CPSIA – CPSC’s Shameful Failure of Leadership

On Monday, the CPSC will decide whether or not to extend the testing and certification stay that has been in place for two years. The 16-page document which sets out the parameters of the decision does not mention risk anywhere. That’s because the law prohibits the CPSC from considering safety in its work under the CPSIA. [Ironically, the CPSC warns users that use of its www.SaferProducts.gov website is at their own risk (see par. no. 2 in the user's agreement) - and ironically, we're talking about a "dot gov" website, too!]

The CPSC explains that extension of the stay is only one of its options. It can do nothing, it can roll all the existing stays forward, or just some of them (to heck with the ATV’rs and the bike industry). Presumably, they will choose to roll all of it forward to September 14, 2011. We can all be screwed on the same day. I like the symmetry of that!

The CPSC has not lost sight of the issues. They know they haven’t finished their work. They note that two years ago on February 9. 2009 when the Commission first extended the testing stay. it was because delaying implementation of the testing requirement by a year “give[s] us the time needed to develop sound rules and requirements as well as implement outreach efforts to explain these [new] requirements of the CPSIA and their applicability.”

How time flies! That didn’t happen, so the Commission again extended the stay by another year on December 8, 2010. Why? Chairman Tenenbaum: “I voted to extend the stay on lead content testing and certification until February 10, 2011, in order to allow component testing adequate time to develop and to give our stakeholders adequate notice of new requirements.” Commissioner Robert Adler: “One of the primary rationales advanced for extending the stay is to await the effective date of the so-called 15-month rule.”

Where does the time go?? None of that ever happened. Hey, CPSC, take all the time you need!

So now the Commission is poised to kick the can down the road until September 14, 2011. Why that date? The CPSC Staff report notes that this gives the Commission time to sort out the new, lower lead standard due to be imposed on August 10, 2011. The CPSC is holding a hearing on February 14 on the feasibility of the 100 ppm standard. As Staff notes, if the Commission doesn’t determine that 100 ppm is feasible, then they will have to set a standard between 300 ppm and 100 ppm that is feasible. “Feasibility” was defined in the CPSIA, lest there should be any disagreement, to exclude ANY consideration of economics. In other words, if it’s possible at any price or under any condition, it is considered “feasible” and thus mandated by the law. I can save the CPSC some time – under that definition, it’s definitely feasible. Completely unreasonable and unnecessary but “feasible”.

The idea promoted in the Staff memo is that we will time to get used to all this if the stay lifts a month after the implementation of the new lead standard. [The concept of "learning disability" floats through my head. Have we heard this song before?] “Staff recommends that the Commission extend the stay to allow time for the Commission to determine whether it is technologically feasible to lower the amount of lead in children’s products to 100 ppm.” I guess once the Commission makes up its collective mind, the CPSC will wave a magic wand and make your business, your supply chain and your sales channel comply with the new rules in a matter of days. The fact that the rules are hazy after almost three years is no concern of theirs. Is it a concern of yours?

I love magical rules and magical plans! It must be a job requirement for Commissioners to be wizards, too.

All concerns over the “15 Month Rule” seem to have evaporated. This is presumably Robert Adler’s doing (see his statement above, which is a rant that the 15 Month Rule and the stay are separable issues). The Staff report intones: “While a Commission decision to extend the current stay of enforcement will give industry an opportunity to test and certify finished products and components according to the final rule and provide the Commission time to clarify any confusion regarding the new rule, it is not necessary for the testing rule to be complete to lift the stay as to the initial test for lead compliance.” Can’t see any problem there, can you???

The CPSC doesn’t want you to worry, however. They have apparently promulgated several documents that set out their policy and whatnot on lead, namely “Statement of Commission Enforcement Policy on Section 101 Lead Limits” (February 6, 2009) (6 pages); “Children’s Products Containing Lead: Interpretative Rule on Inaccessible Component Parts” (August 7, 2009)(32 pages); “Statement of Policy: Testing and Certification of Lead Content in Children’s Products” (October 2009)(5 pages); and “Interim Enforcement Policy on Component Testing and Certification of Children’s Products and Other Consumer Products to the August 14,2009 Lead Limits” (December 28, 2009) (4 pages). If these four documents totalling 47 pages don’t clear up everything, the CPSC is ready for you. “Manufacturers of children’s products can seek guidance for what the Commission considers reasonable and representative testing in these rules.”

You may have to wait a few years for a reply, but darn it, they’re going to answer your question. And that’s because they really CARE. We’re the government and we’re here to help!

A few more cock-ups aren’t deterring the agency. The phthalates standard is still undrafted, likewise the certification procedures for phthalate testing labs. Oopsie! Well, they’ve been busy . . . and the much fantasized-over component testing “market” has failed to materialize. Imagine that, businesses that inadvertently serve the children’s market with components or which derive a small percentage of sales from children’s products aren’t volunteering to test their items and expose themselves to the ravages of a crazy and out-of-control federal agency. Shocking!

Those of you who live in the past may recall my mentioning this very issue on November 6, 2008 (yes, 2008) when I addressed the CPSC Lead Panel. [It's a safe assumption no one was listening at the agency - opportunities for stakeholder feedback is not for listening, it's for venting.] I talked about the futility of expecting our suppliers of aluminum foil (widely used in schools in science kits) to test their products. After all, they are allowed to sell it for use with food without testing, so why should they test for me? If I asked them for a test for compliance with the CPSIA, they would certainly refuse and then ask in outrage why I was selling aluminum foil to kids anyway. As I said, who could see this coming? No one . . . .

For all the outrages that this sick situation brings to mind, NOTHING is as shameful as the CPSC’s refusal to admit that this is all administrative, bureaucratic nonsense (or use your own word for “nonsense”) that has nothing to do with SAFETY. Oh yeah, safety – isn’t that word in the name of this agency – the Consumer Product SAFETY Commission. What about safety, guys? Are you concerned about that anymore? This failure of leadership is the basic issue I have with the folks running the agency today. There’s a reason that bureaucrats are called “soul-less”.

The fact is that this administration at the CPSC (Democrats) will not stand up for what’s right – they are prepared to go down with the ship. It’s ironic that they remain so strident and so stubborn. Mr. Obama can smell change in the air and even he has called for reconsideration of the deluge of regulations. The Republicans in the House have declared war on over-regulations and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has made reform of the CPSIA the top priority of Mary Bono-Mack’s subcommittee.

As I have said again and again – this is YOUR government at work. Their shameful acts which are harming your markets and your business are destroying jobs, discouraging innovation and hurting children by impairing the activities of businesses devoted to children’s welfare. This intolerable situation will only be fixed when you MAKE it change. You can do it and you must. There is a new Congress in town and they need to hear from you. Don’t let the Democrats keep on wrecking your industry. This isn’t about safety and never was. This is politics, pure and simple.

Make them pay for their sins. Call your Congressman.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC’s Shameful Failure of Leadership

CPSIA – Certainty, CPSIA-style

These days, you can count on the CPSC to hold against regulated companies, particularly in response to media inquiries. Facts are a secondary consideration. The WORST thing that could happen to you or your product is if a reporter calls the CPSC. You’re cooked – safety administration these days is some sort of reality show, and everything’s dangerous if a reporter is sniffing around.

And three years later, they’ll hit you with a big penalty.

This week’s crisis is the “discovery” by the Associated Press that some enamels used on glassware (the outside) have lead or cadmium bound in. The recall fo 12 million acknowledged safe Shrek glasses was the first indicator that we faced a “crisis”.

Heavy metal use in glassware enamel is not exactly big news, nor a particular cause for concern (except for enterprising and paranoid reporters). Consider for example that our ever-wise Congress EXEMPTED these coatings years ago from lead regulation (“[The lead paint ban] does not include printing inks or those materials which actually become a part of the substrate, such as the pigment in a plastic article, or those materials which are actually bonded to the substrate, such as by electroplating or ceramic glazing.” 16 CFR 1303.2(b)(1)). [You may also be interested to see all the other exemptions to the lead paint ban, in 16 CFR 1303.3.]

When confronted with the “shocking” news that other coated glasses besides Shrek had lead or cadmium in the enamels, the CPSC withered. They caved, and labeled these glasses (all very likely safe but featuring Super Hero images and the like) as “Children’s Products”. Here’s a video of the reporter enjoying his 15 minutes of fame playing off the Shrek scare. He concedes that even HE thinks the risk is “low”. No matter, it’s good to stir up the mud. AP needs all the coverage it can get these days.

I am so happy we are being ruled by junk scientists now.

And the CPSC’s determination that these products are “Children’s Products” means they are subject to CPSIA regulation. This empowers the agency to recall them “out of an abundance of caution” and to impose penalties for failures to comply with the myriad rules of the CPSIA. No matter that this classification was hardly clear previously. Hmmm. Let’s see how the mishmash interpretative rule on “Children’s Products” makes this determination “clear”.

I say “mishmash” because I defy you to figure this out for yourself by reading all the pages they threw at us. In fact, the latest “interpretation” in the so-called Final Rule does NOT seem to override the interpretive dicta in the prior version. It merely comments on the public comments that the agency by-and-large utterly ignored. The CPSC never bothers to reissue or conform past rules or interpretations. That’s a job for us hobbyists.

In any event, it so happens that I addressed this very issue in my comment letter on the rule. The following section comes from the never-overwritten text accompanying the prior version of the rule. Consider this advice given to industry:

“The more of these types of characteristics that a product has, the greater the likelihood that the product is a children’s product. For example, a pen which is decorated or whose advertising and marketing features themes that correspond to obvious children’s interests, e.g., preschool characters, will greatly influence the purchase for preschool children. However, there also are ‘novelty’ pens that could appeal to children 12 years of age or younger as well as older children and adults; such novelty pens would not be considered to be primarily intended for children. For example, a simple ball point stick pen bearing an elementary school’s name, without any other decorations, would likely appeal to anyone (i.e. students, teachers, parents) connected with the school. A pen with a silly head on the top, not associated with any particular mass media (and not sold in toy stores), may have just as much appeal to adults as it would to children. Pens with puzzle features that allow the user to take them apart and reconfigure the design also are likely to appeal to children and adults alike, and thus, are not likely to be considered children’s products because they are not primarily intended for children.”

Clear as mud.

Remember, we in industry must interpret this gobbledygook and run our businesses. Perhaps even more difficult is to use “rules” like this in agreement with your dealers. Basically, since the rules make no sense, it is not possible to agree with many or sometimes ANY of your customers. Welcome to my world.

It is extremely unfortunate that in the wake of conceding the safety of the Shrek glassware, and even worse, in the face of explicit exemptions of glazings in the FHSA, the CPSC would proceed to declare these items within the scope of its regulations, thus exposing yet another group of innocent companies to huge unexpected and unjustified losses. Brands will be further damaged, consumer confidence dented, and no doubt, sales of children’s products will be bruised in the prime selling season. Good going, government!

This agency seems downright dense about the impact of its activities. For myself, this act proves that the CPSC cannot be trusted, has lost any sense of what constitutes safe or unsafe, and is dangerously reactive (especially in response to members of Congress and members of the press). For regulated companies, this is the worst of times – we face a looney regulator who is absolutely devoid of self-discipline or judgment. They administer a kind of “hang-’em-high” justice. If you are ever in the gray area with the CPSC, you can count on them to push you over the edge. Their rationale – you have to err on the side of safety even if you have no reasonable basis to suspect that any safety issues existed.

Okay, I get it. But when the regulator has no idea where “safety” is, erring on the side of safety means pleasing reporters who are trying to sell papers. Reporters sell fear – that’s the only way to sell papers these days. Connect the dots – random losses are coming to all of us.

Selling children’s products is for crazy people. I cannot believe the damage being inflicted by these people.

The database gets approved tomorrow. Enjoy the ride!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Certainty, CPSIA-style

CPSIA – The Scoop on the CPSC Database

In response to my last blogpost, a little bird contacted me with some thoughts about the public database that consumer advocates and their leftist political allies are cramming down our throats. Apparently, there’s a big gulf between what the Commissioners are saying publicly and what they are saying privately. Take it for what it’s worth.

While you might not agree with the POV purportedly adopted by the Dems below, it certainly portrays them as rational. I think that’s right – they know what they’re doing and are doing it by choice, rather than by coercion. The fact that their actions will be harmful to the regulated community is not lost on them, but we’re just not their priority. THAT’S the real problem here.

Here’s a few tweets for you:

a. While the Dems “support” the database, they are privately acknowledging that it is a colossal waste of time and staff resources. They do NOT believe the database will be full of useful information to anyone. Why should you believe this? According to a reliable little bird on my window sill, the CPSC has not hired even ONE person to process all the information that will be posted in the database. The reason – the leaders don’t care if the data is correct or not. The phrase “post it and forget it” is their agenda.

Did you catch that? POST IT AND FORGET IT.

I believe I recall Rachel Weintraub touting the credibility and accuracy of this data. Hmmm. My so-and-so detector is going off . . . .

b. The driving plan of the Dems is to spend as little as possible on the database. They consider it a diversion of their scarce staff resources. They believe the database will do nothing – or almost nothing – to improve safety so why put money into it?

But they will vote for it – that’s the price of their political patrons – and I guess the impact of this useless database on your business and your willingness to engage in business activities is none of their concern. So they’ll implement it and fill it with garbage. Who cares . . . .

c. The speeches touting the database are intended to please the consumer groups and the political patrons of the Dems running the shop.

d. There is a recognition that allowing the database to swallow up resources at the agency will interfere with the real work of the agency. The Dems actually want to keep people safe so they are going to spend the bare minimum on the database.

The agency doing the bare minimum on the database should be the most frightening thing you have ever read about the database. And it’s true.

You’re not meant to know any of this. This freedom of speech thing is a real pain in the neck for our overlords.

It’s time to get REALLY scared about the database.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Scoop on the CPSC Database

CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

787 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 23 days left until Election Day.

Sean Oberle published a lengthy contemplation of the issue raised in my last post on the relationship between compliance and safety as objectives for regulators and for industry. Mr. Oberle’s essay speaks for itself, so I will not attempt to summarize it. He concludes with the following message: “Therein lies the frustrating and frightening aspect of product safety. Those of you tasked with ensuring product safety – industry rep, consumerist, and regulator alike – are trying to quantify ambiguity amid a chaos of demands … all of them in flux … I don’t envy you.”

Sean, boy are you right!

I think it’s worth discussing a few issues on compliance versus safety since Mr. Oberle devoted so much ink (or electrons) to the topic.

1. The law defines what the CPSC can and cannot do. It’s a shame no one told them . . . .

First and foremost, the CPSC exists because of the CPSA and its activities are governed by the CPSA. Recall authority is governed by Section 15 which limits the agency’s recall authority to “substantial product hazards”, namely a product that “. . . creates a substantial risk of injury to the public”. [Section 12 gives the agency additional powers to seek a court order for "imminent hazards".] In other words, the CPSC does not have the legislative authority to tilt at windmills – it cannot demand recalls for anything unless it presents a “substantial risk of injury to the public”.

Consider recalling 12 million glasses that the CPSC acknowledges in writing are SAFE. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than seven million trikes sold over 14 years that caused six children to cut themselves. Children who were under three years of age and should have been under the care of attentive adults. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than 400,000 Sarge cars because the little yellow dot on the wheel hubcap violated the lead-in-paint ban, and those dots were produced from two cans of paint. Substantial risk of injury?

One must distinguish between legerdemain and reality, between policy and what the law intended. It is a little focused-upon responsibility of the agency to exercise this judgment. Is it even possible for everything that happens to be a “substantial” risk? We know of cases where a single broken toy without an injury provoked an official investigation at the agency. Fair? Is this an activity that the CPSA authorizes? It is . . . if you are running the agency and you say it is. Arguably, the recall of the 480,000 Mattel Wheelies on September 30 was just such a case. Consumers apparently reported two broken cars with wheels that fell off, and no injuries were reported or implied. Substantial risk of injury? I question that.

2. The notion that we need all this supervision flies in the face of injury statistics. But it sure makes the CPSC look irreplaceable, doesn’t it?

I have already published and discussed ad nauseum the historical injury statistics from lead based on CPSC recall notices – ONE DEATH and THREE UNVERIFIED INJURIES over 11 years (1999-2010). If we were facing such a dire public health crisis, why weren’t kids dropping like flies from lead poisoning over such a long time period of “lax regulation”? If the harm was so widespread and so devastating, why aren’t any of these actual victims known? Names, addresses, photos, case histories?

A friend replied to me recently reasoning that there is no safe level of lead. Okay, I concede that lead can be dangerous but it is absolutely true that lead in present throughout our environment and in the air, food and water that we consume every minute of every day. So since we take in lead from several sources all the time, we know we are building up lead and this leads to several questions. If lead is so harmful at all levels, why aren’t we ALL showing the effect of our cumulative build-up of lead? How can you demonstrate that children’s products contribute meaningfully to the asserted “problem”? How can you prove that “fixing” children’s products will meaningfully change lead blood levels? And if you could prove those things (which cannot be done), how can you measure the return on investment of our multi-billion dollar annual investment? Remember, we can only spend those dollars one time – so is flushing them down the toilet on test reports REALLY our best use of scarce and irreplaceable dollars? How would you measure that?

But the more that the CPSC enforces the law against “bad” corporations, the more they scam the public into thinking they needed the help all along. They talk about recall statistics but never put them in the context of injury statistics. The proponents never compare lead injury statistics to other injury statistics like swimming pools.

[Is a child injured by lead "worse" that a child killed in a pool? It better be - because we are spending billions to prophylactically eliminate the possibility of purported lead injuries while leaving swimming pools open to continue a continuing skein of killings of more than one child each day. That's okay according to our Democrat-run Congress. Tell that to the family of drowning victim - they can take comfort in knowing that their child didn't have lead poisoning thanks to the relentless and remorseless enforcement of the CPSIA . . . .]

So as the regulators abuse and confuse the definition of hazard, they create an atmosphere of dependence. Oh thank you Mother Government for saving me! What would I do without you?!

3. Mr. Oberle reminds us that “Lack of incidents may not mean a product is safe.” And just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they AREN’T out to get you.

Mr. Oberle does not take an offensive stance on this topic, btw. He is right, you can sometimes catch something dangerous before it creates harm. Presumably a quicker recognition of the hazard in Magnetix might have prevented injuries. Responsible companies need to always keep a lookout for insights that reveal latent hazards.

On the other hand, injury statistics are a useful tool. If, as is the case for lead, the assertion is that the hazard is widespread and present over a lengthy period of time, injury statistics become QUITE relevant. So, if lead was such a terrible problem in children’s products (putting lead-in-paint aside, long ago banned), injury statistics over many years would reveal a latent problem. Think of the breadth of the definition of “Children’s Products” and think of the years of recall data available for study. We are looking at TRILLIONS of interactions with children every year in the United States alone. Where are all the lead victims? We cannot say that we don’t know the scale of this problem. We have apparently been running an “experiment” on the U.S. public for decades in the period the zealots label as “lax regulations” or “lax enforcement”. If lead-in-substrate were so dangerous, wouldn’t you expect to see SOME evidence of it?

If we must imagine the scale of the danger, can we spend imaginary dollars to deal with it?

4. The compliance hawks want to frame this as a financial question – how much is your safety worth? I think that’s the wrong question – I think the question is “how long do you want to have a job?”

I have already reported that our compliance group is currently up to six people from a historical one or two, and of course, our products are no safer today than in the past. They were always safe and still are, but it costs us a lot more to operate. That’s not good for you or for me.

So how do we pay for all this new bureaucracy? We have not raised prices, that’s impossible these days. We are lucky to have customers and cannot spit in their faces with a price increase. Think of your business – it won’t fly.

We also need to hit profitability targets because we need to remain financable. We do not get money from “money fairies” – we have to deal with a bank, just like you. Our bank prefers to see that we make money. I know that doesn’t seem very civic-minded but I can’t fault them for their POV. In any event, I think it’s elementary that a business needs to make a profit to have the model sustain itself. Therefore, we cannot commit ourselves to ever-eroding profitability. When our costs rise, we cut elsewhere . . . just like you do.

Needless to say, we have skinnied up a lot since 2007. We have a much-reduced headcount and operate far more efficiently. This is how everyone behaved during the financial crisis and the jobs have not returned, in part because the economy remains sluggish. With our rising overhead relating to pointless regulations, what can we do? We must recover the money from activities that are focused on raising revenues. In effect, we are discontinuing activities that create growth to fund activities that are pure costs.

What’s the math behind this? Consider how we recover a dollar of bureaucratic cost from productive activities. If you are already operating efficiently and cannot wring out big productivity gains (as may be the case post-financial crisis cost reductions), then how do you pay for an additional dollar of overhead cost? When you eliminate a “productive” dollar of cost to pay for an unproductive dollar of cost (e.g., you trade a dollar of marketing promotion for a dollar of test costs), it’s not an even trade. No, because your dollar of productive cost creates gross margin whereas your overhead produces no profit whatsoever. Your productive dollar of cost produces gross profit which defrays your operating costs and produces marginal net profit on top of that. Wiping out the dollar of productive cost also wipes out the contribution to operating costs, so effectively, only the associated marginal net profit can defray the unproductive cost. Since profit percentages are generally low for most of us, the ratio of productive cost dollars needed to be sacrificed to cover unproductive costs is probably on the order of 2:1 or 3:1. Hire another QC person and fire the equivalent of two people elsewhere. In our case, we do it by attrition. We just shrink away.

As if this weren’t bad enough, it’s also a recipe for disaster or business death in a worst case. The continued erosion of productive spending to finance unproductive spending has a dramatic impact on growth. Revenue flattens out or stays in a downward trend. It’s no surprise – you are starving your company of investment dollars as you spend at constant levels. You have simply shifted your spending from productive uses favoring growth to unproductive uses that will not create growth. Presumably, those of you with children have discussed the merits of eating fruits and vegetables versus eating potato chips. It’s no different for a business and how it consumes dollars. We will never grow up to be big and strong if Mother Government restricts our financial diet this way.

Sean’s right. I don’t envy you . . . or me. This makes me very pessimistic about the future.

I hope you are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore. In 23 days, you will get to vote. DO IT!

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

CPSIA – Something’s Cooking on "Children’s Product" Definition

763 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 47 days left until Election Day.

I have written in this space about the recent shocking release by the CPSC of the final rule on the interpretation of the term “Children’s Product” under the CPSIA. The agency’s official interpretation of this defined term will dictate the creeping scope of the awful CPSIA and likewise has the potential to trim its sails. Many people gave detailed comments on the agency’s troubling initial draft of the interpretative rule, including me. I bashed the rule for its many problematic flaws.

The release of the final rule was stunning because, as I have noted again and again, the agency basically ignored or dismissed ALL comments on its draft rule and more or less installed the draft law as “final”. I interpreted this move as signalling the end of the CPSC’s rulemaking phase under the CPSIA. I assert that this came about as a result of a directive “from the top” to stop dithering and finalize the rules NOW, damn the consequences.

Why stop writing rules now? The CPSIA rulemaking process has left the agency and its Dem leadership exhausted and impatient. The Dems do not want to spend any more time writing rules – it wants to start catching “crooks”. The remarkably small number of consumer injuries by products regulated under the CPSIA is no deterrent to these people – the Dems were given their jobs to catch bad guys, and catch (and perhaps manufacture) bad guys they will. As Ms. Tenenbaum has promised time and again, 2011 will be the year of enforcement. This promise implies a couple things: CPSIA rules need to be finalized quickly AND the testing stay must be lifted in February 2011. Oh yeah, the testing stay, almost forgot about that little guy . . . . Thus, time is running out on rulemaking and hence the agency’s need to ignore our comments – no matter that their rules are shamelessly fouled-up and defective.

Congress “wants” it this way, or at least Mr. Waxman and his staffers insist on it. The Dems on the Commission are there to play ball.

In case you doubt my “paranoid” theory, check out the CPSC website today. Anyone notice that something is missing? Where’s the CPSIA banner today? The law is now listed below in small type. The CPSIA is over, it’s so yesterday . . . .

And if you buy the foregoing, then the pending rulemakings on component testing and reasonable testing programs/testing frequency should have you fouling your pants. Those two “bad boys” have pushed me into politics. I am trying to stave off disaster – I believe the agency will turn those deadly draft rules into final rules simply to avoid extending the testing stay and further to avoid delivering a very unwelcome message to Mr. Waxman that his masterwork law is thoroughly defective. And if the Dems rush it, they can inflict all this damage before Republicans can save the day after retaking the House and Senate. Tea Partiers, please take note.

But wait . . . there’s something up at the CPSC. The rule on Children’s Product was originally scheduled for a rubber stamp vote on September 9th. Then it was rescheduled for September 15 and then pushed forward to September 22. What’s up with this?

Normally, the delay of a rubber stamp action means there is a big disagreement behind closed doors and Commissioners are duking it out in private shuttle diplomacy between staffers. [Sunshine Act rules prohibit a meeting of more than two Commissioners without holding a public meeting that you can witness - so disputes are resolved using intermediaries. Just like in the Middle East, working through third parties is a great way to work out disputes . . . .] In other words, somebody on the Commission may actually know how shameless it is to ignore legitimate and fair comments in a public rulemaking process, even if those darned comments are so inconvenient. And, ouch!, if they must remodel the rule, they might have to release it subject to another comment period. Another comment period could pose BIG problems for the testing stay, creating a real dilemma for our Dem friends. If they push out the stay AGAIN, that more or less seals it – they clearly need infinite years to implement the CPSIA, which confirms that it is a thoroughly defective law.

And there is also the looming possibility of a Commission quorum problem. What?! Well, Commissioner Thomas Moore’s term ends in late October and he can only serve until year end. Then things get very complicated. If he is not replaced promptly, OMG, it’s a deadlocked Commission again! Tenenbaum and Adler won’t be able to get their way anymore – AW SHUCKS! – they MIGHT actually have to listen to Nord and Northup at least until another Obama puppet is put in place. And if the Senate goes to the Republicans, it might be pretty hard to confirm the usual zealot. Hmmm.

See the reason for the urgency yet???

The whole situation makes me want to tear my hair out. I have a business to run – can you IMAGINE being held hostage by this kind of idiocy in your own government? Well, we ARE being held hostage by our own dysfunctional government.

Tea Partiers, and anyone with a reawakened sense of OUTRAGE, take note. Election day is November 2nd, in case you didn’t hear. . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Something’s Cooking on "Children’s Product" Definition

CPSIA – Making It Up as We Go Along

743 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 68 days left until Election Day.

The CPSC today whacked education company Lakeshore Learning Materials with a recall of Magnetic Maze products. This recall involved 18,500 units of a total of five products sold over a 18-month period. Was this recall justified? Well, anything goes these days but consider the facts:

There have been no reported injuries from this “hazard” – namely loose magnets. The company has received ten reports of loose magnets. The CPSC sums up the “hazard” this way:

“The magnetic maze board’s plastic wand can separate and expose a magnet that can be a choking hazard to children. Also, if a child has more than one of these toys and the magnets detach and are swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal perforations or blockages, which can be fatal.” [Emphasis added]

Before we unpack this baloney, please consider for the umpteenth time where the CPSC’s LEGAL BASIS for issuing a recall comes from. The authority to recall consumer products derives from the FHSA which restricts the agency’s authority to “imminent hazards”. Section 12(a) of the FHSA provides this definition: “As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term ‘imminently hazardous consumer product’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” [Emphasis added]

So the CPSC must reach the legal conclusion that this product creates an IMMINENT AND UNREASONABLE RISK of death, serious injury or severe personal injury to order a recall. Did they meet that standard here?

The CPSC provides two explanations for this recall, namely small parts/choking hazards and intestinal perforations from ingestion of magnets. Of course, the latter hazard is derived from a fear of Magnetix, a notorious recall in the bad zone of 2007/8. There is no indication that these magnets were strong magnets as found in the Magnetix product.

A quick glance at this product confirms that the product is DESIGNED with small parts. These products were certainly tested for compliance with law (we know these folks well, and they are exemplary corporate citizens who are exceptionally careful about legal compliance and safety). Therefore, the assertion that the presence of small parts in this product somehow constitutes a violation of law or good practice just doesn’t hold water. I could use stronger language, but I think this is a nonsense excuse.

And what about intestinal perforations? That’s pretty icky, shouldn’t we be intolerant of loose magnets? Well, the CPSC states the conditions under which these magnets could be a problem:

Step 1: The child must have more than one recalled product. [You need two products to have two magnets! There are 18,500 defective units in the world, let's not forget - a total universe of 18,500 magnets.]

Step 2: TWO magnets must fall out, one from each unit. [Ten loose magnets in the world are known. As noted above, there is no indication that these magnets are dangerously strong enough to perforate anything. A niggling detail?]

Step 3: An idiot child must choose to EAT these two yummy loose magnets in one sitting.

This has never happened, apparently. Could it happen?

This is well-beyond farfetched, but there you go. At today’s CPSC, the agency is apparently no longer permitted by the politicians who run the place to reason or to assess any form of risk. If the risk can be put into words, that seems to make it real enough to punish any company severely. No doubt this recall exposes Lakeshore to grievous penalties, too. And for what? Can anyone make the case that this makes anyone ACTUALLY safer? And, call me picky, but is this a case of “imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury”? I believe this speaks for itself – the answer is no.

Remember, these regulators work for us, the citizens of this country. As the regulators confuse and scramble the expectations of industry and consumers, as they disregard their enabling legislation to chart a path that makes sense only to them – something important is lost. Is that acceptable? Not to me. Remember this on November 2nd. Let’s hope it’s not too late by then.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Making It Up as We Go Along

CPSIA – Apparently, NONE of Us Knows What We’re Talking About

742 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 69 days left until Election Day.

The CPSC just issued its Final Interpretative Rule on the meaning of “Children’s Products”. For those of you with a pile of reading materials on your desk from the CPSC, this delectable morsel weighs in at 63 pages. Add it to the heap.

Good news, however – you don’t need to waste too much time reading it. The time you spent commenting on the prior draft, now THAT was the waste of time. I burned a few hours on that exercise myself – what-a-fool, I will never learn. The REASON you need not waste time reading the final rule is that virtually all comments you (and anyone else) gave were disregarded or discounted. The changes to the rule were minimal or meaningless and there was no reconsideration of the manifold flaws in the “draft” interpretative rule. If you don’t believe me, have fun deconstructing the 63 pages of drivel against all the comments noted and unremarked upon.

So what is the story we should tell ourselves about this little incident? Here’s a few choices for you:

1. Commenting on these rules is a waste of time because the CPSC is tired of the game – they want to get this done, and that means dealing with comments is not in the plan anymore. [Connect the dots with the pending expiration of the testing stay, and you may get a sense of the urgency.]
2. The solicitation of comments is compelled by law but there is no obligation for the agency to accept any of our comments. Since they know best, they no longer care what we think and have decided not to even pretend anymore. It’s a sham process.
3. We’re all incompetents, which is perhaps why we need to have a CPSC so desperately.

I bet it’s no. 3 – we’re all idiots and our comments reflect it. It’s hard to face up to one’s shortcomings . . . but I appreciate the gentleness of the message from the CPSC. Rather than embarrass us by announcing that we business people know nothing, they just politely ignore our ravings.

And think – now that we’ve established that they know everything and we know nothing, processing of recalls and other financially-impactful events with the agency will be much easier. They are right, by definition, and we are wrong, by definition. Simple! We’ll save a lot on legal fees, too, because there won’t be any point in arguing. No, I’m not talking about the PGA. . . .

I love government of the people, by the people, for the people – especially if those people are unchecked regulators!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Apparently, NONE of Us Knows What We’re Talking About

CPSIA – Wingnuts Against Cadmium

740 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 71 days left until Election Day.

On Thursday, in an unannounced Federal Register notice (you all read the Fed. Reg. for fun like me, right?), the CPSC announced that a petition had been filed by four esteemed consumer groups demanding that the CPSC and EPA issue rules against the presence of cadmium in children’s products, especially “toy jewelry”. Not doubt this effort was coordinated with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to assist her in her reelection effort. The four consumer groups are the Sierra Club, Empire State Consumer Project, Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides (hmmm) and, our ole’ pal, the Center for Environmental Health. Although the petition has not resulted in action by the agency YET, they have requested comments on the petition. Goodie, something else to waste our time on!

The only reason I know about this event is that Bloomberg.com wrote about it last Wednesday. I am sure you monitor Bloomberg for sneak requests for comment by the agency, just like me. If you go the CPSC website, good luck finding a reference to this important Fed. Reg. publication. Oh well, the CPSIA already legislates that we must be telepathic anyhow.

The cadmium mania has nothing to do with health or safety. Even the wingnuts behind this petition are unable to cite a single injury EVER from cadmium in children’s products. They ask that rules be implemented “before a child dies or is seriously injured”. Well, since this regulation never existed previously and cadmium has been used as a trace component in jewelry for hundreds of years, the argument that this is a “real” risk does not impress me. I hold a degree in engineering but who am I to tell the CPSC how to do math. What do you suppose the probability of injury might be if the instances are ZERO over hundreds of years involving literally trillions of human interactions? Pretty high, I guess . . . .

They better be pretty high, if the CPSC actually cares what the law says. Ha, I gave up on that a long time ago, but for you devotees, here’s the deal. I have written about this many times already – the suthority to recall consumer products derives from the FHSA which restricts the agency’s authority to “imminent hazards”. Section 12(a) of the FHSA provides this definition: “As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term ‘imminently hazardous consumer product’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” [Emphasis added] Is it even theoretically possible for a consumer product containing cadmium to meet this standard if there are exactly zero documented injuries – ever? Of course, we have been told that “anecdotes are not evidence” . . . unless perhaps a consumer group is dishing out the (imaginary) anecdotes.

And then there’s the mania in the press. The press seems no better able to evaluate this threat than any of the other urban legends underlying the CPSIA. One wonders how they assess other risks . . . like swimming pool deaths. Oh yeah, real deaths are not a problem if the activity is really fun, like swimming which claims hundreds of children’s lives annually. Better to put our resources into cadmium testing – since there are no recorded events of cadmium injury from consumer products. Consider this quote from Bloomberg: “Retailers such as Dress Barn Inc. and Claire’s Boutiques Inc. have recalled necklaces, earrings and bracelets this year after finding cadmium in the products. McDonald’s Corp. offered $3 refunds in June to customers who bought “Shrek” drinking glasses with high levels of cadmium in the paint.” [Emphasis added] I have pointed out ad nauseum that the CPSC admits that the Shrek glasses are SAFE but given that the recall went forward and no one remembers what happened, those glasses had to be really dangerous, right??? According to Bloomberg, that seems to be true.

The petition features the usual hyperbolic description of an imaginary crisis with hysterical references to a “rising tide” of incidents (poisonings) and unfounded accusations of manufacturers “substituting” cadmium for lead. Shame that facts hardly matter anymore. They pull out all the stops to embellish their case. If repeated enough, this kind of reasoning becomes accepted as a truth, just like “no safe levels of lead”. Our “leaders” seem prone to this kind of duping.

My favorite part of the petition is the assertion of the dire threat posed by cadmium. Again, there are no reported injuries from cadmium EVER in consumer products. The CSPC admitted at last February’s ICPHSO meeting that their only toxicological data on cadmium relates to workplace exposure (generally airborne). According to Wikipedia, two big sources of cadmium for humans are food and cigarette smoke. The CPSC has literally NO data on risk from consumer products – principally because there is NO evidence that there is any danger. Given the data, they made the judgment that gathering the data was a waste of money (back when people cared about such things). The most famous incident of widespread cadmium poisoning related to scandalous industrial pollution in Japan over many years. That’s a far cry from the situation confronting America today.

Should we crush the toy jewelry market or pummel the rest of us with high testing costs and other legal disruptions because our regulators are unable to distinguish between industrial pollution in Japan on a massive scale, and enamel or jewerly solder with traces of cadmium in it?

According to the wingnuts, yes, we should.

And I remind you – we have 71 days left until Election Day. I recommend that you give generously to candidates that don’t come from Mars, have some semblance of common sense and commit in blood to oppose the junk science movement that has taken over the CPSC and Congress. Work the neighborhoods, greet people at train stations and then go vote in droves.

If we hurry, we might get something done before the CPSC turns the screw one more rotation.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Wingnuts Against Cadmium

CPSIA – The Great Set-Up

For those who had better things to do than wade through my comment letters last week, I want to highlight a few points.

The two CPSC rulemakings up for comment on August 3rd were on component testing and on the so-called “15 Month Rule”. Both are very important rules and both have been long discussed. The “15 Month Rule” relates to testing frequency and defines a “reasonable testing program”. The long controversy over these rules relates to their acknowledged potential to be TERMINAL to small businesses. This was the principal reason that Inez Tenenbaum delayed issuing these rules on time in November 2009 as required by law (they can vary from law when it suits their purposes, please note). She called a two-day workshop for December 2009 for the purpose of gathering the feedback of stakeholders. I was asked to appear as a panelist, as were two of my colleagues. These sessions were taped (they were able to hear all the feedback and digest it).

So here’s a few things you should know:

a. Component testing will not be useful except for the largest companies and for those rare situations when everything falls neatly into place. The rules as written are too complex, too demanding (full traceability of all components is REQUIRED, which is delusional and completely unnecessary for such simple, innocuous products) and far too risky. The liability risk associated with these very challenging rules will scare off all but the most foolhardy or ignorant companies.

b. Component testing relies on a fantastic assumption, namely that component tests (if desired) will even be available. Why don’t we assume they will be available for every paint and for every plastic pellet on the planet? Does that solve the problem? I dare say not. There are many convenient examples of likely missing test reports – think of aluminum foil in a science kit, for instance. If you are missing only a few component certificates, any benefit from the rule is lost.

c. The “15 Month Rule” was apparently NOT CHANGED from the draft discussed in December 2009. In other words, despite the agency’s “misgivings” about the rule way back then, and even after two days of comments by more than 200 stakeholders, the agency ended up in the same problematic place – and put the rule out for comment now. Of course, they filled in some holes (see below). In my opinion, this means either that the “feedback” process was a complete sham (the agency gave the appearance of “listening” but did as it pleased anyhow) or else that the agency lacks the temerity to tell Congress that the CPSIA is simply screwed up. Having ducked that punch, the CPSC instead opted to put you and me out of business.

If they were unable or unwilling to listen in the last nine months, I have absolutely no confidence they will listen this time. That bodes badly for me and for you. Consider the following . . . .

d. Using the numbers from the CPSC’s rulemaking, I derived that the agency wants me to spend $10,000 per item per year in testing costs (all-in). We have 1,500 items. Do the math – that’s $15 million per year in testing. This is for a company with ONE RECALL OF 130 PIECES TO ITS NAME IN 26 YEARS. This is also the rule regulating a “risk” that killed ONE CHILD and MAY HAVE INJURED THREE CHILDREN . . . in 11 years. [You can review the math in my comment letter. It's their numbers, not mine.] Do you think this might be a touch excessive? No matter, that’s our problem to resolve.

I can’t get this $15 million number out of my head. Do you realize that this rule could become the law shortly? Hey, HTA members, do you get it yet? All that nuzzling up to the CPSC, all their tears over your plight – this rule shuts your doors. If they push forward on this rule (as I anticipate), we will all face a very daunting choice – do we close our doors, sell our companies, go into another business or, breath deep, knowingly break the law by ignoring this rule? Is this a surprise to anyone? This has to be the world’s stupidest rule – and we are left with the ultimate Hobson’s Choice. Thanks CPSC.

Let’s not forget that Bob Adler spoke in stern tones last February when he said he would not vote to extend the stay on the testing and certification rules again. In the absence of further Commission action, the testing stay lapses on February 11, 2011. This rulemaking is intended to put the agency in position to let the stay expire. The next step would be enforcement of this new rule. Ms. Tenenbaum has publicly announced that 2011 will be all about enforcement – you have been warned, the pogroms are coming.

Do you get it . . . yet? IF the agency cannot wrap up this rulemaking in time, it will need to extend the stay. Arguably, that problem is on its doorstep right now. Even they understand that businesses need time to plan, and without final rules, no planning or preparation can take place. IF they cannot get this done in time (soon), they will have to extend the stay AGAIN. This would be incredibly damning of the agency, as it would be an apparent concession that the awful CPSIA cannot be implemented, perhaps ever. Of course, that only confirms what you and I have known for a long time – the law can’t be fixed by this agency and is fatally flawed. In the absence of dynamic Congressional action, we’re all toast (this is old news).

I urge you to take this battle to the political arena. The CPSC and the Dem-controlled Congress have shown that they just won’t listen. They don’t care about our problems. I say that if they are intent in putting us out of business, all of our productive businesses making contributions to our community and our markets every day, then it’s time to return the favor. We need to put THEM out of business first.

Time’s a-wastin’.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Great Set-Up

CPSIA – Numbers Don’t Lie (Update No. 1)

I have received a lot of feedback on my data on injuries from lead since I published it on Thursday. Some of the comments deserve further exploration.

a. Did anyone have this data previously? I think the answer is NO. I have heard from inside the CPSC that this kind of data analysis is not being done. The data is nowhere to be found, except here. Recent testimony by consumer advocates and Congressional zealots is strangely bereft of details, just long on invective. Don’t we deserve better?

The hysteria over lead-in-paint recalls, combined with other recalls that were unrelated created such a lynch mob atmosphere in Congress that the only data that registered was data that supported the mob’s POV. The actual data is therefore something of a surprise.

Let’s look at the four reported lead injuries for a moment. The one death from lead, the famous incident in Minnesota where Jarnell Brown swallowed a lead charm off a Reebok bracelet, is well-known.

Injury no. 1: L.M. Becker recall (vending machine jewelry, Sept. 10, 2003): “The firm received one report of a child who swallowed the necklace’s pendant, which reportedly resulted in high blood lead levels.”

Injury no. 2: Four company recall (vending machine jewelry, July 8, 2004): “CPSC has received one report of lead poisoning when a child swallowed a piece of toy jewelry containing lead that was previously recalled. No reports of injury or illness have been received for the recalled products announced today.” THIS REFERS TO THE L.M. BECKER “INJURY” ABOVE.

Injury no. 3: Munrie Furniture, Inc. (cribs and matching furniture, December 23, 2008): “Munrie has received one report of a child ingesting the paint. The child was diagnosed with lead poisoning.”

Injury no. 4: Allreds Design (bracelets and clips, February 17, 2010): “Allreds Design received one report of a 10-month-old child who was treated by a physician for elevated lead levels.”

Do these three injuries (one injury is double-counted) have anything in common? I assert that causation is not proven in these cases. Yes, lead poisoning is alleged, however there is no evidence that the cause has been determined definitively. READ what the CPSC said – the connection to the defective children’s product is loose or even conjectural (“reportedly resulted in high blood lead levels”). Remember car seats that gave kids lead poisoning? Toxic car seats were a hoax. The injury data is flimsy at best. And this is all the evidence there is of injury from lead in children’s products in the last 11 years of recalls.

The Democrats and consumer groups would rather eat broken glass that admit that the lead poisoning scare is a hoax. They want to run our businesses – so there’s no conceding that all this economic damage cannot be traced to anything other than ONE TRAGIC ACCIDENT IN AN ELEVEN YEAR PERIOD. Uno, that’s it, in our country of 300 million where thousands of kids die every year for various reasons.

Well, at least we know our companies will die in a valiant cause, to reduce the ten-year death rate from lead in children’s products from one to zero . . . .

b. Was the CPSC really broken? This is Mr. Waxman’s assertion, as expressed in his opening remarks at the April 29 hearing. So it must be true, right?

I hope to provide more data on this topic soon. In the meantime, I will simply pass along the comments of a friend who is in the CPSC community, namely that Congress underfunded the CPSC for 20 years, leading to severely constrained budgets and hiring. Consider these quotes from a 2007 Businessweek article about the CPSC:

“Yet while the CPSC has never been more vital, through much of its 33-year history the agency has been chronically understaffed and underfunded. Overseeing 400 recalls a year, most at companies’ requests, the CPSC’s compliance team has less time to initiate its own investigations, which tend to reveal the most serious risks. . . . Growing workload and shrinking resources have left many disheartened. From a peak of nearly 1,000 in 1980, CPSC’s head count has fallen to 400. . . . What can be done to help the agency? In a word, money. It’s been 17 years since Congress thoroughly reviewed the CPSC’s resources and needs, says Nord.”

So, let’s see, Congress has been tightfisted with budgets for this little agency for many years, starving it of needed resources and headcount, effectively shrinking it over a 17-year period to a withered state, and then after an outbreak of large-scale toy recalls (by and large injury-free), Congress blames the agency for inattention to its mission and severely rewrites the law to punish the marketplace and the agency itself.

After all, why blame the entity responsible for the problem in the first place, Congress? Much easier to blame the agency!

c. Wow, those were a LOT of recalls? Is that the tip of the iceberg? As far as I can tell, the answer is that most of the iceberg is a mirage. Experienced CPSC hands note that the recall notices are prepared by the press office at the CPSC and are meant to attract attention and headlines. Big numbers, if defensible, are best suited to demonstrate that the cop is on the beat. A few tricks of the trade is to add in as many sources of “recalled” items as possible. I believe that as many as 60% (that’s no typo) of all recalled units NEVER WERE SOLD. I would simply observe that if they were never sold, they never had the potential to cause injury.

Second, the population of recalled items is always inflated out of an abundance of caution whenever there is ANY doubt as to the identity of dangerous products. In other words, if a company sold one bad lot but also sold nine good lots, all indistinguishable, the recall would be announced for all ten lots, even though there is NO dispute that nine of the lots are absolutely fine.

Without this insight, recall statistics might be alarming, at least in a sense. Actually, the recalls are something of a mirage, an illusion of legions of bad products that really don’t exist or were never sold. How can we verify this? Among other things, injury statistics back up this assertion. If we had 300 million units of dangerous products in circulation, the injury statistics of 2381 injuries in 11 years seems pretty low to me. Assuming an average time in the marketplace of three years per recalled item, this implies an annual injury rate of 0.026% (from all causes, not simply lead). If the products are in the market for only one year on average, the annual injury rate is still only 0.077%. In other words, in a worst case scenario, you can safely use RECALLED children’s products 99.92% of the time. And you would presumably be even safer with NON-RECALLED products.

Oooo, scary.

Think of it this way: There are about 3 billion toys sold in the U.S. annually, according to Alan Hassenfeld, former CEO of Hasbro. Over 11 years, that 33 billion toys. [Considering that "Children's Products" includes far more than just toys, the pool of 11 years of sales is probably north of 500 billion units.] Were you to assume that all 899 recalls in my data were toys, the pool of 308 million units recalled would represent 0.93% of all toys sold in that period. So, if 0.93% is safe 99.92% of the time, and the rest presumably safe at a higher rate (let’s say 99.999%), then the blended safety of all toys is 99.99%. The result is probably higher than that.

Numbers, numbers, do they matter?

We are spending not less than $5.6 billion per annum to “fix” this 99.99%+ safe problem. In an effort to create a much “safer” environment for kids, the helpful folks at the CPSC have produced literally thousands of pages of documents, rules and instructions to govern our businesses down to the tiniest detail. Unfortunately . . . the assertion that anyone will be safer CANNOT be proven as a matter of mathematics.

A neurotic bill administered by people who no longer can assess what is and is not safe is a danger to our society. The data proves it. Who should be held accountable? Congress? The Dems? Inez Tenenbaum? Some or all of the above.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Numbers Don’t Lie (Update No. 1)

« Previous Page — Next Page »