercury. Frighteningly, experiments have determined that cadmium, if dumped into a river in massive quantities as mining run-off over a period of decades, will cause bone softening in nearby populations (“Ouch-Ouch Sickness” is also known as one of the Four Big Pollution Diseases of Japan).”

So that brings you up-to-date on cadmium, bone softening and toxicity. I hope this helps you understand why your Congress and the CPSC are trying to save you from dangerous cadmium. Apparently, you need a lot of “saving”. In my case, I am just going to stop drinking from rivers downstream from WWII mining operations in Japan. That should probably be enough protection for me.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Cadmium Crisis Explained

CPSIA – Statute of Limitations Applicable to Schylling

To close the loop on the Schylling fine fiasco, I wanted to provide you with the language governing the statute of limitations applicable to this matter (and all other CPSC matters unless specifically overridden by statute).

For those of you who don’t know, a “Statute of Limitations” is a provision in the law which states a maximum time after the occurrence of an event in which legal proceedings can be initiated. In the case of CPSC penalties, in the absence of a “tolling” agreement in which the warring parties agree to extend the time limit, these provisions are intentional limitations on the CPSC’s power. There is longstanding public policy that underlies the concept of a statute of limitations going back to ancient English common law.

The applicable statute is 28 U.S.C. §2462 entitled “Time for Commencing Proceedings”. It reads as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.” [Emphasis added]

The Schylling lead-in-paint violations were clearly beyond the statute of limitations. By the way, there is no exception to the provisions of a statute of limitations if the regulator is “really mad” or if the violator is a “bad guy”. It’s an ABSOLUTE rule and works effectively even against serious violations; for instance, prosecution of felonies can be closed off by statutes of limitations. The issue with respect to Schylling’s separate (but related) violation of “failure to report” is somewhat more controversial. When did the failure to report “occur”? The CPSC may be taking the position that the period relating to the failure to report begins when a report is finally made. In effect, then, the CPSC has interpreted the statute of limitations away for failures to report.

Arguably, this means that the CPSC reserves the right to penalize people for a failure to report going back to 1972, the year in which the agency was formed. Why not, they have the power . . . . . Everybody, keep an eye on your mailbox!

Don’t tell me that this surprises you nowadays.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Statute of Limitations Applicable to Schylling

CPSIA – Recall of Safe Products Continues to Reverberate

The national convulsions (call it “brain softening”) induced by the CPSC’s action in forcing McDonald’s to recall admittedly SAFE Shrek drinking glasses continued to spin out of control today. Following their usual election year script of harshly dealing with invented crises to impress the easily-duped public, Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, two Democratic leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent letters today to McDonald’s and the manufacturer of the glasses, ARC International, demanding information to blow this non-issue up into a mega-crisis.

Before I summarize how Waxman and Stupak worked to spread regulatory disease far and wide, I think we all owe a big THANK YOU to the CPSC for so vigilantly protecting us from these safe products. There is no doubt that we were all victims of a false sense of security, not knowing that atoms of cadmium might be lurking on the outside of drinking glasses. Of course, cadmium atoms also lurk in our food, in our water, in our air, in our dirt AND on countless glasses in our homes sold over preceding decades without incident – but, heck, that’s a little too science-y, don’t you think? Only by exposing that these glasses are SAFE while at the VERY SAME TIME pushing for a highly-publicized recall and resulting media panic, did the CPSC reveal that we were actually safe without even knowing it – and yet they STILL acted to protect us! What a great bunch of guys and gals we have at the CPSC, we are so lucky. No really, thank YOU Consumer Product Safety Commission!

Mssrs. Waxman and Stupak sent off two letters demanding lots of “incriminating” information, such as:

• A list of all manufacturers and distributors that supply McDonald’s with children’s products. McDonald’s interest in keeping its suppliers’ identities confidential as a trade secret is no never mind. After all, the glasses they recalled are SAFE, so you can’t take ANY chances. And let’s not forget the FACT that the other McDonald’s items are NOT suspected of ANY violation of ANY law. This is Mr. Waxman’s wizardry to keep us all so safe. . . .
• A list of all the “steps” McDonald’s takes to ensure that children’s products do not contain hazardous materials. The FACT that the CPSC has declared these glasses SAFE does not apparently matter in this inquiry, raising the question of what Waxman and Stupak mean by “hazardous materials”. Presumably then, the presence of an atom of cadmium might meet their “standard” for hazardous materials. In utopia, there is no cadmium. Waxman and Stupak represent the 1st and 8th Congressional Districts of Utopia, respectively.
• The identity of the supplier of the enamel on the SAFE glasses. This identity had previously been withheld by ARC, showing character by attempting to keep the crisis away from an innocent supplier. As ARC said in a recent newspaper report, “[it] could have been any glass company. . . . We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers.”

I find it ironic that the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is none other than Michael Burgess. Burgess is a doctor (M.D.). Maybe he has a sense of what constitutes an actual hazard to human health. If he does, I hope he shares it with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. . . .

Hey, let’s not get too paranoid here. No one is going to pay attention to this mass hysteria or change how they regard the federal safety laws. This mega-screwing of two reputable companies over admittedly SAFE products is not relevant to the rest of us. Why? They’ll never be interested in us because we all make . . . SAFE PRODUCTS.

Oh, crap.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Recall of Safe Products Continues to Reverberate

CPSIA – McDonald’s Shrek Glasses Weren’t an "Imminent Hazard"

Some people apparently think I contend that product recalls can only take place if the CSPC insists. I have certainly argued that the CPSC has no authority to demand or even ask for a recall unless certain specific conditions are met. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but there are limits to the agency’s legal authority. Companies themselves can recall products for any reason. There need not be a safety reason – you can recall something from the market because the color’s wrong, the material is somehow less than expected, wrong size, wrong instructions, wrong packaging, whatever. A company’s ability to recall its own products is not limited by law.

In the case of the McDonald’s Shrek glasses, yes, McDonald’s declared a voluntary recall. That’s not unusual – the vast majority of recalls are voluntary. Only a tiny handful of recalls every year are “mandatory”. In any event, the critical issue here is NOT that McDonald’s made this choice. As we have discussed, the publicity from this event forced McDonald’s hand – they had to protect their brand at all costs. The issue here is that the CPSC apparently “urged” the company to “do the right thing”. [These words come from the OnSafety blog, the official blog of the CPSC, believed to be written by Scott Wolfson, Director of Public Affairs.] It was apparently the “right thing” to do although the agency conceded that the glasses were “not toxic”, in other words SAFE.

While companies are allowed to choose to recall safe products at their pleasure, the CPSC does not have the unlimited legal authority to reach out to American companies and tell them to take this kind of voluntary action.

The power to recall emanates from certain provisions of the CPSA and FHSA. Notably, Section 12(a) of the CPSA, the agency can’t go to court unless there is an “imminent hazard”. What might that be? “As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term ‘imminently hazardous consumer product’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” Given that the glasses have been acknowledged to be “non-toxic”, this standard is impossible to meet.

The relevant term in the FHSA is “banned hazardous substance”. In Section 2(q)(1)(A), it is defined as “any toy, or other article intended for use by children, which is a hazardous substance, or which bears or contains a hazardous substance in such manner as to be susceptible of access by a child to whom such toy or other article is entrusted”. [If a ban is done pursuant to subsection (B) of this clause as a "household item" because it is chemical in nature, it must be done by rule, subject to comment and so on. There was no rulemaking process involved in this case.]

“Hazardous material” is defined in Section 2(f)(1)(D) in relevant part as “Any toy or other article intended for use by children which the Commission by regulation determines, in accordance with section 3(e) of this Act, presents an electrical, mechanical, or thermal hazard.” And Section 3(e) refers only to electrical, mechanical or thermal hazards, clearly inapplicable here.

Bottom line, the McDonald’s glasses are outside the reach of the CPSC . . . if the wording of its principal empowering laws matter anymore.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonald’s Shrek Glasses Weren’t an "Imminent Hazard"

CPSIA – What Does "Not Toxic" Mean?

Apparently, certain people who should know better have asserted that “not toxic” does NOT connote safety. They implausibly argue that it’s “not the same thing”. In other words, the argument goes that if you were to contend that something is “not toxic”, it is somehow different than saying that it’s “safe”. I beg to differ. Certain people apparently think I don’t “get it”.

We should check that out, don’t you think?

I am pretty sure these certain people are native speakers of English, so we can’t go there.

Mr. Dictionary stepped up to resolve this difficulty. Here are some definitions that may help sort this out. Some dictionaries do not define “non-toxic”, relying instead on the definition of the root word “toxic”. I hope you, too, can make this leap.

a. American Heritage Dictionary (Official Edition): This is on my desk for just such an occasion. “Toxic” is defined as “Of or caused by a toxin or poison”. The definition of a “toxin” is (in relevant part) “a substance, produced by a plant, animal or microorganism that . . . is capable of producing poisoning when introduced into the body . . . .” A “poison” is “a substance that causes injury, illness or death, esp. by chemical means”. So I derive that “not toxic” means that the substance in question will NOT cause “injury, illness or death”. I think you might call such a thing “safe”.

b. The Free Dictionary: Two definitions of “nontoxic”: (i) not producing or resulting from poison, and (ii) safe to eat. So according to this dictionary, “not toxic” means you can eat it safely. Not sure I’d recommend that for, say, a painted glass, but perhaps other people would.

c. Wikipedia: “Toxicity” is defined as “the degree to which a substance is able to damage an exposed organism.” So something that is “not toxic” is something that has NO ability to damage an exposed organism. Another word for such a thing is “safe”.

d. Thesaurus.com: Perhaps most pertinently, the primary synonym for “non-toxic” is “harmless” and the short definition is “not injurious or dangerous”. The full list of synonyms is “controllable, disarmed, gentle, guiltless, hurtless, innocent, innocuous, innoxious, inoffensive, inoperative, kind, manageable, naive, nonirritating, nontoxic, painless, paper-tiger, powerless, pussycat, reliable, safe, sanitary, simple, soft, softie, sound, sure, trustworthy, unobjectionable, unoffensive”. [Emphasis added] The antonyms are “bad, destructive, evil, harmful, hurtful, injurious, sinful, wicked”.

So, just to be clear, when someone, anyone says something is “not toxic”, what they mean is that it is SAFE. This is always the case, even if they flap their arms wildly about . . . for reasons that only they can provide.

Always happy to help.

Mr. Dictionary

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Does "Not Toxic" Mean?

CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

The spectacle of the McDonald’s cadmium “scare” continued to unfold today.

Let’s not forget that this recall was “urged” by the CPSC although the CPSC admits in writing that the glasses are “non-toxic”. In other words, the glasses are safe. As the manufacturer notes: “‘It could have been any glass company,’ said Ron Biagi, an executive with Arc International, which made the glasses. ‘We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers.’” McDonald’s clearly had no choice in the matter, suffering a terrible loss of prestige no matter what the outcome. So the CPSC, Rep. Jackie Speier, one anonymous tipster and a hyperbolic press forced a highly wasteful and destructive recall.

The tumult, chaos and confusion thoughtlessly spawned by the CPSC continues to unfurl in almost predictable fashion: “But the returns [to McDonald's] are just the beginning of the next chapter in the cadmium debate, with the CPSC poised to set new limits on the metal even as it downplays the McDonald’s recall and environmental advocates aim to use the episode to build momentum for reform of federal toxics law.”

A terrible move deserves an even worse follow-up.

What’s the cause for alarm here? The glasses are safe, so says the CPSC . . . as it dramatically lowers the standard for cadmium. Yeah, nobody’s worried.

The consumer group talking heads can’t resist chiming in: “Don Mays, senior director of product safety for Consumer Reports, said cadmium was being used in some manufactured goods to replace lead, which has been eliminated from many products in response to heavy regulation and widespread health concerns. Many of those goods were once commonly associated with lead, like paint and inexpensive jewelry. ‘We’re just starting to see this,’ Mr. Mays said. ‘It’s starting to creep into a lot of consumer products that never had it before.’”

Does anyone care that the CPSC SAYS THIS ISN’T TRUE? “After an Associated Press investigation first uncovered the high cadmium levels in some children’s jewelry, CPSC Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum publicly warned manufacturers in Hong Kong not to replace lead with cadmium or other toxic metals. Tenenbaum told senators in April that ‘we really don’t think’ companies are deliberately swapping out lead for other hazardous chemicals, ‘but we think they’re being careless and not realizing that you cannot use these metals in children’s products.’” [Emphasis added]

Some in the press aren’t persuaded. After all, urban myths are true . . . aren’t they? “[David Lazarus of the LA Times] notes that Cadmium has probably stayed off the radar for so long because people weren’t widely aware of its use. The focus has primarily been on the danger of lead products, and lead product replacements weren’t a primary concern. Chinese manufacturers began using Cadmium insted [sic] of lead to get the same vivid pigments in product colors.” Right. David Lazarus knows all about this.

And then there are our Democratic leaders in Congress. It’s election season so there’s little incentive to be a calming influence. “Congresswoman Jackie Spear [sic], who first received the anonymous tip about the Shrek cups, doubts Europe is the Cadmium culprit due to its strict manufacturing rules. Spear [sic] suspects either a subcontractor or ingredient provider in China; China is one of the leading Cadmium producers in the world. . . . Spear [sic] says she has legislation in the works that would expand the Cadmium ban in U.S., specifying removing its use in any product for children.”

And the basis for Rep. Speier’s hunch is . . . what, exactly? The glasses were made in a U.S. factory: “In contrast to the Chinese-made children’s jewelry recalled earlier in the year, the drinking glasses were manufactured in the United States, by the Millville, N.J.-based company ARC International. Ron Biagi, vice president for North American sales at ARC, said he was surprised by the recall and vouched for the safety of the glasses. While environmental and consumer groups pointed to the importance of identifying the producer of the cadmium-tainted enamel used on the McDonald’s glasses, Biagi declined to name ARC’s supplier. ‘It’s not fair for me to pull them in,’ he said.” OMG, somebody decent is left in the world! I had about given up hope.

Having set off the blaze, CPSC Director of Public Affairs Scott Wolfson again spewed more of his patented mixed signals sure to sow seeds of doubt: “‘What’s so important is for parents to understand the difference. … Children are not at an acute risk; the glasses are not toxic,’ Wolfson said, adding that ‘there are no signs we’re looking at a wave here of cadmium becoming the next lead.’” Which is why, Scott, you and your agency acted so promptly to push for a recall of this non-toxic product made of common materials in wide distribution in this country for years without any detectable adverse health effect? Which is why you told America to stop using the oh-so-safe glasses “immediately” in your OnSafety blog? Do I have this wrong? Clear as mud. Very believable, too.

There are terms for this that are too crass for a family publication like my blog. Let your imagination run. How will all this resolve itself? Of course, not very well. Justified by fear of “bone softening” (that sounds HORRIBLE, doesn’t it?) and other bizarre maladies that supposedly COULD befall us from unspecified exposure to cadmium, we will get many new and ineffective regulations imposing yet more devastating costs and devastating risk on the children’s product industry.

While hatred of government is a necessary by-product of the massive self-inflicted injury of the CPSIA, we will more pertinently be faced with the difficult challenge of protecting our life’s work – our businesses. The livelihoods of our friends and associates at our company, the economic well-being of our customers and suppliers (often our close friends, too) and in our case, the economic future prospects of the kids who are being educated with our products, all hang in the balance. I don’t know what stops this freight train before it tragically collides with reality. Certainly not leadership or a show of character from our government.

I hate to close these essays sounding like a Tea Bagger (not that I resent the label). I don’t wish to be marginalized for having strong views about an abdication of leadership and judgment by our government leaders. Say what you will, the McDonald’s fiasco was fomented by politicians with agendas. Many companies and people – and our economy – will be severely damaged as a result.

There’s nothing to be proud of here.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

CPSIA – More Details on Schylling Penalty Fiasco

The worm continues to turn on the Schylling penalty. Buried DEEP in the “easy to use” CPSC website are documents relating to the timeline of this penalty assessment.

1. First agreement was signed by the CPSC six weeks after Schylling on January 19.

2. The CPSC Commission met on February 3 to ratify the agreement. The vote is 4-1, with Anne Northup voting no. Northup apparently objected because she felt the penalty was out of line with other penalties set by the CPSC (too high).

[Ed. Note: I have been repeating myself of late when I assert that these penalties are PRECEDENT to be used against YOU. Ignore them at your peril - they are an evolving, common law measuring stick for penalties that may be assessed against you. Fact patterns are very difficult to compare but luckily big round numbers are easy to compare. Schylling may be . . . you next time.]

3. On February 5, in a remarkable and unexplained about-face, Tenenbaum, Adler and Northup voted 3-0-2 to rescind the agreement and send it back for to the staff “for further consideration of the financial condition of the company“. Nord and Moore didn’t vote.

5. On May 25th, the Commission again met to decide the fate of the beleaguered Schylling. By a vote of 5-0, the Commission approved the new, doubled penalty. Here is what the Record of Commission Action says: “The staff alleges that Schylling’s importation, sale, or offering for sale, certain consumer products, tin pail toys and spinning tops, entrusted to or for use by children, violated the Lead Paint Ban, and that Schylling committed these prohibited acts “knowingly” as that term is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA. The settlement agreement also resolves certain possible liabilities of Sections 19(a)(1) and 19(a)(4) of the CPSA for possible CPSA violations with other products. Section 20(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(a)(1), permits the imposition of civil penalties for the violations.”

As noted in my prior post, there is a question of whether the Statute of Limitations on penalties permitted the assessment of this punishment. The focus of this document seems to be on lead-in-paint violations, which were probably beyond the reach of the CPSC’s legal authority to assess penalties. Schylling paid anyhow.

So what happened? Only Ms. Northup provided a written statement. Her statement begs many questions but does provide fodder for conjecture. Here are some salient quotes:

“As an aside, I personally believe that it is inappropriate and risky for companies to ask political figures—including those who exercise control over the agency via budget or supervisory authority—to try to persuade the Commission to reduce a civil penalty. Our civil penalties are open for public comment for two weeks after publication in the Federal Register, and elected officials can comment upon them at that time. Intervention during the Commission’s quasi-judicial civil penalty decision-making process creates the possibility of conscious or subconscious influence on the fair resolution of cases. It also creates a perception that penalties vary according to the political influence of the violator rather than the severity of offenses. . . . The penalty will deter non-compliance and create the proper incentives to import safe products in the future without crippling the company. I believe Schylling has received a proportionately lower civil penalty than a similarly situated major corporation would receive if it engaged in similar conduct.”

Hmmm. Seems to be a case of foot-in-mouth disease on someone’s part. I admire that Ms. Northup was offended by the “insider baseball” approach apparently adopted by Schylling. The notion that the CPSC and the federal government is some kind of “good ole’ boys” club is both outrageous and not even slightly surprising. Who doesn’t imagine that there are people out there who have the ability to make your problems go away with a simple phone call? It’s nice to see Ms. Northup to take a stand on this. Quite interesting that it is a Republican ex-Member of Congress who was apparently offended. Surprising only because of the press bias against Republicans these days. Good for you, Ms. Northup!

One can imagine an ill-advised or ham-handed conversation that set off this odd sequence of events. This may also be why a new law firm was appointed by Schylling.

I still get the feeling that anger determines the size of penalties by this CPSC. Think Daiso. Since Ms. Northup speaks in terms of deterrence, I presume she is addressing our company and companies similarly situated (like yours). We are supposed to be influenced by these penalties. I sure will be. I can’t try any harder or spend any more time or money on safety. [Consumers, please note our almost unblemished safety record over 26 years - no more time is NEEDED, either.] Unfortunately, we have to spend a few moments every day tending to the OTHER needs of our business, like sales, marketing, product development, order fulfillment, accounting and so on. It’s a shame we can’t spend every waking moment on safety. What a world that might be.

In any event, I will be influenced by the mega-penalties that the angry CPSC is handing out. Given my conviction that there is no more time or money available for “more” safety, how will we be influenced? Well, we might hire fewer employees, develop fewer products, invest in fewer systems to operate our business better, pay lower bonuses, take money out of the business, enter new markets not subject to the prying eyes of the CPSC, and so on. We haven’t decided how to be properly influenced by the incentives so generously provided by the CSPC . . . but it all sounds good, right?

Time will tell.

Read more here:
CPSIA – More Details on Schylling Penalty Fiasco

CPSIA – FOIA Request Relating to Schylling Penalty Assessment

I am making this document request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and 16 CFR §1015. I would like to receive copies of all documents (written or electronic, including notes and staff briefing packages) relating to the provisional agreement between Schylling Associates, Inc. and the CPSC [CPSC Docket No. 10-C0004, published 75 FR 30785 (2010-6-2) (“May Agreement”) and any prior agreement between Schylling Associates, Inc. and the CPSC on the same matter. In particular, I am interested in any document which relates to objections to the original agreement between the parties dated January 19, 2010 (http://bit.ly/aEfWcQ) (“January Agreement”) or which relates to the reasons for the increase in the penalty assessed in this case from the $200,000 amount in the January Agreement to the $400,000 in the May Agreement. Please accord this request “fast track” status.

In making this request, I note the following statement in 16 CFR §1015(b): “The Commission’s policy with respect to requests for records is that disclosure is the rule and withholding is the exception. All records not exempt from disclosure will be made available. Moreover, records which may be exempted from disclosure will be made available as a matter of discretion when disclosure is not prohibited by law or is not against the public interest.”

My contact information is found below. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

Read more here:
CPSIA – FOIA Request Relating to Schylling Penalty Assessment

« Previous Page — Next Page »