CPSIA – Listening but Disagreeing – or Not Listening At All?

We know that the CPSC plunged ahead with the database on Friday despite the outcry of many industry stakeholders. Among the protesters was the National Association of Manufacturers, not exactly a lightweight organization. Industry protests fell on deaf ears. It goes without saying that the resistance of the two Republican Commissioners (who drafted their own database rule) aligned with industry objections. None of this apparently mattered.

As if to make the point that the CPSIA database will be misunderstood, misused and dangerous, the New York Times announced the arrival of the database in an article entitled “Consumer Agency to Post a Database of Unsafe Products“. Nice work, New York Times! The information in the database is unverified and in many cases will NOT be true. There is simply no way to conclude that the products referenced in the database are “unsafe”. Good luck convincing anyone of that now.

It is embittering and frustrating to be so flagrantly disregarded. There seems to be so much at stake, and the fix was seemingly so simple. No one asked to kill the database, just protect innocent businesses from damaging inaccurate postings on a website enjoying the prestige of a federal safety agency. Even the Pompeo Amendment was promoted as “hitting the pause button”. It is hard to fathom why dialogue was so impossible to start. Actually, after a few years of this war, it is not hard to fathom at all.

I know we were rejected – it is hard not to conclude we were ignored completely from the beginning.

My involvement in this issue began when I was asked to testify before the Commission on the issues relating to a searchable database of product incidents. Actually, I had been on record of objecting to the database even before the CPSIA became law (you can see excerpts of letters I sent in my response to Slate). I was called by Matt Howsare, then counsel to Inez Tenenbaum (now her Chief of Staff) who asked me to fly to Washington to testify. He told me that they “needed” me. Wanting to be helpful and to pitch in when asked by the agency (I was charmingly naive at that time), I agreed. I posted video of my testimony in this space, and as you will see, I was cut off by Ms. Tenenbaum. Get it? I was asked by her staff to present because they needed industry testimony, and when I gave my remarks, they cut me off – one suspects they had heard enough . . . .

This experience left me disgusted in a way that, frankly, hasn’t worn off.

Later, the agency called for a two-day workshop on the database. Owing to the discourtesy of my treatment at the hearing and because of their apparent utter disinterest in my views, I declined the opportunity to continue banging my head against the wall by attending their database confab. Later, as we know, the Democrats released a 248-page rule that greatly expanded the database rule from Congressional intent. Written as though edited by Consumer Federation of America, the rule produced howls of protest, but as has been the case thusfar in this CPSIA saga, it mattered not. The three Dems voted as they would have in the absence of any protests and the defective rule was adopted.

I continue to believe that the criticisms of the rule were (and remain) legitimate. That is, they were rational and reasonable, and lent themselves to reasonable and understandable resolution. The Dems did not make any effort to address these reasonable concerns, rejecting them out of hand.

This pattern of ignoring stakeholders while calling for comments and participation has been a hallmark of the Tenenbaum era. I am trying not to take it personally but wonder how we can be so consistently “wrong”. The Dems barely pause to discuss industry objections other than to simply reiterate that their policy objectives are more pressing. Are we so obviously wrong that our objections don’t merit an answer?

I have trouble reaching that conclusion. I have made the same points consistently over and over, yet I cannot put my finger on a single response to my objections other than outright rejection. There is a question of good faith here. The rejection of my company’s PROOF of a material error in the one filing made against one of our products in the soft launch of the database seems to call into question whether the agency can ever be trusted under this group of administrators. The response by SENIOR STAFF at the agency that the consumer in question had stated a “risk of harm” when his/her accusation was PLAINLY WRONG means that even the English language is being corrupted in service of the database. How can trust exist in an environment like this?

Ask around among industry stakeholders. Trust is GONE. No one trusts the CPSC these days.

Looking back on the database saga, it makes me all the more certain that I am doing the right thing pushing back against these people. They are not operating in good faith and have no apparent concern for the well-being of our company, our employees or the countless companies, schools, families and children who depend on us. This cancer on our markets must be stopped. We have another election coming up and I will be working hard to put more Democrats OUT OF WORK. They have no one to blame but themselves. They won’t listen . . . .

So we need to get rid of them.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Listening but Disagreeing – or Not Listening At All?

CPSIA – More Good News: RC2 Rewarded with $640MM Buyout!

Remember how Congress gave birth to the CPSIA way back in 2008? A couple big companies goofed up big time on toy safety, in case you forgot. Of course, everyone remembers Mattel, but then there’s RC2 and its lead paint-laden Thomas The Tank Engine wooden trains. Yes, these are the folks who offered a reward for consumers returning recalled iconic wooden toys slathered in lead paint, only to have to recall the free gift trains because they TOO were covered in lead paint. Ouch! This boneheaded move was significantly responsible for the drive to enact the CPSIA. Thanks, RC2!

RC2 paid mightily for its errors. I previously published an analysis of the costs of their missteps, which added up to about $60 million. That’s real money, folks. They later raised about $60 million in an equity offering, so they were financially sound despite these extraordinary losses. Bully for them.

Of course, the rest of us were screwed because the CPSIA crunched us. Isn’t it a little ironic that RC2 was largely unscathed?

Ah, but there’s a happy ending! RC2 was sold today to Tomy Co., a large Japanese toy company that shares elements of the Thomas brand with RC2. Tomy is paying $640 million for RC2. Sweet! And it’s really nice to know that the CPSIA has been so effective in stopping the people responsible for the bad acts that supposedly endangered children in the Year of the Recall. They’ll never profit from their misdeeds . . . .

Now I understand why people get so pissed about big bonuses being paid at bailed out banks. Hmmm. Is there anything to learn here?

Nah. . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – More Good News: RC2 Rewarded with $640MM Buyout!

CPSIA – How We Were Forced to Deal with A Misleading Database Entry

As you may recall from yesterday, we were confronted with a false, misleading and inaccurate complaint submitted to the CPSIA database in its “soft launch”. We submitted definitive information to the CPSC attesting to the error (or whatever) by the filer and were REJECTED. We were told by a senior staff person at the agency (who should know better) that the complaint needed to be posted based on the facts (the filer THOUGHT she spotted a safety issue). Our evidence that the anonymous filer’s musings were flat-out WRONG were not persuasive because this is a “consumer database” and as such, our evidence did not reflect on how the anonymous filer felt. As far as I can tell, that’s all that matters, unless they misidentify our product. That seems to be the only “out” (although I can’t find that sentence in the law).

Get it? I wish I did.

In some respects, this controversy didn’t add up to much because the complaint won’t go into the database. No filings made during the “soft launch” will go into the database. It’s all practice (until tomorrow morning). However, the CPSC made a policy decision in our case. Don’t say you weren’t warned. NEXT TIME THIS COMPLAINT WILL GO INTO THE DATABASE.

Because everyone’s “practicing” now, we decided to practice by filing a “comment” to this complaint even though it won’t be published either. This will no doubt become a standard approach for most people. There’s little point and maybe even some downside to pushing back on a complaint. [What if the CPSC takes a look and makes a call that THERE IS A RISK OF HARM? It all seems so innocuous until they lower that boom on you . . . .] The soundest practice is probably to not protest these filings at all (feel the shaft yet?) and simply publish your own comments to be juxtaposed with the complaint.

To craft this “comment”, we consulted our lawyer. Cha-ching! Don’t worry, we’re used to legal fees at this point. I would note that this took two person’s time at our office and we had to drop everything to process this baloney complaint as if it were the most pressing matter in our little universe. Consider the cumulative waste of resources and the cost of distraction and disruption across the entire economy all owing to this database. Sounds grrrrrreat!

Our comment is reproduced here for your interest:

“The Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings product has been tested for compliance with ASTM F963, the federally mandated safety standard for small parts and has passed all applicable tests with an independent test lab. The company believes this product incident report is materially inaccurate because the product does not present a small parts hazard and the complainant has provided no evidence to the contrary. As such this allegation is completely unsubstantiated.”

I wonder if Congress and the CPSC can come up with even more effective ways to piss me off. Chances are they are working on it right now! I can’t wait to raise more money for Republicans in the next election cycle . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – How We Were Forced to Deal with A Misleading Database Entry

CPSIA – My Answer to Slate.com on the CPSIA Database

Dear Mr. Noah,

I read with interest your March 8th article on the CPSC database entitled “Who’s Afraid of the CPSC?” and was disappointed at the inaccuracies in the piece and your blanket dismissal of the business community’s legitimate concerns about the database. The database has devolved into a divisive partisan issue simply because of the utter refusal of consumer groups and their Congressional allies to acknowledge the flaws in the database as well as the law that established it – the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

I’ll try to address the inaccuracies one-by-one:

Database cost – $3 million or $29 million? The cost figure of $3 million sparked a public dispute between the CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and her fellow Commissioner Anne Northup at a House hearing last month. In response to Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony on the cost of the database, Ms. Northup testified that the figure of $3 million had never been shared with the CPSC Commission and that the only database cost figure she was familiar with was $29 million. Interestingly, in April 2010, the Associated Press reported, based on information provided by the CPSC, that the cost of the http://www.saferproducts.gov/ website would be about $20 million, and the CPSC apparently saw no reason to update the media with the good news that the cost had shriveled to $3 million until the February 2011 hearing. . . . Hmmm.

The supposedly noncontroversial CPSIA database. Why didn’t anyone kick up a fuss about the database in 2008? A better question is “Why didn’t Congress listen when the business community protested?” Here’s what I said in a letter to each Congressional conferee dated June 25, 2008: “While we support public notice of recalls, we oppose a national database of reports of injury, illness, death or risk of injury. This forum will not be subject to appropriate findings of fact and thus will be a forum subject to considerable abuse. In a society where tort lawsuits are an ever-present risk for all businesses, a risk that can wipe out a lifetime’s work in a heartbeat, the very real potential for abuse by competitors or mischief-makers far outweighs the public’s ‘right to know’. Once the CPSC has adjudicated a case appropriately, made a reasonable finding of fact and determined the right course of corrective action, public notice would be appropriate.”

I continued to try to make my point to CPSIA Congressional conferees in another letter dated July 21, 2008, just ahead of final consideration of the CPSIA: “CPSC Searchable Database: The well-intentioned idea for complete safety transparency is an open invitation to mischief makers. This is a real threat to our business, as we know from hard experience. The better way is to let the CPSC filter this data first. Please remember, even YouTube will take down videos on request. The proposed law won’t give defenseless toy companies the same recourse as YouTube. Is that an appropriate way to regulate an entire industry?”

It wasn’t only me. Many others in the business community opposed the creation of a database that would contain inaccurate or misleading accusations and complaints. That’s the story of the CPSIA in a nutshell – no one was listening when the law was originally drafted, and now three years later, we are fighting City Hall to restore common sense to federal safety law. Please consider the assertion that consumers really need this database, that it is essential to their children’s safety. In fact, there are many places on the Internet where consumers can and do post their experiences without controversy. Why would a federal database be a greater cause for concern? Well, for one thing, this one is called “SaferProducts.gov” and is sponsored by the federal government. Notwithstanding the lawyer language disclaimers all over the website, it is crystal clear that the public will place a lot of credence in these postings. After all, why would our federal government allow misleading or inaccurate information to be posted on a website called SaferProducts.gov? Ms. Tenenbaum is famous for her defense of “dot gov” websites: “I say don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, except what you read on Web sites that end in dot gov.” [Keynote speech at ICPHSO, February 17, 2010] She may not be the only one who feels this way.

The NHTSA database exists; ergo a CPSIA database is a good idea? The NHTSA database can be distinguished in several important ways: (a) auto accidents are a leading cause of death in this country (consumer products are not), (b) every use of automobiles is known to be hazardous and the risk to human life from reckless use of cars is obviously magnified (not true for consumer products), (c) the auto industry is one of the largest components of our entire economy – we all use cars and many of us owe our livelihoods to automobiles in one way or the other (the average sale of consumer products is far less than a car), and (d) at all levels, the auto industry is highly consolidated among a relatively small number of massive companies that are well-prepared for litigation and regulatory issues (consumer products is not a consolidated market and there are many small companies involved in the trade). I think GM, Ford, Toyota and other multi-billion dollar automakers can handle the burden and risk of a database of consumer deaths and serious injuries from use of their products. Our family business, Learning Resources, on the other hand, ain’t no GM or Toyota. The NHTSA database is NOT an appropriate precedent for consumer products for all of the foregoing reasons.

“One of the ironies in Pompeo and others screaming bloody murder that the database will kill jobs is that most of the appliances likely to get dinged in the database won’t even be American products.” This remark completely misses the point, unfortunately. It is American companies that are going to be hurt by the misinformation in the database, whether those companies are manufacturers, importers, private labelers or retailers. Even worse, thousands of American small businesses are going to be put at risk with no practical means to defend themselves. Is this the “American Way” at work? Who will pay when jobs are lost from companies shifting away from this market or dropping products to limit exposure to liability? This is just going to be another self-inflicted economic injury from misguided and overzealous regulation.

Whether the product is made in China, the U.S. or India, it should not matter from a safety perspective. Companies must ensure that they market safe and appropriate products no matter where the products are made. The reality is that every product can break, and accidents and other bad things happen to good people. The database will be unforgiving and if filled with post-it-and-forget-it garbage, will harm innocent victims – American companies that employ your neighbors and make products for your schools. Unqualified and unverified complaints on SaferProducts.gov WILL induce consumers to take our products away from children – pending a recall that may never be forthcoming . . . because nothing’s wrong.

Chairman Tenenbaum has publicly encouraged consumers to rely on the postings in the database – to draw conclusions on the likelihood of future injury. This is quite alarming, given that Ms. Tenenbaum also testified in a Congressional hearing in February that the agency will likely post unverified or inaccurate information to the database. She admits that this information will be faulty. As she said in testimony, “that’s what the rub is”.

Claims of inaccuracies are low in the soft launch. Given the short life of the database in its test phase and the small population of registered users, reports of few data problems must be greeted with skepticism. Less than 1000 companies have registered with the CPSC for the database, an absurdly small percentage of the number of companies whose products will be in the database. Taking into account that many consumer product companies (such as Disney) will need to register numerous brands, product lines and corporate divisions to ensure that the right data flows to the right paper pusher, the current registrations are even paltrier. If companies are not registered, it is unlikely they are even aware of the soft launch, let alone that there may be inaccurate claims against their products being sponsored by the federal government.

Sadly, we are likely to confirm that the CPSC’s faulty processes are damaging companies only AFTER the damage is done. Let’s not forget that the agency is all set to launch a big “public awareness” campaign for the new database – in other words, the federal government will soon be beating the bushes for consumer complaint submissions. As usual, consumer advocates hype uncertain and unquantifiable losses (someone somewhere might not know about something that COULD have been in the database and later be injured) to distract Congress and the media from the certain losses that will befall companies with damaged reputations. Good for plaintiff lawyers but maybe no one else.

Our small company in Illinois has already experienced a materially inaccurate submission – in the very first “complaint” we faced – and were unable to block it from the database. The anonymous posting concerned a consumer’s “feelings” about one of our products based on a photograph she found on the Internet. Unfortunately, she was clearly wrong and we could prove it. The CPSC wasn’t impressed by our valid CPSIA test reports or photographic evidence of the consumer’s error. I can safely assure you that misleading and inaccurate claims will not only be submitted to the database and but will be posted by the CPSC knowing full well that the claims are untrue. I wrote about my experiences in my blog.

I hope you will reconsider your views on the CPSIA database and weigh more carefully the legitimate concerns of businesses serving the children’s marketplace. We are in this business for a reason – we are devoted to making children’s lives BETTER. The new database will not further our mission, nor will a database filled with garbage benefit consumers. We can do better, and we MUST do better.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
Vernon Hills, IL
My blog: http://www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com/

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Answer to Slate.com on the CPSIA Database

CPSIA – Congress Turns to Regulating Signs

Read more here:
CPSIA – Congress Turns to Regulating Signs

CPSIA – WSJ’s 8th Editorial Against the CPSIA

Eight WSJ editorials on the same topic. Is it time to get Congress’ hearing checked???

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
MARCH 11, 2011

Get the Lead Out, Sir
Nutty test standards give Obama a real chance to help business.

President Obama has been on a campaign to shake his antibusiness reputation, so a good place to start would be to revisit the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a mess of a law that has put new burdens on small businesses.

In 2008, Congress passed the law in a rush to do something after a scare over lead in toys imported from China. Its problems were quickly apparent, sweeping products from books to bicycles into the dragnet for lead standards. But while businesses pleaded, Democrats stood behind it as a pinnacle of consumer protection while blaming the Consumer Product Safety Commission for any enforcement problems.

The CPSC has done what it can to allay the fiasco of unintended costs and disruptions for small businesses, including staying large portions of the law. But as Commissioner Nancy Nord told House Democrats last year, the language of the bill is drafted in such a way that fixing all the problems is impossible because the “exclusions and exemptions process is not workable.”

Instead of being able to focus energy on products that present real risks to kids, the CPSC’s staff has had to regulate products that pose no harm. The likelihood of a toddler swallowing an all-terrain vehicle, for instance, didn’t stop that product from being swept into the maw.

The law also requires the CPSC to propose the parameters of a third-party lead testing regime, but the issue is so mired in complexity that the commission has yet to set those standards. Under the proposed version of this so-called “15 Month Rule,” Learning Resources Chairman Rick Woldenberg has estimated that supplying multiple testing samples on each of his company’s toys and products will cost his company some $15 million per year.

It gets worse. In August, the lead standard is set to go down to 100 parts per million from the current level of 300 parts per million. Like the earlier step down, the new standard is supposed to be retroactive when it goes into effect, meaning that it will apply to toys and children’s products manufactured before that date, which were perfectly legal when they were made. All five CPSC commissioners have said they don’t believe the new standards should be retroactive when they go into effect this summer.

At a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee in February, California Democrat Henry Waxman defended the law as “necessary to protect kids and families across the country.” We wonder how he figures that, since the incidence of lead poisoning from toys made by domestic manufacturers is nil.

Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and Subcommittee Chair Mary Bono-Mack have said they will soon introduce a bill that would finally end a regime that has clobbered small businesses with ill-conceived regulations. If Mr. Obama wants to help small business job creation, he could agree that the government doesn’t need to mandate a lead testing protocol for every product known to man.

Read more here:
CPSIA – WSJ’s 8th Editorial Against the CPSIA

CPSIA – "Must Read" in PSL

In the March 9th edition of the Product Safety Letter, Eric Stone published an analysis entitled “Is There a Need to “Recall to Repair” the Relationship Between the CPSC Compliance Staff and Business Community?“

My response: Amen, brother!

For those of you who don’t know Eric, he is the former Director of the Legal Division of the CPSC and also former Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division of the Office of Compliance at the CPSC. He is currently a partner at K&L Gates LLP. To say the least, he is an authoritative figure in all matters CPSC.

Please read Eric’s Op-Ed.

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Must Read" in PSL

CPSIA – "Must Read" in PSL

In the March 9th edition of the Product Safety Letter, Eric Stone published an analysis entitled “Is There a Need to “Recall to Repair” the Relationship Between the CPSC Compliance Staff and Business Community?“

My response: Amen, brother!

For those of you who don’t know Eric, he is the former Director of the Legal Division of the CPSC and also former Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division of the Office of Compliance at the CPSC. He is currently a partner at K&L Gates LLP. To say the least, he is an authoritative figure in all matters CPSC.

Please read Eric’s Op-Ed.

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Must Read" in PSL

CPSIA – CPSC Punts on "Material Inaccuracy"

The war over the CPSIA Database continues at high pitch. In today’s print edition of Politico, Consumers Union upheld its well-deserved reputation as a fear monger with the below ad entitled “Will this crib leave parents sleepless?” CU intones: “When you buy a crib, you want to know it’s safe. Luckily for parents, the [CPSIA] created an easy-to-use database for the public to report unsafe products. But right now, some members of Congress want to stop that database, putting your children at risk. Don’t let them.”

The ad concludes with this warning “Congress: Don’t play politics with our kids’ safety.”

At the same time, the National Association of Manufacturers launched its own campaign documenting the many incidents of inaccurate data and other related snafus in the database SO FAR. The body of the NAM letter is found here.

The objections to the CPSIA Database by manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers is all about inaccurate data. Filling the database with junky, incorrect or idle chatter masquerading as thoughtful analysis presents REAL threats to investments in companies, products and brands. Naturally, this also threatens jobs at many levels in our economy. Were the database maintained by the CPSC with clean and accurate data, I rather doubt the objections to this program would be so intense. However, industry stakeholders know that the media and our government are reactive by nature, tending to report, judge and act on stimuli before adequately investigating or resolving underlying accusations. Consider Toyota braking systems, DryMax diapers, Shrek glasses. It’s a long list of manhandled companies or products. There are legitimate reasons to fear what a mismanaged “post it and forget it” database will do to industry.

I realize industry objections may seem theoretical or somehow calculated to serve a larger purpose. It is worth noting, however, that the NAM letter provides concrete illustrations of the problem facing industry. Likewise, it is important to remember that consumer groups gloss over the objections of companies to pluck heart strings – that’s how they raise funds. To clarify the picture, I have a REAL EXAMPLE to share. It involves the first (and so far only) submission to the database about our company’s products.

The following incident was filed against one of our products during the so-called “soft launch”. The soft launch was intended to allow the CPSC to work the “kinks” out of the database and to practice interacting with the entire U.S. economy on consumer products. As you know from prior blogposts, Inez Tenenbaum has admitted in House testimony that the CPSC is not likely to be able to resolve questions of accuracy before posting the data (but they will try very hard). She said “That’s what the rub is.” Indeed. And you also know that once data appears on the Internet, its traces are all but impossible to remove. The long tail of misinformation is likely to affect brands and companies for years.

The subject product happens to be discontinued. We have protested this particular filing to the CPSC and they replied with the following decision: “[CPSC] staff concluded that the report would be posted in the database but for soft launch”. In other words, as a CPSC policy matter, what follows is a legitimate posting to the database when it goes live.

Put yourself in the position of the CPSC and YOU MAKE THE CALL!

First, consider the final rule on the database. The database is to be populated with “reports of harm”. What’s that? “Report of harm means any information submitted to the Commission through the manner described in § 1102.10(b), regarding any injury, illness, or death; or any risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission, relating to the use of a consumer product.” And what is a “harm”? “Harm means injury, illness, or death; or risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission.” Who can file? Basically anyone. No direct knowledge of the “incident” is required.

The person making the filing does have to give their name to the manufacturer. In this case, we were faced with an unnamed accuser. Please note that Cheryl Falvey, General Counsel of the CPSC, said at ICPHSO this year that she couldn’t imagine why anyone would withhold their identity in a complaint. This was our first “product incident”. O for 1 so far, Cheri.

Here is what the anonymous filer said:

“I saw this product on the FAO Schwartz website. It looks like a nice idea not very well thought out. The product is called: ‘Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings’. The suggested age states: 2-7 yrs. By: Learning Resources. The Product Description: ‘With 28 plastic hearts that lace together vertically and horizontally, 3 laces, candy scoop and storage jar, this Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings set from Learning Resources® offer a delectable introduction to colors, shapes, matching and printed words. Little hands stay busy too as kids gain confidence in fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination. Charming lacing hearts features a word or picture on each side. Children can create colorful candy designs and cute messages while improving fine motor skills. Hearts are color-coded to help children make sentences.’ These plastic ‘beads’ look very much like the candy conversation hearts sold around Valentines day. Maybe I am over concerned, but this seems like these beads could easily be mistakenly ingested or could pose a choking hazard.” [Emphasis added]

I certainly hope the readers of this space are confident that, in fact, this item complies with U.S. law. In fact it does with test reports to prove it. Of course, small parts are always a concern whenever we design products for children under three years of age. Despite the IMPRESSION apparently given to the unknown filer BASED ON AN IMAGE SEEN ONLY ON A WEBSITE (not a physical examination of the product), the beads do NOT go through a choke tube. There are no small parts.

Put another way, this accusation has no basis in fact and thus cannot be a “report of harm” under any reasonable interpretation. It is unadulterated and inaccurate conjecture. We sent the CPSC our third party test reports and photographs of the parts proving that they won’t pass through a choke tube to support our protest that this complaint is “materially inaccurate”.

Nevertheless, the CPSC apparently determined the complaint states a “risk of harm” and thus should be published in the database.

To get a flavor of the “sympathetic” audience we received at the CPSC when we pushed back, please enjoy selections from the written response we received:

“I should make it clear from the outset that I am not the person within the agency with the delegated authority to handle material inaccuracy claims. This email reflects my opinions and not those of the Commission and has not been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you first approached me about this . . . I told you that my gut reaction was that despite the concerns you raised, the Commission staff handling these issues would take the consumer’s report at face value as a claim raising a concern of a risk of harm. I explained then that your Firm could provide a comment with your objections to the report or object to the report as materially inaccurate. Given your concerns about the report, I raised the issue with the database team handling the issues and confirmed to you in our call last Friday that the response was the same. I also indicated that the claim of material inaccuracy would likely be denied. I explained that the personnel handling these matters were not making decisions as to whether the product was harmful but rather they would take a quick look at whether the report of harm articulates a risk of harm.” [Emphasis added]

Our claim of material inaccuracy was denied – even though the issue was disposed by a valid third party test report directly on point . . . . Makes you wonder what WOULD be deemed “materially inaccurate”.

So why didn’t our test reports and photos PROVE “material inaccuracy”? After all, the filer states: “Maybe I am over concerned, but this seems like these beads could easily be mistakenly ingested or could pose a choking hazard.” The CPSC explains:

“However, in assessing whether a report of harm articulates a risk of harm, the staff is not adjudicating whether the product actually presents such a risk of harm. We have other processes for making that determination which require an assessment of the risk by Commission staff, including a subject matter expert – in this case, a physiologist on the issues relating to the likelihood of a choking hazard to children . . . . As I explained on Friday, the database process is set up to allow the manufacturer to state its reasons why the report does not present a risk of harm and have that appear next to the consumer’s report. The staff handling claims of material inaccuracy will not be determining the ultimate question of whether the product does, in fact, present a risk of harm. That would only occur after a full assessment of the risk of harm by the subject matters experts and ample opportunity for the firm to address the issues with our compliance staff. The disclaimer is intended to notify users that the information has not been evaluated and specifically states: The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the contents of the Consumer Product Safety Information Database, particularly with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of information submitted by persons outside of the CPSC.”

Can anyone out there feel our outrage? Is this what Congress “intended”? Is it acceptable that the CPSC not exercise ANY judgment whatsoever on filings and that manufacturers be powerless to stop the posting of nonsense? Can’t we expect more of this agency with its 500 employees?

The CPSC informs us that all is well BECAUSE even though the accusation is known to be false, we are allowed to post comments side-by-side with the accusation.

“. . . it would be up to the Firm to decide whether it wants its test reports and photos posted as comments in response to the report. The conclusion was that this is the type of report that has been included in our databases in the past and would be included in the public database along with the manufacturer’s comments and the mandatory disclaimer as to the accuracy of the information in the public database.”

So, there you have it. The CPSC knows it is posting nonsense and other pap, refuses to filter out the bunk and then boldly asserts that it is up to the manufacturer to choose how it wants to counter the misinformation. The term “materially inaccurate” does not apparently extend to factually inaccurate accusations – I believe it only refers to misidentified products. [This is not the first tortured interpretation of the English language to emerge from the CPSC during this administration.] One wonders to what lengths the CPSC will go to post controversial complaints in the database. They have their justification – they must make consumers “safe” with errant complaint data. It is a rich irony that the CPSC doesn’t even argue the complaints are true or accurate and then scurries to hide behind its website disclaimer when asked to defend its lame administrative approach.

No doubt twisting themselves into a linguistic pretzel is only the start for this CPSC.

This position is NOT mandated by the CPSIA – this is a political decision dictated by forces outside the law. Please note that in this case, the CPSC overlooked a valid third party test report mandated by the CPSIA that refutes a conjecture based on a photo posted on a website. Guess that test report doesn’t count for much at the CPSC. But it is ESSENTIAL to keep kids safe. . . .

Right. And so is the rest of the CPSIA and this database. Right.

The CPSC didn’t just “punt” on the meaning of “materially inaccurate” – they punted on the future of your business and the jobs you provide to your teammates. If only we could punt on the jobs of the people who were doing this to us. . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Punts on "Material Inaccuracy"

CPSIA – NAM Letter Pounds the CPSIA Database

March 8, 2011

Mr. Todd A. Stevenson
Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

The National Association of Manufacturers respectfully requests the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) to 1) reconsider aspects of its final rule on the Publicly Accessible Database (“Database’),1 and 2) continue for at least three months the “Soft Launch” phase of the Database to allow the Commission and affected business users to address operational and administrative flaws identified in the “Soft Launch” to date.

On January 21, 2011 the Commission announced a “Soft Launch” to test procedures and processes to implement the database requirements, as interpreted by the Commission in its final rule. As the official Database launch date approached, companies have registered or attempted to register to participate in the Database. A total of 723 registrant companies were reported in testimony to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade on February 17, which is only a fraction of companies manufacturing or importing consumer products in the United States. In addition, due to reported technical problems only a few preliminary “reports of harm” (as defined in the CPSC’s Final Rule on the Database) have now been able to be subject to completed processing. NAM has similarly sought information from manufacturers, importers and private labelers on experiences and problems encountered during such soft launch.

Based upon surveys of manufacturer experience, the following have been discovered to be problems which must be addressed by the Commission prior to final launch of the database:

1. Manufacturers with different divisions and brands among different product lines have indicated an inability on the part of CPSC staff to timely register multiple parties within such corporations. It is important to both the CPSC and manufacturers that the system allow for the assignment of adequate identifiers to permit review and comment on the material inaccuracy of filed complaint data within the database in a timely fashion as required by the final rule, minimizing duplicative filings for multiple corporate entities within a broader organization and allowing for streamlined communications between businesses and the CPSC. The difficulty in registering by brand/product line/division and the slow or incomplete response by the CPSC to registration raises troubling questions about the promised flow of information between the CPSC and registered companies.

2. A number of manufacturers, importers and private labelers have reported that reports not directly involving “Harm” (an express precondition to processing and posting) have contaminated the Database. Some respondents report that as many as 30% of the complaints forwarded were not adequately scrubbed to assure that they involve “harm,” as defined by law, as an express precondition to processing and posting within the database. Other respondents indicate that some claims are simply conjecture based on a review of Internet postings or product listings on a website. Such unresolved errors can undermine the integrity and purpose of the Database.

3. Licensors have indicated that they have received reports that are materially inaccurate since they involve products for which they are not the manufacturer, importer or private labeler, but which have been identified as suitable for posting. This has occurred notwithstanding a response from licensors verifying that they have been falsely identified as the manufacturer, importer or private labeler of the product, when they are not. The challenge to accurately identify the responsible party is apparently not being met by the filers, and these inaccuracies are not currently being rectified by the CPSC staff.2

4. Manufacturers, importers or private labelers have indicated that they have received reports of harm identifying an incident as involving their product that did not in fact involve their product, so were materially inaccurate, and advised CPSC of this fact. They have not received return affirmative confirmation that CPSC staff will not post such false claims in the database. CPSC staffers have indicated they may not possess the resources to adequately scrub the database to avoid posting upon such notification. This is contrary to the express direction of Congress that materially inaccurate information with the potential for irreparable reputational harm be vetted prior to posting. This is essential to fundamental fairness. Although the Commission has sought to transfer the burden of proof to manufacturers, it cannot do so once a claim is made that such data is false or materially inaccurate. The Commission can assure the public during an extended soft launch that no such harm occurs.

5. Registrant businesses also report that the completed complaint forms they received often omitted necessary data such as the model, serial number, date of manufacture or date/tracking code information (required by law to be contained on many products, including specifically children’s products) so as to better identify the products alleged to be involved with the potential for harm. The absence of this critical data makes such reports unverifiable, which can result in unfair damage to the reputation of products, brands and manufacturers.

6. The Commission’s decision in the final rule to define the term “consumer” very broadly appears contrary to the intent of Congress, and will result in the potential for multiple reports of harm involving the identical incident. This will result in public confusion about the potential extent of any possible harm and will result in the inclusion of reports based on second-hand information without the possibility of verification. Experience with paper-based reporting demonstrates that often multiple products are erroneously cited as related to reported injuries without an actual causative connection. This results in misidentification and duplication of reports, which must be avoided in the Database.

While the NAM supports a product incident database serving consumers’ need for accurate product information, we do not believe a poorly-functioning database serves the public interest. Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully request and petition the Commission to reconsider the final rule and extend the “Soft Launch” for a period of three months, so as to enable its staff to implement the statutorily mandated Database in accordance with the conditions imposed under statute and the Commission’s own regulations.

To ensure the accuracy of information submitted to the database, we specifically ask that the Commission reconsider, under its final rule, the expansive definition of “consumer” and “public safety entities” that include attorneys, investigators, or other agents of a consumer and consumer advocates, individuals who work for NGO’s, consumer advocacy organizations and trade associations. Additionally, we ask the Commission to reconsider its provisions for review of claims of materially inaccuracy and its decision not to withhold potentially inaccurate information from publication until it makes a final determination of its accuracy. Last, we ask that the Commission reconsider any provisions or sections of its rule that prevent it from effectively implementing Congressional intent or its stated aims to ensure timely review and processing of database submissions and to ensure the accuracy of its contents.

Sincerely,

Rosario Palmieri
Vice President
Infrastructure, Legal and Regulatory Policy
The National Association of Manufacturers

1 75 Fed. Reg. 76832-76872 (December 9, 2010).

2 According to the CPSC, firms receiving notice of a report of harm that incorrectly identifies them as the responsible manufacturer or private labeler of a product that immediately informs the Commission of such misidentification can reasonably expect the CPSC to stop the 10 day clock for publication of the report in the Database. If the recipient of the report of harm is not the manufacturer or private labeler, the Commission can decide not to post the report either because it is materially inaccurate or because it has determined that the report of harm is missing one of the minimum requirements for publication. CPSC staff has noted that given its experience with the incident reporting system, it recognizes that consumers may misidentify the product manufacturer or private labeler. Such claims of material inaccuracy generally are resolved quickly and easily if the receiving firm provides sufficient information. Staff further notes that Firms have an incentive to immediately report errors to prevent reports of harm from being published in the Database that misidentify them as the manufacturer or private labeler. This underscores the importance of an accurate registration system that allows businesses to be identified and to quickly get reports of harm to relevant business contacts within the company so that a response can be provided. The CPSC has not yet defined what information will be deemed “sufficient” to block publication, leaving manufacturers, importers and private labelers to guess on how to deal with inaccurate identification of their products or brands in database filings.

Read more here:
CPSIA – NAM Letter Pounds the CPSIA Database

« Previous Page — Next Page »