CPSIA – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

We live in interesting times.  There has been no action by Congress to deal with the CPSIA since its controversial passage in August 2008 despite consistent and loud hue and cry.  Right now, Dems are blocking progress.  Apparently, they think the biggest threat to America is ANY change to the CPSIA. Our markets, our jobs, our livelihoods will be a necessary sacrifice to . . . what?  Reelection. During this crisis of thousands of businesses catering to children, a Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee charged with managing the CPSIA mess, has been emailing photos of his you-know-what to women and girls all over America.  One of Anthony Weiner’s email correspondents was reportedly voted ” Most likely to be involved in a tabloid scandal ” by her high school class (she’s only 21, it wasn’t long ago).  I think you get the (sordid) picture.  Mr. Weiner has been of no use on the CPSIA, riding the high horse “protecting children” with his Dem brethren, at the VERY SAME TIME he was using the Internet for interactions that are, at a minimum, pretty creepy.  So Weiner is against letting even a notch out on the CPSIA belt around our necks, too unsafe . . . but he thinks it’s okay to creep around on the Internet, shooting pics of himself in the Congressional locker room and sending them out to his female Internet pals ( one of whom was a porn star ).  Hypocrisy?  How can that be, the Dems are cloaked in white, right??? Mr. Weiner remains perplexingly in office.  As Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus noted on Meet the Press : ” What we called for is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in this country to do what every American knew had to be done immediately and call for his resignation. Now, it seemed to me that for the first 10 days in this circus that the only job [in America] that Nancy Pelosi was interested in saving was Anthony Weiner’s . We’ve got crushing unemployment in this country, we’ve got a president that’s, that’s whistling past the graveyard, we’ve got families that are struggling, and instead we’ve got leadership in a Democratic Party that are defending a guy that deserves no defense .”  [Emphasis added] And back at the ranch, the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is stalled.  Why?  Consider the May 25th words of Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and principal roadblock to relief: ” But instead of refining a good law, the Republican bill goes after the law with a wrecking ball . The result is an assault on children’s safety.  The Republicans call their bill the ‘Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act.’ A better name is the ‘Unsafe Toy Act.’ “  [Emphasis added] That’s right – the Dem leader is calling the work of the Republican majority the “Unsafe Toy Act”.  Hmmm.  Please NOTE that the General Counsel of this committee (Gib Mullen) is the former General Counsel of the CPSC and its former Director of Compliance.  Is the implication that this former Kirkland & Ellis partner is a “hack”, lacking principle and integrity and is simply doing as he is told by Republican overlords who don’t care about children’s safety?  Please, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The label “Unsafe Toy Act” is an insult and a lie in so many ways.  First of all, it isn’t true.  As I have discussed extensively in this space, ECADA is a surgical revision to the CPSIA, designed to fine tune the law without restructuring it.  Reporters have called me to ask what the big deal is.  Good question but the answer is obvious.  No rational person subject to the laws of the United States or residing here would want to make toys, or any children’s product, “unsafe”.  If you insist that they would, Mr. Waxman, PROVE IT.  Oh yeah, you don’t do that, do you? Second, Mr. Waxman impugns the dignity and integrity of anyone who would dare support ECADA.  That includes me since for more than 20 years my career has been devoted to making educational products (with perhaps the best safety record in the entire children’s product industry).  Mr. Waxman’s label plainly announces to the general public that I favor poisoning kids to make more money.  That is rather offensive, to say the least.  Members of the House of Representatives are permitted to speak their minds, through and including libelous remarks, while on the House floor.  They literally can say ANYTHING with impunity – I can’t sue them for this slander.  As such, there is no recourse for this slander. This unfortunate label is at the heart of what the Dems are after – political advantage.  Those of you who periodically pepper me with defenses of good Democrats fail to recognize the consistent pattern of obstruction and failure to act reasonably among the small group (cabal) of Dems and associated consumer groups behind this roadblock.  The pattern of lies is all for political effect.  Can you imagine the reelection commercials?  Good for the Dems, bad for anyone who disagrees with them.   The threat even applies to Dems who might have a conscience and be willing to stand up to the demagogues – the consumer groups are ready to attack them, too.  Everyone knows it, no one wants to say it. Mr. Waxman trots out the usual lies and misstatements, relying on the trick of portraying this law as a “toy law”: ” The Unsafe Toy Act triples the amount of lead allowed in most children’s toys. For some children’s products, the bill would allow lead levels to increase 100 times or more.  The bill eviscerates the requirement that toys imported from China be independently tested for safety. . . . Just listen to what the experts are saying about this bill. The Consumer Federation of America says that the bill creates ‘huge loopholes.’ Consumers Union says it will ‘lower standards and roll back safeguards for children and infants.’  The American Academy of Pediatrics and 100 other experts in children’s health wrote to express their ‘deep concern’ over the bill because it ‘would have the effect of permitting more lead in toys.’  Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and a majority of the Commission wrote that the bill ‘would effectively revoke key protections … and fails to adequately protect the health and safety of American children.’ ” I have rebutted the consumer group ”arguments” numerous times in this space already. I am not going to repeat myself here.  Mr. Waxman’s reference to “triple” lead levels refers to a new limitation on the excessive and useless 100 ppm lead standard that, btw, has never been deemed technologically feasible by the CPSC.  The “change” to lead levels of 100 times or more than existing standards refers to the rule exempting metal alloys (like brass) complying with the stay authorized by the CPSC Commission.  OMG, you mean we can still use brass in children’s products like pens and trumpets?  The HORROR! Neither the consumer groups nor Mr. Waxman and his Dem brethren have answered my question – Where are the victims?   This question was asked several times in the April 7th hearing by members of the committee.  To date, no one has supplied even one case history. No one calls Mr. Waxman to account for his lies and innuendos, so he persists in trashing those who can’t defend themselves.  This is not unlike his unjustified attacks on Toyota that were later proven FALSE .  Mr. Waxman did something similar at the April 7th hearing first discussing the CPSIA Amendment.  In his opening statement , Mr. Waxman laid it on thick:  ” But your discussion draft, which is the subject of today’s hearing, takes a wrecking ball to the law and would endanger young children. . . . Your discussion draft is a very different document. Democrats, consumer groups, and health experts were not consulted. The result is a one-sided proposal that provides relief to industry, but sacrifices children’s health and safety. . . . I have learned over the last few months that there seems to be no limit to the ability of the new Republican majority to pass bad legislation in this Committee and on the House floor. I have no doubt that if you want to do so, you could do so again with your draft bill.  But there is no chance that a bill this extreme could ever become law. It would not survive in the Senate and if it did, it would be vetoed by the President . ” [Emphasis added] It’s always nice to end with a threat. The title of this post refers to a lampoon written by now Senator Al Franken (D-MN).  In this book , he contends that Republicans are liars.  Well, well, well, how times change, huh?  Mr. Franken???  Any comment? I didn’t think so.

Read More:
CPSIA – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

CPSIA – Good News and Bad News (Update No. 1)

Tokyo tap water is no longer suitable for babies 12 months or younger. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster spreads. Black smoke is seen coming out of Unit 3 at the nuclear plant and workers are evacuated again. Won’t be allowed back for 24 hours. Not to worry you . . . but they have no idea why it’s smoking. Japanese Broccoli is now found to give you a healthy glow (an extra “benefit”) and the import of many Japanese foods from the region have been banned by the U.S. FDA and by Hong Kong, soon to be followed by South Korea. One Austrian scientist says this disaster will be similar to Chernobyl, and their crud is blowing over here.

Back on the home front, we are not worried about radioactivity from Japan. Harmless! Rather than focusing on the impact of nuclear material showering down on us from the heavens, into our food, our water, our produce, onto our skin and breathed into our lungs every moment of the day now, those valiant defenders of children, the CPSC, will be holding a highly-publicized hearing on pool drains – because a newspaper currently in bankruptcy hired an uncertified lab to perform tests on drain covers that have not apparently been involved in injuries. This is a TOP priority of our nurturing government. Who says we don’t need more government? Come on, baby, give me MORE!

Of course, I make light – after all, I am a blogger, I must do so. The real scourge for children, as anyone can tell you, is not airborne radioactive material, but lead – which is why our CPSC has worked so tirelessly for three years to identify dangerous items like ballpoint pens, rhinestones, brass bushings on toy car wheels, ATV engine blocks, bicycle frames and bicycle vinyl seats, branding them as unsuitable for sale (or exposure) to children under 13 years of age.

Of course, there’s plenty of legal mumbo-jumbo to consider, provisos and the like. Having carefully sorted out the hazard, our CPSC has determined that pens are only dangerous if they are intended for use by children. [Ballpoint pens have a tiny brass ball at the ink end, and brass contains 2-4% lead by weight. I bet you're scared now!] The ACTUAL USE of pens is not the health concern – what matters instead is what the manufacturer intended – you know, their state of mind at the time of sale. Hasn’t your mother ever told you that it’s what’s in your heart that REALLY matters? The CPSC took this on board. After much cogitating, they determined that it’s not a problem if 100% of children use ballpoint pens – no, it’s only a problem if kids use a ballpoint pen INTENDED for use by children. THAT’S unacceptably dangerous and big penalties and recalls can result if you step over the line. They must have figured out that the state of mind of the manufacturer changes the physical character of the pen – pens literally take on the power to harm when a manufacturer thinks about selling them to kids!

It’s a good thing we employ so many scientists at the CPSC. I hate to think about the crazy rules they’d come up with if they didn’t have such a solid grounding in real science. Of course, they also employ many lawyers . . . . Could it be the lawyers???

Of course, I jest. The CPSC is certainly right – how could such an august organization err? And experts have told them they’re right – that’s a double-check right there. At the February 16th hearing on the 100 ppm lead standard, Don Mays from Consumers Union, a REAL expert, kicked off his testimony by reminding the Commission that there is NO safe level for lead. [I did not provide you with a clip of those magical words, but you can dig them up yourself if you don't believe me.] Mr. Mays was joined on the consumer group panel by another RENOWNED expert, Dr. Dana Best of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Mr. Mays and Dr. Best had a revealing dialogue with Commissioner Anne Northup on the horrors of brass instruments. You will see that the CPSC has no choice, the risks to children are so severe. Here’s a transcript (you can see the video here):

AN: “Do you think that children that are in the 3rd and 4th grade should be prohibited from playing brass instruments considering the lead content of that brass?”

DM: “I think children should not be exposed to lead unnecessarily. And children in the 3rd and 4th grade, I have a daughter in the 4th grade and I certainly wouldn’t want her to be exposed to lead if that was coming from an instrument.”

AN: “So you would not let her play, like, the horn.”

DM: “I would be very concerned about that, that’s for sure. She does not play the horn, she plays the violin. Ha Ha Ha.”

DB: “The mouthpieces on most of those instruments are not brass.”

AN: “Yes, exactly. But they’re holding them. They sling them around and hold them. . . . They could practice at night and play it every day during class. That would mean an every day exposure. I just wondered if that would alarm you.”

DB: “Uh, it would alarm me that children were exposed unnecessarily to lead. And that’s again the responsibility of the CPSC to determine, to look at the studies on individual cases. I’m here to talk about the harms of lead to children and how they need to be protected.”

Frankly, I can’t remember if Ms. Northup started banging her head against a wall at that point or not . . . .

With this kind of counsel, you can rest assured that the CPSC has its priorities straight. Don Mays and Dana Best are on the case! Just PLEASE don’t mention bicycle licking . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Good News and Bad News (Update No. 1)

CPSIA – Answers to Supplemental House Questions (Hearing of Feb. 17th)

This is my Response for the Record to questions posed by Rep. Mike Pompeo after the February 17th hearing held by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade:

February 17, 2011
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee:
“A Review of CPSIA and CPSC Resources”

Congressman Mike Pompeo

1. Did your company have to buy a copy of the F-963 standard? Why? How much did that cost?

Our company has purchased several copies of ASTM F963 over the years. According to the ASTM International website (http://www.astm.org/Standards/F963.htm), the current cost of F963 is $62, or $74 (redline version). [This means that the ASTM literally charges companies EXTRA to figure out what changed in this legally-mandated standard.] To my knowledge, this standard is only available from the ASTM. Ironically, even the CPSC is unable to provide access to this document (as acknowledged in this CPSC Powerpoint presentation http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/intl/toyweb2_en.pdf) which casts doubt on its ability to guide companies attempting to comply with the law. The lack of access and cost of access to this standard certainly makes compliance burdensome for small businesses.

The F963 standard has been updated regularly over the years, and we need to have access to the current version of the standard at all times. Until the CPSIA was enacted, the F963 standard was the tacit equivalent of a mandatory standard because the toy industry adopted it as a “voluntary” standard with the encouragement of the CPSC. At one time, voluntary standards were the preferred way the agency regulated many industries, including our industry. We have always used the F963 standard as a reference in product development and safety administration and frequently tested for compliance with the standard.

2. You’ve been dealing with all of the agency’s rules for the last few years. By my reckoning, an entrepreneur with, say, a good idea for a board game would have to pay to buy a copy of F-963 from ASTM (not a small price to pay for some small or start-up toymakers). Then, because the standard is literally dozens of pages long of densely spaced text, he’d have to hire a lawyer to tell which parts of the standard apply to his product. Then, he’d have to find a third-party test lab to test and certify a random sample of his actual production line for compliance with all of the F-963 requirements. And, if any product fails, you are basically back to the drawing board. And, of course, he’d have to do all this before ever selling a single toy. Do you think the next board game entrepreneur (e.g., Trivial Pursuit) might have a hard time getting off the ground under this regime? Has this agency effectively killed entrepreneurship in the toy market? Does a start-up company stand any chance of being able to navigate the CPSC’s new rules and regulations on its own?

The CPSIA has had the effective of creating new barriers of entry in the children’s product market, once one of America’s most entrepreneurial industries. The burdens are heavy in the toy industry but even worse in related industries like juvenile products. Large companies with steady cash flow enjoy considerable and valuable advantages over entrepreneurs who must put large sums of money at risk in their initial investment in compliance costs before receiving their first dollar of revenue. The effect of the CPSIA is one of picking winners and losers in affected markets. I question whether this is the appropriate role of the federal government in our markets.

We believe that these heavy costs will discourage investment in new products, by new entrants, by existing players and especially by small businesses. Recently, at the CPSC’s hearing on the looming 100 ppm lead standard, representatives of the bicycle industry noted that in the wake of the 300 ppm lead standard, many small bicycle manufacturers have already left the market and large companies cut their product lines considerably. I have long predicted a reduction in product diversity as a necessary consequence of the CPSIA. Other evidence of market contraction exists, as well. At this year’s ICPHSO, CPSC Acting Director of the Office of Compliance and Field Operations Robert (“Jay”) Howell noted the CPSC’s challenge in identifying a test lab that has or will agree to equip itself as a certified test lab for ATVs. Why? So many ATV manufacturers have stopped producing youth model ATVs under the effective ban by the CPSIA’s lead standards that testing labs can’t justify the capital investment to provide CPSIA compliance testing. Product diversity is declining all over the children’s product market.

Toymakers will experience the same depressing effect and yes, that means that the next Trivial Pursuit inventor may be washed out. We may never know because the absence of a new toy or novel game will be hard to detect in the ad-driven, promotional toy market. It is clear, however, that entrepreneurs are free to deploy their capital wherever they want – they are seeking returns on their capital – so the combination of high CPSIA compliance costs, high regulatory risk, high legal costs and a generally hostile regulatory environment seems unlikely to attract new entrants to the toy market. War stories will also discourage new entrants – the well-known experience of toymakers who have suffered under this regulatory regime.

As a practical matter, the rules and regulations put out by the CPSC to implement the CPSIA for toys are incomprehensible, not to mention incomplete. We are now 31 months into the CPSIA era, yet the CPSC has yet to promulgate a final phthalate standard or certify even one phthalates testing lab. EACH and EVERY toy must be “phthalate-free” but the CPSC has yet to tell us how to know it has achieved this goal. This means we are subject to the risk that they will invalidate all the work we have done since 2008. While this regulatory delay is simply outrageous, it is more likely proof of the defects in the CPSIA than a sign of failure by the CPSC. Even the largest companies have complained to the CPSC about the blizzard of rules and interpretations. One of great frustrations in attempting to comply with the new rules is that many CPSC legal interpretations have been given in private letters, orally in speeches or even in the form of voicemails. Access to such information may be critical but is obviously inaccessible to anyone not obsessively watching every minute of every video, reading every letter, attending every meeting or hearing and talking to every stakeholder in an attempt to master the breadth of this ever-morphing regulatory scheme.

3. Does the existence of a small business ombudsman at the agency solve the compliance problem?

The office of the Small Business Ombudsman serves a useful purpose as a friendly point of contact and possible advocate for small business within the agency. That said, there is no evidence that the office has power to make decisions, change policy or offer its own definitive interpretation of rules. For small businesses totally at a loss, the ombudsman is a good place to turn to for plain English answers to basic questions about rules. Notably, the office is not permitted to make decisions on behalf of the agency. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make problems “go away”. For this reason, the ombudsman function appears to be the regulatory equivalent of a shoulder to cry on. The current ombudsman, Neil Cohen, has been a good friend to the small business community, but unfortunately, he doesn’t write the rules.

4. What problems do you anticipate occurring as a result of the public database?

We know that the public database will be administered on a post-it-and-forget-it basis. Based on our dealings with the agency, I believe that the agency will post all incidents unless a mistaken identity can be proven. As a consequence, we anticipate that the database will be allowed to be filled up with “incidents” that are conjectural, misleading or even proven WRONG. In the first and only filing against our company, an anonymous complaint accused one of our products of posing a small parts hazard. That accusation was based on an image viewed on a website – there is no indication that the filer had ever handled our product. Consequently, the filer had no reasonable basis for the small parts claim. As a matter of fact, we routinely test for small parts and have done so for years, and when we presented a valid CPSIA test report under F963 (and EN71, the European standard), we were told by the General Counsel of the CPSC that the claim would nevertheless be eligible to be published under current rules. Thus, we KNOW that the false and misleading filings will KNOWINGLY be published by the CPSC even if PROVEN false. We believe this flagrantly violates our basic right to due process and creates the potential for damaging “feeding frenzies” that can consume our products and brands.

Other claims may relate to “hazards” which affect a wide swath of products already well-known by regulators and industry. This presents many risks to industry and to brands. What will a consumer make of a “report of harm” relating to a general hazard and only one particular product? Is this a minor incident or a harbinger of a real risk? Should they stop using the product? Should they stop using the particular model or brand which is subject of the complaint? Given that many products may present the same hazard (for instance, that an electrical cord could pose a strangulation hazard), how does this information help consumers? Will consumers actually understand the issue and be able to put it into some sort of perspective? And when incidents accumulate, as they are likely to do, presumably the brands and models with the largest numbers in distribution will have more incidents even though, ironically, they may be better constructed and “safer” than the alternatives. Will consumers falsely conclude that the models with more incidents are less safe and turn to something that really is?

Responding to this type of complaint obviously creates a new and terrible dilemma for manufacturers. Should they expend resources to respond? Do they need to lay out “a brief” about the nature of the failure and why their product is named? Will people just view whatever they say as unreliable, self-serving information or will they really be able to internalize the data? As noted above, most people will not be able to put these incidents in any kind of perspective. The only thing we know for certain is that brands and companies will be the losers.

The public portrayal of the database belies the unverified nature of the filings. Notwithstanding the disclaimers made by the agency, even esteemed media outlets like The New York Times refer to the database as a “database of unsafe products”. Unsafe? That label presumes some kind of judgment or filter prior to filing, which even The New York Times must assume is being provided by the CPSC. Ironically, the CPSC is doing everything possible to avoid providing that service. The result may be disastrous for American manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers of children’s products. It will be yet another self-inflicted economic injury.

5. What can Congress do to return the agency to one that regulates on the basis of risk?

Congress should mandate that the CPSC use principles of risk assessment to make all decisions relating to regulation of children’s products. The legislatively-mandated use of judgment and proportionality will likely lead to better rulemaking and more regulatory common sense. It is the legislative banishing of the exercise of judgment that led to the devastation of the bicycle industry, the elimination of youth model ATVs from the market (even though those products owe their very existence to a concerted effort by the CPSC to protect children from injury on adult-sized ATVs), the banning of all products made of brass, the senseless and almost neurotic banning of rhinestones as embellishments on children’s clothing, shoes and jewelry, and so on. NONE of these changes in rules have been tied to even ONE avoided injury.

Congress should also mandate the use of principles of cost-benefit analysis by the agency in its rulemaking processes. Under the CPSIA, all considerations of economics have flown out the window with predictably disastrous results. We can operate our government better according to basic common sense notions of cost-benefit analysis.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Answers to Supplemental House Questions (Hearing of Feb. 17th)

CPSIA – What Does the CPSC Know that the EPA Doesn’t?

At the recent 100 ppm hearing before the CPSC Commission, Nancy Nord asked presenters to submit regulations put out by other agencies restricting lead in our environment. She presumably wanted perspective on whether a reduction to 100 ppm lead-in-substrate content in children’s products would actually improve health or instead, simply further punish the fools who stubbornly remain in the children’s products market.

I submit here EPA regulations on permissible lead levels in play yards and residential dirt. Pleae note that lead in dirt is soluble, so it actually presents a health risk to children. In 2001, the EPA implemented a revised legal/regulatory architecture to protect children from lead-in-paint and lead in the environment. The regulations (40 CFR Part 745) are entitled “Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule”.

I think this is an interesting rule because we sell sand and soil as part of children’s science kits. Hmmm. The CPSIA restricts lead content in everything we sell, even fossils and rocks, hence our well-known lead labels. Does the EPA permit something that the CPSC forbids?

Guess!

Consider what the EPA said about its new regulations:

“EPA is also promulgating amendments to the regulations for leadbased paint activities under the authority of TSCA section 402 (15 U.S.C. 2682) and to the State and Tribal program authorization requirements under authority of TSCA section 404 (15 U.S.C. 2684). These changes are needed to ensure consistency among the various regulations covering lead risks under TSCA.”

Consistency seems to be a concern of the EPA. How quaintly passé.

Nonetheless, the EPA seems to understand what is at stake for American children when it comes to lead:

“Reducing exposure to lead has been an important issue for EPA for more than 2 decades. Young children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead because their nervous systems are still developing and they absorb more of the lead to which they are exposed. Many of the health effects associated with lead are thought to be irreversible. Moreover, the effects at lower levels of exposure are often asymptomatic. In light of the impacts on children and the nature of the health effects, EPA’s goal is to eliminate exposure to harmful levels of lead.” They get it, right?

Uh-oh. The EPA veers away from the current script . . . .

“First and foremost, the Agency faces the difficulty of determining the level at which to set the standards given the uncertainties in information on cause and effect–what environmental levels in which specific medium may actually cause particular blood lead levels that are associated with adverse health effects. The Agency has tools, which are only generally consistent, that show that certain increases in environmental lead levels are associated with certain increases in blood lead levels. Given the range of uncertainty shown in its analysis supporting the establishment of a hazard level under this rule, EPA has developed a technical analysis that considers hazard standards for dust and soil at the lowest levels at which the analysis shows that across-the-board abatement on a national level could be justified. EPA recognizes, however that for any levels of lead in dust or soil judgment must be exercised as to how to treat the medium, and interim controls as well as abatement could be effective.” [Emphasis added]

Sounding like administrators from another planet, the EPA continues:

“In performing its analyses for this rule, the Agency could not quantitatively compare interim control strategies with abatement strategies because there are only limited data available on the effectiveness of interim controls over extended periods of time, and those data which are available are not suitable for quantitative comparisons with abatements. In comparing interim control strategies with abatement strategies, one must make a number of assumptions
concerning the costs of administrative management, and frequency of monitoring and renewal over the planning horizon. For the 50–year planning horizon which the Agency used in its dust and soil analyses, one would have to compare the time stream of interim control expenses, for as long as such expenses are necessary, and weigh the possible differences in potential blood-lead reductions, to make a fair comparison of abatement and interim control strategies.” [Emphasis added]

Later, the EPA warns: “Also, identification of lead-based paint hazards under this regulation is sure to have impacts that could be expensive even though the range of expenses is, itself, difficult to resolve because of the uncertainty of individual behavior and the willingness of individuals to accept risks that EPA may identify. Thus, if EPA were to choose standards that are too low, the public could be unable to distinguish between trivial risks at the low levels of lead from the more serious risks at higher levels. This could result in clean up for little to no health benefit, or conversely, it could result in almost no clean up because persons would question the credibility of the ‘hazard’ determination.” [Emphasis added]

Clearly the EPA just does not get around very much. Damn the expense, man, there is NO safe level of lead!!!

Importantly, the EPA seems to grasp the difference between CORRELATION and CAUSATION. I wish Congress understood that idea a bit better. . . .

“For dust and soil, EPA had substantial raw data on environmental levels and blood lead levels, even though it faced substantial uncertainty in correlating the levels. . . . If EPA were to set unreasonable standards (e.g., standards that would recommend removal of all lead from paint, dust, and soil), States and Tribes may choose to opt out of the Title X lead program and property owners may choose to ignore EPA’s advice, believing it lacks credibility and practical value. Consequently, EPA needed to develop standards that would protect children without wasting resources by chasing risks of negligible importance and that would be accepted as reasonable by States, Tribes, local governments, and property owners.”

Hope you weren’t eating while you read that last bit. Sorry!

I could quote from this document all day. In light of the nightmare that is the CPSIA, the EPA rules read like some sort of comedy routine. Unfortunately, the joke is on us.

So what did the EPA actually do?

“As stated in Unit II.F.3., today’s rule establishes two hazard standards for bare residential soil; 400 ppm for play areas and an average of 1,200 ppm for the rest of the yard. [See 40 CFR §745.65(c)] EPA recommends that organizations and individuals consider some action in certain areas even where levels in bare soils are below the hazard standard, particularly, if there is a concern that children 6 years and under might spend substantial time in such areas, or if there is concern that the bare soil in such areas may contribute to lead levels in the dwelling, or in the play areas. However, this rule does not mandate that any action be implemented when levels are found to be below the lead hazard standard. Moreover, the kind of response that organizations and individuals might consider could include modest actions such as planting grass (or other ground cover) to more extensive actions such as covering the bare soil with several inches of clean fill.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The standard for play yards (sand) is 400 ppm lead and for bare soil is 1200 ppm lead. If we put a bag of dirt in a child’s science toy, the current CPSC limit is 300 ppm and at this very moment, the Commission is mulling a reduction of the lead limit in that soil to 100 ppm. This change will make more science products either illegal or unsalable for children under 13 years of age. We don’t believe lead labels solve the problem.

The CPSC’s rule on our products will have no effect on play yards, bare soil or anything except items defined as “Children’s Products” under the incomprehensible rule adopted by the Commission.

The longer this goes on, the more I am convinced that only a new government solves the problem. Sad . . . but true.

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Does the CPSC Know that the EPA Doesn’t?

CPSIA – 100 ppm Lead Standard Hearing Video Link

You can watch today’s CPSC hearing beginning at 10 AM EST at this link.

Read more here:
CPSIA – 100 ppm Lead Standard Hearing Video Link

CPSIA – My Written Testimony at Senate Hearing 12-2-10

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Written Testimony at Senate Hearing 12-2-10

CPSIA – My Comment Letter on 100 ppmLead Standard

774 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 36 days left until Election Day.

My comment letter submitted today on the proposed 100 ppm lead standard due to be inflicted on August 14, 2011:

September 27, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 502
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0080 Children’s Products Containing Lead; Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm for Lead Content

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on Children’s Products Containing Lead; Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm for Lead Content (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0080) published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2010 (the “Proposed Rule”).

You have requested feedback and additional information on several topics relating to the prospect of a new lower 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard. I will attempt to respond to your specific queries at the end of this letter. I find that the questions you have articulated are basically irrelevant to our company’s situation. Your questions seem to presume that the standard will be implemented. If you take the step of implementing the new standard, you will be inflicting needless and extension damage to our company with absolutely no corresponding benefit to consumers or the general public. This is terrible and irresponsible public policy. The new standard is not based on science but rather phobia and fear of the unknown. Our business will suffer for no purpose. The jobs lost will at your hand.

I want to comment on process. The agency appears to be in a race to complete its CPSIA rulemakings before year end, damn the consequences. According to www.regulations.gov, the CPSC received 73 comment letters on the Proposed Interpretative Rule for “Children’s Product” (CPSC-2010-0029 due June 21, 2010). Nevertheless, as has been widely reported, the agency ignored or glossed over the vast majority of those comments (including all of mine) and pronounced the draft rule to be “final” with virtually no changes. This flagrant disregard of public comments turned the CPSC’s rulemaking process into a sham if not an outright breach of law. I believe the agency intends to pass through rulemaking this year to avoid the embarrassment of further extending the CPSIA testing stay due to expire on February 10, 2011. The incentive to give short shrift to our comments grows daily.

I have lost faith in the sincerity of the agency’s interest in public comments after two years of being completely ignored. To judge by the agency’s disregard of my numerous comment letters, I must add little to your deliberations – in which case I do not understand why you ask me to waste hours on letters like this. After all, if you have no interest in my views, why not let me spend my time on other more productive activities? Unfortunately, I have also learned that any silence by stakeholders will be interpreted as “approval” by the powers-that-be. Thus, we are left with no option but to write these letters. With those thoughts in mind, I hereby submit my comments on the 100 ppm lead standard, fully anticipating that I will be ignored yet again.

I am aware that the agency contends that it is “compelled” to implement this new standard without regard to economics. The extremely rigid legislative language governing the implementation of the 100 ppm standard is thus portrayed as insurmountable. Is the agency truly powerless to resist? I might take that position more seriously if the agency was equally committed to following the law in other aspects of its daily affairs. However, the CPSC exhibits no such self-restraint. CPSC recalls initiated in flagrant disregard for the “substantial product hazard” standard in Section 15 of the CPSA demonstrates that the agency can invent legal flexibility wherever it wants. For instance, the CPSC pressed for a recall of McDonald’s Shrek glasses (signifying that the glasses were a “substantial product hazard”) despite this June 4th acknowledgement by the agency’s Director of Public Affairs in a tweet: “Scott_Wolfson: Note to reporters: the recalled McDonald’s glasses are not toxic.” Safe glasses do not constitute a “substantial product hazard” by any definition – yet the agency proceeded anyhow.

So when does the law actually matter, precisely? If safe drinking glasses may be labeled a “substantial product hazard”, then I guess anything goes. I find it worrisome to be regulated by a federal agency which does not abide by a disciplined interpretation of law but instead caters to prevailing political whims. If the law means nothing, then the agency should not presume to assert its inability to resist this provision. I think that’s just too convenient to be believable.

My comments on the proposed 100 ppm standard are informed by my view that the agency can do as it pleases. I have not restricted myself by the fiction that economics don’t matter.

The problems with the 100 ppm Lead Standard:

a. The new standard will have NO impact on human health. There is simply no evidence of injuries from lead at levels between 100 ppm and 300 ppm in substrate. It is notable that no other federal agency (NIH, CDC, EPA, FDA, etc.) has identified lead-in-substrate as a human health hazard. Without evidence of injuries at these barely measurable lead levels, the new standard cannot be justified economically or otherwise. It is worth noting that if the “cost” of lead-in-substrate levels of 100-300 ppm cannot be measured, the “benefit” of the new standard will be equally elusive. Given the known costs of this initiative, the new standard fails any conceivable cost-benefit analysis.

I published a study of CPSC recall data from 1999-2010 in my blog (www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com) in May 2010, revealing that only one death has been documented in association with lead in children’s products in the last 11 years, and only three (unverified) lead injuries in the same period. This is substantially fewer childhood fatalities and serious injuries than swimming pools and spas cause in an average day according to CPSC statistics. Given the trillions of daily interactions between children and Children’s Products in the course of a year, these meager 11-year lead injury totals are the statistical equivalent of no injuries. Thus, it will be impossible to prove statistically that any reduction in injuries flows from the change in standard. Troubling? Fear of lead-in-substrate is nothing more than a Congressionally-endorsed fear of cooties.

b. The new standard will substantially raise our product costs. The new standard means we will need to implement much tighter manufacturing tolerances for materials and for our processes. The many extra man-hours needed to implement and maintain these tighter tolerances will be expensive. It is difficult to estimate the cost, but we project a 10-20% increase in cost for finished goods subject to the new standard. Subcontractors who manufacture our goods will charge us for the risk of waste, plus the additional overhead required by the new standard. That is, they will charge us more if they are still willing to remain a vendor of Children’s Products subject to this standard. We are a small business, so many of our factories may feel our short runs are simply not worth the risk. That’s how I would look at it if I were them. Loss of vendors (manufacturing capacity) is yet another cost we would bear under the new standard.

It is worth noting that based on the results of our last two years of testing (thousands of testing line items), we estimate that less than 2% of our testing line items fall between 100 ppm and 300 ppm in lead as of today. The cost of trolling for those few affected components will be excessive and the waste associated with replacing “defective” materials will be a tax on our entire production and fulfillment processes. Not exactly a stimulus program. . . .

c. Our ability to control lead levels is unknown because test result variances are so wide. We have found that testing multiple samples from the same lot can show variances of up to 67% in lead content. It doesn’t take much variance to produce wild percentage swings at such trace lead levels. As an illustration, I have attached hereto a test report on a SINGLE PIECE OF PLASTIC STRING used to fasten a mesh bag. The string was tested in ten places, resulting in lead levels of 239 -275 ppm. In another case, we found three test results of the same yellow plastic substrate varied from 23 -139 ppm. None of this matters from a safety standpoint but from a regulatory standpoint, it’s a crisis in the making.

These small variances potentially endanger our business. How are we supposed to run our business selling inexpensive children’s products burdened by such an inflexible physical standard? The CPSC needs to recognize that substrates in the real world are not pure, consistent and invariable. The tight tolerances in this new standard will likely have us retesting several items a month at considerable expense and strain. [And G-d knows what standard the CPSC will inflict on us to govern retesting.] Each retest would presumably interfere with our ability to deliver on time and would stress our system and our people. Out-of-pocket costs would be high, perhaps over $100,000 per annum for our product portfolio of 1500 items; labor and other frictional costs would no doubt add to this total substantially.

d. It will be impossible to predict which components will fail. As test results tend to vary significantly for components from the same lot, it is difficult to control or predict problems. We have found violative results for many different materials used in our business – there is no pattern. Defects found in certain components might render the entire finished good worthless, potentially greatly increasing our losses. For example, an inexpensive backpack might be found to have a zipper that violates the new standard upon completion of the production run. This could happen even after extensive pre-manufacturing testing because physical goods tend to vary in composition. Perhaps only a tiny percentage of the zippers violate the new standard by a few ppm, but given the cost to repair and rehab the item and the practical inability to identify violative zippers, the entire lot of backpacks might have to be scrapped. There would be an increased incentive to substitute components across entire product lines, not because of any health or safety concern but simply to avoid regulatory compliance risk. Differences in utility would be a secondary consideration to avoidance of CPSC recalls or scrapping finished goods inventory. This situation would not be stable because consumers would not likely accept lower standards for our products just to mollify the CPSC – other seismic market changes could be anticipated.

e. The legal risks implicit in the new standard are simply intolerable. Let me ask you a question: how would you attempt to manage a major risk to your business caused by less than 2% of your activity? What if you had no idea WHICH 2% it was? What could you do? I think you might reevaluate your business model. Most people don’t roll the dice on their family wealth or their regular income. By imposing a standard for lead-in-substrate that is barely above measurable levels, the agency would be imposing EXACTLY this risk on us.

We believe we would be exposed to a daily risk of assault by consumer groups and other do-gooders bent on our destruction. This combat would be divorced from considerations of safety – it would be all about regulatory compliance. Our business purpose is not to pay fees to CPSC Bar attorneys, write up Section 15 reports or perform recalls. We do not have the profit margins to finance this kind of wasteful activity and do not have the spare capacity to deal with the regulatory “crisis of the day”. The legal risks of such conflict can quickly get out of control – and insurance is simply not a viable option economically. If we must bear these heightened risks, we will have to revisit our business model.

I hope the agency will not dare the children’s product industry to go belly up just to prove this point.

f. Companies, acting in good faith, are generally INCAPABLE of adopting the new standard as a practical matter. Everything can be made of low lead materials. Zippers can be made of platinum, alphabet blocks can be made of wood, cotton fibers or rhodium. Use of recycled materials can be discontinued (the anti-green movement). Durable and inexpensive materials used for years without incident can be discarded in favor of “purer” materials. All of these things are possible. But they are not practical and they are not economic. If we are to indulge the fantasy of the money-oblivious CPSIA, then whatever we can imagine is possible and money doesn’t matter. This is regrettably unrealistic – businesses exist in the real world and money DOES matter. Thus, companies operating in good faith can’t adopt the new standard if their business model is scrambled.

g. Dealers in our goods can be expected to adopt their own standards to create a regulatory “cushion”. Distributors and retailers have been building their own safe harbors to provide CPSIA protection over the last two years. We have many customers with unique and wildly variant compliance requirements despite the crafting of thousands of pages of rules from the CPSC under the CPSIA. Our dealers can always beat the CPSC in a game of “Can you top this?” If the agency implements a 100 ppm standard, we fully expect a new outbreak of “regulatory compliance exuberance” among retailers. What will happen to us under those circumstances? With a CPSC-fed mania, we will incur yet more costs and bear yet more risks. Our markets will shrink.

h. We believe these rules will so demoralize and de-motivate our staff that we will face high turnover rates among our employees who know all of your rules. Our regulatory compliance team is not on “work release” from jail. Their jobs are not intended as a form of societal punishment. If, however, compliance with the CPSC’s bureaucratic rules becomes too tedious or risky, or the stress of managing a string of crises and a blizzard of conflicting rules becomes overwhelming, our trusted associates will seek less stressful employment elsewhere. They don’t HAVE TO do this for a living. What is the CPSC planning to do to help small businesses who find themselves back at square one after a costly investment of thousands of dollars in specialized training? Is the new CPSC Small Business Ombudsman going to wave a magic wand to make our problems go away? I think we all know the answer – too bad for us.

Here are the answers to your questions:

1. Materials that are consistently under 100 ppm in lead content. You have previously provided a list of such materials for the 300 ppm standard. This list included some useful concessions, such as wood and cotton fibers, but also included useless and irritating examples like gold and platinum, gemstones and various byproducts of nuclear decay. In our experience, the common substrate materials used in educational products have varying (trace) levels of lead. As noted above, we have seen significant variances in lead content in a single string, and in substrates taken from the same lot. I have no confidence that any material we use can be proven to ALWAYS contain than 100 ppm lead.

2. Strategies or Devices to comply with the new 100 ppm standard. The only strategy we could employ is pre-manufacturing testing on materials with substantially increased testing frequency. As noted above, natural variances among many materials prevent us from creating any reliable safe harbor and cost increases from such testing activity (and the cost of scrapping otherwise acceptable raw materials) will greatly shrink our product line. As a consequence, we would likely have to sharply reduce our product line or go out of business – all thanks to the CPSC and our Congress!

3. Consequences of use of compliant materials meeting the needs of the product. We have not spent any resources evaluating the market demand for educational products made of platinum. We do not intend to switch over to osmium or ruthenium for their purported lead-free properties (we find toxicity to be a greater concern). We have not spent our time figuring out if gold is a suitable material for pattern blocks or our Reading Rods. There is no answer to this ridiculous question. As I mentioned above, more than 98% of our test line items complies with the new standard. The materials and components that fail do not fit a pattern. Tests are inconsistent, too.

4. For products that meet the 300 ppm standard but not the 100 ppm standard, provide data on compliance. As noted, we find that we are already 98%+ compliant with the new standard. The components that fail do so unpredictably and inconsistently. Even the same material out of the same lot produces varying test results, as do multiple tests of the same piece of string. We cannot run a business based on junk science intolerance of the world that G-d created. The crazy new 100 ppm lead standard is incompatible with variances found in the physical world.

I want to reiterate that the 100 ppm standard is entirely arbitrary and will save no lives and will preserve no IQ points.

5. Can such items be made compliant through use of other materials? Sure, of course they could. They would be unsalable because the products were rendered too expensive either by the engineering cost or the new materials cost. Is creating products that no one will buy an acceptable solution to this dilemma? Whether by economics (too costly to buy) or re-jiggering of business models (discontinued products), children will be purportedly “safer” because they will lose access to needed products. What a wonderful result! Does the CPSC advocate that American schools teach physical science with photos of magnets, paper clips and rocks? Perhaps we should revert to rote-and-repetition math education rather than modern techniques of hands-on learning. No doubt the CPSC would singlehandedly solve our national education crisis. Bring on pointless material substitutions and let the fun begin.

6. Best practices to be used to always comply with the new standard. I recommend dropping most products and only making items that are CERTAIN to be compliant. This in practical terms may be impossible, and as noted above, is completely uneconomic. Another good practice to discard everything that isn’t virgin material. I know that’s not “green” but we have to be really, really safe, right? Another super idea is to substantially increase our testing, but of course, we cannot afford the current level of testing as it is. That seems somehow unrealistic. Other strict controls on manufacturing seem equally out of reach. There are so many variables to manage to achieve the new standards – we must control the factory environment as though it were a hospital ICU. That’s just not possible at current cost levels. Our factories would have to be “restructured”. I bet the Small Business Ombudsman can coach us on this!!!

Please note: we don’t have to reorganize our factories because we don’t have to stay in the children’s product market. If the CPSC expects us to reorganize our entire way of doing business to accommodate a phobic standard not based on any observable public health problem, we may opt out. Is this really the purpose of the CPSC – to micromanage markets, to restructure the economy, to substitute for market forces? I think not. Please check the CPSA to see why your agency exists. I hope a Republican-controlled Congress will do exactly the same thing in a few weeks’ time.

7. The lowest technologically feasible lead level below 300 ppm in our products. We can achieve anything for a cost. There are no “lowest” levels. Why not specify entirely lead-free? We can make everything out of gold and osmium! Lay in a few gemstones and diamonds, and you will have a sparkling new toy that cannot poison anyone with lead. It may have other problems (choking hazards? Sharp points?) but at least no one will die from lead poisoning. Not that anyone did previously . . . .

8. The date by which our products can meet the 100 ppm standard. In my opinion, the date is NEVER, because we have no practical ability to control quality to the level you require. Even at our current 98%+ compliance with the new standard, it would be extraordinarily disruptive to attempt to be 100% compliant. After a few episodes of being shut down by the CPSC or sued by some lunatic consumer group over nothing, we would exit the market. If you intend to deprive us of the meaning and pleasure of our work to make children’s lives better, we’ll leave the well-being and education of our nation’s children to you. That would be a very sad day for us.

Thank you for considering my views on this important subject. This letter took me all day; I hope you won’t completely ignore it as you have all my other letters.

Sincerely,

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

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Comment Letter on 100 ppmLead Standard

CPSIA – REMINDER, Comments due on 100 ppm soon!

767 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 43 days left until Election Day.

I wanted to remind you that comments are due on the latest effort of your government and your CPSC to put us all out of business, namely the reduction of the lead standard to 100 ppm. I have previously analyzed this call for comments in this space and have nothing new to add.

As I noted in my last post, the call for comments rules out most sensible replies to the proposed reduction such as

• The cost is unaffordable and will render our products too expensive to produce
• The new limit is suitable for mass market products but will make specialty market products impossible to manufacture (too bad for us, I guess).
• The new limit is needlessly disruptive.
• The new limit substantially increases our liability exposure.
• The new limit creates yet more ways for the CPSC to interfere with our businesses.
• The new limit creates more externalities and randomness in our business results (another “profit prevention” initiative).
• The new limit will have absolutely no impact on human health but will have tremendous implications for business health.

All irrelevant.

If you can’t come up with anything to say to save your business under this provision, I still encourage you to send in a comment. Perhaps if we drown them with comments about the unfairness to small business, they might at least pause for a moment before sending us into business oblivion. You can always just thank them for putting you out of business. A “thank you” always goes a long way, just like your Mom used to tell you.

Yeah, thanks CPSC. It’s been a great ride . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – REMINDER, Comments due on 100 ppm soon!

« Previous Page