CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Gib Mullan, Head of CPSC Enforcement

Gib Mullan’s remarks on enforcement:

• Import surveillance staff is now up to 18 people.
• Using Commercial Targeting Analysis Center (CTAC) to stop things at the port. Can see what’s coming in before it arrives.
• Is working with the International Trade Commission, the folks responsible for HTS Codes (Harmonized Tariff Schedule). The CPSC is trying to “piggyback” on HTS code to identify the products of interest to the agency. Making “significant headway”.
• Imports samples rising at a rapid rate. Only about half of the samples fail.
• Use of XRF is one of the agency’s “secrets for success”. Will use for cadmium, too. Only one-tenth of items scanned are being sampled. This implies that less than 5% of items scanned fail. Most items are not inspected, which is just a numbers game.
• Field Investigation Division is back to a “growth mode”, in 55 locations with 89 investigators. Expanding to Internet surveillance. They have seen a surge in eBay sales of recalled items after recalls are announced. Interesting!
• Created email address for the public to report sales of recalled products. Now everyone can be on a cop on the beat, how wonderful. Hope I can still trust my kids. . . .
• Retailer reports are rising. Participants in this program include WalMart, Sears, Amazon and others. 20,000 reports a year. Also reports by email and on the hot line 800 number are jumping. The total number of reports is cresting at 50,000 per year. All of this is BEFORE the public database. [Soon a system will be fully constructed that will make doing business in the U.S. children's product industry impossible, something to look forward to (this is my thought, not Gib's remarks).]
• Field “blitzes” are increasing. Examples are pool and spas, drywall, drawstrings, cribs. This is a new activity although blitzes at the port are old hat, in my experience.
• Defect Investigations Division has 19 compliance officers.
• Recalls in 2009 DECLINED from 563 to 466. Number of units went up to an all-time high, 229 million units. Lots of big recalls in 2009. Should we feel safer now? I wonder . . . . Gib himself questions whether this is “good or bad”.
• Fast Track recalls are pretty steady. “Fast tracks” are recalls initiated by companies and brought to the CPSC’s attention by the company itself. CPSC-initiated recalls are steady in the 50-60 range. Cases stemming from regulatory violations declined from 167 to 47.
• Early warning system relating to cribs, bassinets and play yards is resulting in faster recalls. [No info on the availability of cribs and so on was provided, or the cost of those goods now.]
• Joint recalls with Canada was done first on February 19, 2009 (that fills in a hole!). Total of 13 joint recalls in 2009 and 16 in 2010 to date. Expects more joint recalls in the future, broadening to other countries. Gib thinks this makes it simpler for companies going through recalls. Again, not sure how I feel about this but am not opposed in principle.
• Regulatory Enforcement Division has 18 Compliance Officers now. This includes Chemical, Children’s, Flammability and Mechanical hazards. Letters of Advice (”LOAs”) fell a bit in 2009 by perhaps 12%. Only a small percentage result in recalls. In 2009, found 338 lead content violations and 118 lead in paint violations, mainly at the port. Recalls have come down considerably, almost to zero. Stops at the port are higher than that, but don’t result in recalls necessarily. Those are declining, too.
• Compliance Division now has 14 of its own attorneys
• Civil penalties rose a lot in 2009. Gib specifically noted that he was not being “gleeful” about penalties but simply noting that penalties are a more serious risk now. I am okay with this tone, it is common sense. Penalties totalled nearly $9 million. I just hope that penalties moderate and become more purposeful, rather than political.
• Made a STRONG point about fraudulent testing. The CPSC caught fraud in lighter testing and it led to criminal charges. They are working on another case now. This is great news as far as I am concerned. Cheating is a REAL problem (an actual problem, not an imaginary problem). The CPSC should find the bad guys and punish them. The resources of the agency are well-served if focused on removing these unscrupulous people from the market.
• The agency is forging new alliances with the State AGs. They have a monthly conference call with this group. This is the CPSC’s proactive effort to reign in the State AGs by making them part of the process. If this works, great. Again, we need to watch out for the lowest common denominator risk.
• Working with China on implementing “best practices”. Getting better, faster. China recalls went DOWN in 2009 and he anticipates improved safety in Chinese products. This, too, is a good use of agency resources. If we really are getting better, faster, Gib and his team should take a bow. Safety benefits everyone. Next up, consideration of the relationship between these initiatives and cost. Safety is an inherently economic subject. We need recognition of this basic fact.

I have omitted all reference to drywall here. This is a one-of-a-kind problem that seems unrelated to the CPSIA as far as I can tell. Likewise, I have not attempted to summarize the issues relating to ATVs and other tangential product/safety issues brought up by Gib. [He did say that repairs to the Rhino seem to be working well, btw.]

To Gib’s credit, I found his presentation quite balanced with no particular effort to frighten. I appreciate the choice of tone for what could be a quite intimidating topic.

Gib’s presentation was one of the few I can recall in the last two years on the topic of enforcement that did not materially raise my blood pressure or make me think dark thoughts about the future. Let’s hope that the CPSC can build on this base to restore trust among the business community. Safety and fear mongering is an unholy alliance. The CPSC needs the cooperation and trust of the manufacturing base.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Gib Mullan, Head of CPSC Enforcement

CPSIA – What Constitutes "Safe"?

One of the tragedies of the CPSIA melodrama is that the consumer groups have completely hijacked the concept of safety, turning it utterly away from concepts of risk assessment. To what, you say? Away from management of identifiable risks to avoidance/elimination of perceived risks. In other words, Congress and our regulators now ignore the data on risk and focus instead on the possibility of risk. The POSSIBILITY of injury, not the actuality of injury.

How much of a difference is this? Pretty big, to judge by the frenzy over cadmium in jewelry. Seven Senators have sponsored a bill called the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act. This law would ban the use of cadmium in kids’ jewelry. Is this “good”? I am not sure how to answer that. To my knowledge, no one has identified a single injury from cadmium in children’s jewelry. It is undeniable that cadmium is a bad element and has the potential to harm. Ergo, jewelry with cadmium is “bad”? I can imagine circumstances where cadmium in jewelry might hurt a child. Then again, if it were so dangerous, where are all the victims?

If this is going to be the new standard, whether a product MIGHT harm someone, I think we are cooked. Assuming that “prevention of possible injury” is to be used as the standard to evaluate products or components of products, let me ask a few questions to see if I understand the “new rules of the road”:

• How certain must the prospect of injury be?
• How specific must the circumstances of the prospective injury be?
• Are we talking about probable injury (more than 50%) or possible injury (odds greater than 0%)? How are those odds to be measured – by unit sold, by contact, by owner, by year, by lifetime use? What’s “reasonable”? [Does anyone care what's reasonable?]
• Are all things that could possibly injure a child now illegal on the same basis?
• If the answer is yes, when will all those other products be banned and/or recalled? Is equity in the treatment of all products “important”?
• If the answer is no, then where do we draw the line?
• How relevant is it that no injuries have been reported?
• How many incidents are required before we declare a product or substance illegal or recalled? How many newspaper articles, editorials or CEH lawsuits are required?
• What responsibility do we have to be consistent in the administration of these rules?

Consistency, that’s important, don’t you think? If cadmium is now tacitly illegal because it might harm a child, do we have to make everything with the possibility of injury to children illegal?

Presumably, since no injuries to children from cadmium has been reported and the Washington Post confirms that doctors do not perceive cadmium as a serious risk (perhaps because it was not prevalent in house paint or in gasoline, hmmm), then anything with the same level of prospective risk would be illegal. That’s more or less everything from water to chicken bones to lead to ruthenium. [Pardon me, ruthenium, one of the world's most expensive and dangerous elements, is a-okay to include in children's products.] Why then aren’t we closing swimming pools which cause more than 250 deaths each year? What about water – you can drown in two inches of water. No more showers?

Is there something special about cadmium, besides that it has appeared in an Associated Press article?

The mania over the prevention of possible injury has turned the business environment into a feeding frenzy that will drive the business community down, down, down. Is that in anyone’s interest? Will we all be safer if we have nothing to buy?

Please consider that the House Energy and Commerce Committee has today weighed in on the Toyota recall. Yes, the same Henry Waxman who is torturing our industry has now turned his talons and sharp teeth on Toyota. Toyota enjoys one of the finest reputations for quality and service in the world. It is renowned as a business leader – and proactively took strong medicine in its gas pedal recall. This is not enough for the venomous Democrats who hate businesses. They need to dig deeper and perhaps damage Toyota enough to help GM and Chrysler, owned by the U.S. government and unions. Bringing the great low, that’s the new American way of the Democrats. It makes me SICK.

I want to close with a note about cows – did you know that cows are killers, too? Yes, they are – the New York Times reports:

“The image of cows as placid, gentle creatures is a city slicker’s fantasy, judging from an article, published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reporting that about 20 people a year are killed by cows in the United States. In some cases, the cows actually attack humans — ramming them, knocking them down, goring them, trampling them and kicking them in the head — resulting in fatal injuries to the head and chest.”

COWS kill 20 people a year, cadmium has apparently killed ZERO. We are running pell-mell to ban cadmium from jewelry because a misguided newspaper article fueled panic. Are cows next? Should they be? If cadmium jewelry goes away and cows stay unregulated, will respect for our laws remain?

Respect for Congress, that’s another thing.

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Constitutes "Safe"?

CPSIA – What Constitutes "Safe"?

One of the tragedies of the CPSIA melodrama is that the consumer groups have completely hijacked the concept of safety, turning it utterly away from concepts of risk assessment. To what, you say? Away from management of identifiable risks to avoidance/elimination of perceived risks. In other words, Congress and our regulators now ignore the data on risk and focus instead on the possibility of risk. The POSSIBILITY of injury, not the actuality of injury.

How much of a difference is this? Pretty big, to judge by the frenzy over cadmium in jewelry. Seven Senators have sponsored a bill called the Safe Kids’ Jewelry Act. This law would ban the use of cadmium in kids’ jewelry. Is this “good”? I am not sure how to answer that. To my knowledge, no one has identified a single injury from cadmium in children’s jewelry. It is undeniable that cadmium is a bad element and has the potential to harm. Ergo, jewelry with cadmium is “bad”? I can imagine circumstances where cadmium in jewelry might hurt a child. Then again, if it were so dangerous, where are all the victims?

If this is going to be the new standard, whether a product MIGHT harm someone, I think we are cooked. Assuming that “prevention of possible injury” is to be used as the standard to evaluate products or components of products, let me ask a few questions to see if I understand the “new rules of the road”:

• How certain must the prospect of injury be?
• How specific must the circumstances of the prospective injury be?
• Are we talking about probable injury (more than 50%) or possible injury (odds greater than 0%)? How are those odds to be measured – by unit sold, by contact, by owner, by year, by lifetime use? What’s “reasonable”? [Does anyone care what's reasonable?]
• Are all things that could possibly injure a child now illegal on the same basis?
• If the answer is yes, when will all those other products be banned and/or recalled? Is equity in the treatment of all products “important”?
• If the answer is no, then where do we draw the line?
• How relevant is it that no injuries have been reported?
• How many incidents are required before we declare a product or substance illegal or recalled? How many newspaper articles, editorials or CEH lawsuits are required?
• What responsibility do we have to be consistent in the administration of these rules?

Consistency, that’s important, don’t you think? If cadmium is now tacitly illegal because it might harm a child, do we have to make everything with the possibility of injury to children illegal?

Presumably, since no injuries to children from cadmium has been reported and the Washington Post confirms that doctors do not perceive cadmium as a serious risk (perhaps because it was not prevalent in house paint or in gasoline, hmmm), then anything with the same level of prospective risk would be illegal. That’s more or less everything from water to chicken bones to lead to ruthenium. [Pardon me, ruthenium, one of the world's most expensive and dangerous elements, is a-okay to include in children's products.] Why then aren’t we closing swimming pools which cause more than 250 deaths each year? What about water – you can drown in two inches of water. No more showers?

Is there something special about cadmium, besides that it has appeared in an Associated Press article?

The mania over the prevention of possible injury has turned the business environment into a feeding frenzy that will drive the business community down, down, down. Is that in anyone’s interest? Will we all be safer if we have nothing to buy?

Please consider that the House Energy and Commerce Committee has today weighed in on the Toyota recall. Yes, the same Henry Waxman who is torturing our industry has now turned his talons and sharp teeth on Toyota. Toyota enjoys one of the finest reputations for quality and service in the world. It is renowned as a business leader – and proactively took strong medicine in its gas pedal recall. This is not enough for the venomous Democrats who hate businesses. They need to dig deeper and perhaps damage Toyota enough to help GM and Chrysler, owned by the U.S. government and unions. Bringing the great low, that’s the new American way of the Democrats. It makes me SICK.

I want to close with a note about cows – did you know that cows are killers, too? Yes, they are – the New York Times reports:

“The image of cows as placid, gentle creatures is a city slicker’s fantasy, judging from an article, published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reporting that about 20 people a year are killed by cows in the United States. In some cases, the cows actually attack humans — ramming them, knocking them down, goring them, trampling them and kicking them in the head — resulting in fatal injuries to the head and chest.”

COWS kill 20 people a year, cadmium has apparently killed ZERO. We are running pell-mell to ban cadmium from jewelry because a misguided newspaper article fueled panic. Are cows next? Should they be? If cadmium jewelry goes away and cows stay unregulated, will respect for our laws remain?

Respect for Congress, that’s another thing.

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Constitutes "Safe"?

CPSIA – Another Big Fine for L-I-P: What Does It Mean?

The CPSC today lashed out at RC2 Corp. for significant lead-in-paint violations on its Thomas & Friends wooden toys in 2007. The fine totalled $1.25 million. The facts of the case are relatively simple – an original recall in June 2007 of 1.5 million pieces was quickly followed by an additional September 2007 recall of 200,000 units. You can read all the details in the provisional agreement between RC2 and the CPSC. The agreement, however, doesn’t mention the really famous bit, namely that the second lead-in-paint recall included some of the “bonus gifts” that RC2 sent out to people who returned items in the first recall. Not a real confidence builder, apparently . . . .

We probably owe the CPSIA to RC2 and Mattel, who together so shocked and motivated Congress (and my hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune) that nothing could stop that runaway train. Since Thomas the Tank Engine was such a beloved traditional toy, the public’s sense of betrayal was understandable. Unfortunately, it is hard to believe that RC2 didn’t see this coming. The law on lead-in-paint was clear and unambiguous. The righteous outrage and the perceived need for retribution eventually led not only to the awful new law but also to this fine.

Let’s try to put it in perspective.

First, RC2 Corp. is a big company and won’t feel much pain from today’s action. It has peak sales of over $500 million and peak earnings of over $80 million. It has generated over $100 million in annual cash flow at least twice. In other words, they have pretty deep pockets. This fine is basically “walking around money” for them. They are even projecting earnings this year in excess of $25 million and cash flow of over $40 million – and 2009 was an awful year for the toy industry. As if that weren’t enough evidence of the symbolic nature of the fine, RC2 recently raised almost $60 million in a stock offering. In no sense will this fine imperil or even perturb the business over at RC2 – as an official “big business”, they seem structurally exempt from the pain we ankle-biters might feel.

That said, hasn’t RC2 paid quite a bit for its folly already? According to their 2008 year end financials, they incurred recall-related costs of $28.3 million in 2007, $14.3 million in 2008 and a further $13.9 million in 2009 year-to-date. Those are total costs of $56.5 million, excluding the new CPSC fine. Arguably, the CPSC recalls induced or precipitated these costs. These costs presumably also take into account the impact of RC2’s $30 million settlement of a class action lawsuit and related legal expenses.

[According to the provisional settlement agreement, in the wake of the publicity of the recalls, RC2 was hit with a number of allegations of injuries and claims from lead-in-paint, leading to lawsuits. I have no way of estimating the financial impact of these claims on RC2. The validity of the claims is also unknown. Welcome to America.]

These losses exceed RC2’s typical annual earnings – most people would call that a pretty high price paid, something that gets your attention.

And as the CPSC slams the barn door long after the horses got out, the company must now reiterate that it learned its lesson . . . three years ago. The press, however, will frame this case as a remedy much needed: “Toymaker’s fine in lead case tops $1 million. Oak Brook-based RC2 sold Chinese-made toys that were later recalled” [Headline from print edition].

With all this as background, I think the fine looks a bit different:

a. The fine cannot be justified as punishment, as the CPSC’s previous actions induced a very high stream of costs for the company. It cannot be justified as an inducement to behavioral reform, as better safety practices at RC2 began in 2007. What is the purpose of the fine then? I think the fine is intended for political purposes, to make the CPSC look “active” and “tough”. It hardly matters that the fine is opportunistic and coercive. [CPSC fines under the CPSIA are also arbitrary and hard if not impossible to negotiate.] Apparently, the RC2 recalls were not enough to satisfy the personified “Congress” – it wanted pecuniary revenge. This allows the Chairman and her fellow Commissioners to look “tough” to Congress and it allows the RC2 company to look “contrite”. Two needs met, neither of which should be part of our law.

b. The fine (the supposed punishment for the “crime”) is so detached from the time of the infraction that it has no actual connection as a “remedy”. The passage of time sacrificed any moral high ground for the regulators – its fine is only a gratuitous penalty now.

c. By waiting three years to impose a high profile penalty like this, the CPSC deals the company a cruel blow to its market. The fine makes it look like RC2 needed more correcting three years after the fact – isn’t that what any rational person would think? Yet RC2 already paid for its failings to the tune of more than $50 million out-of-pocket. [This does not include the significant loss of goodwill from the recalls, a tangible loss to RC2 business managers.] They also changed their safety practices, presumably quite significantly. The defective goods are long off the market. Yet, with the imposition of this high fine now, the company looks like a creep, again – even though there is no sign that it is anything but a good citizen today. As a consequence of the CPSC’s action, RC2 must again counter with more PR to attempt to preserve its good name.

Even more outrageous, to squeeze in the fine under the wording of the CPSIA, the CPSC asserts that the RC2 violation was made “knowingly”. [See par. 16 of the provisional settlement agreement.] I highly doubt that it was “knowing” in the plain meaning of the word and naturally, the company denies it, too. It’s a ridiculous contention. However, the law defines “knowingly” to include imputed knowledge; if the CPSC deems that RC2 should have never let this happen (duh), they can assert the imputed knowledge of a reasonable man to convert the infraction into a “knowing” violation. Prest-o, change-o! Incompetence or organizational failure can thus be given the appearance of ill intent. Since virtually any violation can be deemed “knowing” with the aid of 20/20 hindsight under this terrible law, the CPSC now has an unwritten strict liability penalty policy at its disposal. That’s sweet for an agency that is part legislature, part judge, part jury. As for companies cited for “knowing” violations, denials ring hollow. Frankly, it’s a set-up . . . and when this happens to you, it will feel the same way.

d. The CPSC’s apparent indifference to these factors will have a chilling effect on the children’s product market. There is no question that business people tend to look at these cases as “there, but for the grace of G-d, go I”. If RC2 can be hammered this way, what will happen to us if we make a mistake? There is just no way to tell. But, the RC2 and Mattel fines make it clear that “over” isn’t “over” with the CPSC until the statute of limitations passes. This fine came more than three years after the recalls. When are you allowed to move on from your mistakes? Seems like never. The recent fines levied against Excelligence for $25,000 are of a similar vintage, so this can happen to small companies with small infractions, too. This is randomness run amok. The fact that the agency has been unable to issue final penalty factors in more than a year does not help matters.

Finally, of course, we private business people can’t just stick our palm out to Wall Street for more money whenever we need to restock the coffers. The RC2 capital raise restores 100% of their losses from the recalls. Nice for them! Small private businesses have to go to their banks or our personal bank accounts to fund remediation of these problems. And let’s hope your bank sticks with you after bad publicity. . . .

Could the CSPC be so myopic that it doesn’t know how these risks affect the thinking and planning of small businesses? I can only conclude that the answer is yes.

Let’s hope that the RC2 fine helps the agency and its leadership build up a suitably tough image. And for their sake, one can only hope that the architects of this law and the agency’s penalty strategy are long gone, onto their next glories, before the cumulative impact of the CPSIA and its implementation are felt. And for the rest of us . . . good luck!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Another Big Fine for L-I-P: What Does It Mean?

CPSIA – Tracking Labels Answer Received Today

The CPSC answered my letter of September 18 regarding tracking labels today. In a nutshell, my question was about how small businesses are supposed to ascertain “cohort information” from fungible products if we are permitted to not use lot markings. The answer to that question was not clear (to me) from the Tracking Labels Guidance.

In today’s response, the CPSC seems to indicate more flexibility than I had read into the Guidance. Tony Cook of the Office of General Counsel states: “Your letter suggests that the manufacturer lacks flexibility regarding information that must be ‘ascertainable’. As with the ‘marking’ requirement, the manufacturer’s reasonable judgment and consideration of the manufacturer’s particular circumstances, are guiding issues.” He carries on helpfully: “Without such an approach, an absolute requirement to have ascertainable all required information would in effect swallow the Commission’s considered course with respect to marking.” This is the conflict that motivated my concern.

On the other hand, Mr. Cook states “. . . what can be marked and what can be ascertainable are separate questions”. This is the rub, of course. This means that even if you can’t mark the item, you might still have to be able to ascertain the cohort information. How do you do that? Well, you can’t.

It all boils down to what is considered “reasonable judgment”. In fact, I have never found this a challenging standard to meet in our business but that was before there were huge penalties and possibly jail time to consider.

In an environment where the regulators want us to exercise sound judgment, there needs to be some recognition that the incentive to take the risk of exercising judgment only makes sense when that judgment is PROTECTED. No one wants to risk huge fines for doing their job (or let their teammates incur this risk). Thus, I think the CPSC needs to look at the question about ascertainability again. The CPSC needs to say flat out that it will respect the judgment of manufacturers on how they determine which information, if any, can be ascertainable, as long as the decision on marking was deliberate, consistent and made on a good faith basis.

In the case of our business, tracking labels serve no particular purpose except to slow us down and waste our money. We have recalled 130 pieces since 1984 (out of an estimated one billion shipped, all units believed recovered) so the risk to consumers, at least thus far, seems controlled. I would like the authority to decide how much to spend on tracking labels and information retention/accessibility, based on my knowledge of our products, our market, our track record and our legal obligations. Then, if we exercise good faith and are reasonable and consistent in our approach to markings and cohort information, the CPSC should respect our decisions. thus, a failure to mark or ascertain would not be held against us unless our balancing of the equities is demonstrated to be unreasonable.

None of this would be necessary except for the ridiculous penalties and fines possible under the CPSIA. The indiscriminate manner of penalizing under the law makes minor issues (even inconsequential errors) into potentially serious problems. In addition, given that the CPSC recent practice of doling out penalties for long ago settled disputes, the long tail of 20-20 hindsight makes this dilemma particularly uncomfortable.

I appreciate the CPSC’s effort in replying to me, and look forward to working with them to bring more clarity to this very important point.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Tracking Labels Answer Received Today

CPSIA – Thoughts Ahead of Today’s CPSC Workshop

A few tidbits ahead of today’s workshop:

1. Your letters are hitting the mark. PLEASE keep the letters on the Stay coming. The CPSC continues to believe that it can fix the law piece-by-piece with more rules and interpretations, and is ignoring the practical problems that you face. They MUST delay the lifting of the Stay until they either FINISH THE JOB or get Congress to restore sanity to safety administration. I am on record that they cannot fix this WITHOUT a change in the law. You need to make yourself heard.

2. Here’s a shocker – there will be people at the workshop who are AGAINST component testing. For one, in a recent public meeting, YKK (a well-known zipper maker) has come out strongly against component testing on the grounds that it will encourage counterfeiting. To be frank, I have not seen or heard a comprehensive statement of their position and look forward to hearing it. My gut tells me that their principal concern is competition, not counterfeiting. Component testing is extremely beneficial to small businesses. Arguably, Big Business is only minimally affected by the CPSIA, at least in comparison to the impossible burdens borne by small business. Be prepared to argue your case.

3. The CPSC doesn’t want to see their workshop derailed by a complaint session about the many problems with the law. I think that’s a fair request. In any event, find the opportunity to stress the burdens that you bear and try to get them to focus on the challenges posed by COMPLEXITY. This issue is not something that the CPSC wants to fully acknowledge and seems bent on building more and more complexity into their system to compensate for the many, many flaws in the law. They need to know that it’s a real factor that will have a serious impact on the effectiveness of this safety regime. Likewise, it is a killer in the marketplace, especially in relations with dealers and retailers.

4. Finally, don’t forget to ask yourself today about SAFETY. This workshop is about RULES divorced from reality. As we argue endlessly about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ask yourself and remind the CPSC how much all of this has to do with SAFETY. We are getting lost in the weeds as we try to build a set of rules to accommodate a terrible and defective law. If we allow the fantasy to go forward that the new rules are somehow about safety (e.g., is a zipper tested by components or as a completed product safer one way or the other? OR are zippers known to be safe already?!), we are going to actually help them build the structure to kill us. We don’t want to do that!

I will try to report from the workshop as time permits.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Thoughts Ahead of Today’s CPSC Workshop

CPSIA – Educational Company Woes under the CPSIA

Michael Warring, President of American Educational Products, was quoted in the Nov/Dec issue of NSSEA Essentials in an article called “Realities of the Recession” as follows:

“The resources that we have to invest to comply with CPSIA are truly wasted. The human cost is incredible, never mind the waste of physical and cash resources. I anticipate that CPSIA will generate four to eight hours a year of work for every product that we sell – we will be measuring it in man-years. Existing regulations prior to CPSIA were adequate, and like many regulatory requirements, only needed adequate funding to be completely effective. The timing could not have been worse for our industry.”

. . . .

“As mentioned before, CPSIA has had a significant impact on our business. Every second is spent addressing our customers’ concerns, working with our suppliers to meet requirements. I personally have spent at least about 30 percent of my time this year (on CPSIA) in one form or another. As president of the company, I should be investing my energy (on other things).”

Mike, I feel your pain!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Educational Company Woes under the CPSIA

CPSIA – Testing Guidance Comments

The CPSC put out long awaited guidance on testing and certification. The hearings on this guidance took place on November 9. I wanted to give some preliminary comments:

General Comments:

The Guidance is generally helpful and clearly well-intended. This is a helpful change in tone that will be welcomed by the business community. I encourage the CPSC to keep working on the tone of its communications to rebuild trust with the business community.

As a general matter, I find that this guidance speaks with two voices, one focused on reasonableness and good judgment with the goal of safety, and the other focused on rule-following and a byzantine structure for compliance judgments that is divorced from concepts of safety. For instance, the guidance stresses the importance of third party testing of lead-in-paint on children’s products. The guidance includes an extensive section with very specific suggestions on how to accommodate lab testing for various paint scenarios (Sec. D), suggesting that the CPSC thinks that lab testing is absolutely required to assure compliance with this standard. Later, the guidance notes that “Painted non-children’s products likely to be used in the home and around children, and wet paint in the can also must comply but can be accompanied by a general certificate of conformity.” So, the CPSC apparently thinks it is essential to test SOME products for lead-in-paint that children will regularly encounter in the home, and as for the rest, they are prepared to trust the manufacturer. It also suggests a much lower sense of urgency on lead levels in those other products. From a safety perspective, one of these approaches must be right but they both cannot be right at the same time. How does the CPSC expect their rules to be respected (or understood) if they blow hot and cold on such an important subject?

There are other conundrums, such as conflicting uses of the term “reasonable certainty” and “reasonable assurance” when describing compliance. These terms have very different meanings and connotations. [The better term is "reasonable assurances" because "reasonable certainty" is an illogical term akin to "nearly precise".] In addition, at times in the guidance, the CPSC describes in great detail the factors that a reasonable manufacturer should weigh in making judgments, and then in other seemingly similar circumstances, articulates bright line compliance requirements. Bright line rules are almost certain to cause chafing, as there are so many different industries affected, and many companies have innovated in safety and supply chain processes designed to assure good quality. Specific bright line rules will offend innovators and will tend to force them to share or squander their proprietary efficiency gains. For instance, phthalate testing plans and frequency is something that should be left to the best judgment of manufacturers. Why? Because phthalates are additives not found in nature, and if the manufacturer’s supply chain has been trained to eliminate it as an additive, testing and retesting won’t find it. The incentive to run your business well is eliminated when you cannot capture the benefits of efficiency.

It would be my strong preference that the CPSC rethink this guidance from the perspective solely of a safe environment for children. As a starting point, the CPSC Staff must candidly decide if they think children are in danger now and describe precisely how they are in danger. The concept of “no safe levels of lead” has been debunked by CPSC Staff and even the Commission itself. To my recollection, no lead exemption request under Section 101(b) has been rejected for safety reasons, only for lack of flexibility in the statute. In addition, in last week’s brass bushings hearing, Commissioner Adler repeated the consumer group’s slogan “no safe level for lead” and then went on to state that the Learning Curve toy cars (subject of the exemption request) were perfectly safe to use even with a child at some hypothetical tipping point in blood lead levels. Thus, both CPSC staff and Commissioners concede that there are safe (tolerable) levels of lead. We need to move past sound bites and refocus on the real safety problems faced by children. Some of these problems probably involve lead (bio-available lead). I believe the agency can identify those risks that deserve attention, and would concede that the rest do not (at this time). This is crucial for a system of rules that will be respected by the stakeholders in the safety debate. Silly implementing rules lead to silly results, unfortunately; famously, the CPSC has “okayed” several metals for inclusion in children’s products that are KNOWN to be quite dangerous – all because they are also known to be lead-free. A set of rules focused on real safety considerations will be much better received and will be far more effective, too.

It is also worth noting that the complexity of this guidance will likely defeat its purpose. When it takes 31 pages to explain how to sensibly test your products, with two dozen FAQs to clarify the ornate rules, it is clear that something’s wrong. If the CPSC wants rules that will be understood by the “masses”, the rules must be simpler and more focused and manageable. It is important that to note that the regulated community will not put the time into mastering the nuances of these rules like the few interested parties have done for the last year. Rules that work are shorter and simpler. My preference would be rules along the line of the factors listed in B.4 coupled with a requirement that manufacturers exercise good faith, make best efforts to comply and use reasonable or best judgment in making decisions. This both describes how a best-of-class enterprise thinks through safety issues and creates a basis for the CPSC to take action against “bad guys”. The rules can sacrifice some complexity and even some coverage in favor of ease of understanding in order to assure practical effectiveness.

Specific comments:

a. The Five Steps approach to designing a “reasonable testing program” creates a mega-bureaucracy, but to what end? Is this being created because the CPSC thinks it is necessary to solve a known safety problem or crisis, or just to accommodate a badly-written law? I think it’s the latter, and thus I believe it is appropriate to consider the new mega-bureaucracy to be a misdirected tax we will pay (to testing companies and others) annually. I think that’s bad government policy, as I think taxes (if necessary) should be paid to the government, not to private parties. Notably, the five steps do not include any advice on supply chain management. The issues in supply chain management (addressed in part in a different list in B.4.) are the source of most non-design legal compliance issues. A testing-focused set of guidelines is unlikely to change safety statistics, in my view.

b. I am blown away by the list of items subject now to GCCs outside children’s products. This completely escaped my attention previously. I think this will shock a lot of people. Again, this is a most unwelcome creation of new bureaucracy that is unlikely to serve any safety purpose. It is not designed to solve a real problem and thus cannot be justified.

c. The guidance makes the following distinction: “regulations concerning reporting, recordkeeping, inspections,: guaranties, certification, or tracking labels are not ’similar’” but “any requirement of a rule, standard or ban under another act enforced by the Commission other than the CPSA that requires a warning or instruction, or specifies the form thereof, is similar”. How are manufacturers supposed to figure this out? What’s an “instruction”? Why is a “tracking label” not “similar” but a “warning” is “similar”?

d. In the section entitled “Will the Commission Require General Conformity Certification that a Product is Not Subject to a Ban?”, the guidance articulates a rule that everything within a class of products subject to a ban must be tested to back up a GCC. This will significantly increase costs but may not contribute to safety. The better rule is again to leave it to the reasonable judgment of manufacturers, as this will retain a focus on compliance, rather than testing for compliance. Overtesting, for instance for phthalates, will hurt small businesses disproportionately. If a business can organize its affairs to comply, they should be rewarded, not subjected to the same costs of companies less capable of managing their compliance obligations.

Overtesting and other bureaucracy that is not focused on safety will tend to punish U.S. small businesses in the international marketplace. Many companies, like ours, make a significant market outside the U.S. where our competitors do not have to follow U.S. rules to compete in those foreign markets. Overtesting for the U.S. market, or barriers like retesting for changing suppliers, will tend to create a long term cost advantages for foreign companies in foreign markets, reducing the ability of U.S. small business to enter foreign markets or remain competitive there. [Some members of the toy industry are advocating for international harmonization around U.S., rather than attempting to get U.S. standards and practices to become more rational. This "race to the bottom" can do tremendous damage - we need to rise above and set up a system that works but costs a lot less.]

e. The guidance should differentiate treatment of ink under the L-I-P rules and should state plainly the basic rule that if the can says “ink”, it’s ink and is not subject to the L-I-P test requirements.

f. The rules on retesting for a change in manufacturer need to be loosened. The guidance strongly favors mass market companies for their economies of scale and creates a barrier preventing or inhibiting small volume manufacturers from lowering their manufacturing costs. It goes without saying that lowered costs cannot sacrifice legal compliance or the duty of care toward consumers. It rarely does, in fact. The requirement for retesting will significantly hurt small businesses, however. It is important to note that changes in manufacturers is the most common reason for a change in components. For companies with stable product lines, swapping of components may not be very common. In our business, it is rare to change a component and not change the factory. Thus, we will gain little advantage from the rules focused on switching out components.

g. In Section B.2, the guidance strongly encourages annual testing. This will hurt small businesses. Our company’s focus is on producing safe and legally compliant products. We tend to focus on those issues that might affect safety or legal compliance. In our case, few things change in our manufacturing processes that would affect either safety or compliance over time. Thus, annual testing is a waste of money and rarely provides useful information in the administration of our business. If you test and test and test and get the same results each time, what is likely achieved by the next test? Again, the guidance should be focused on substantive safety compliance, not substantive testing compliance. The ONLY solution that will work for all companies in all circumstances is a rule dependent on good faith and best judgment. The principles outlined in B.4. form a good starting point on principles of supply chain management for this purpose.

h. The concept that someone can track the myriad different testing cycles by the components in a product, for most businesses, is a fantasy. In addition, the guidance notes that it may make sense to simply retest the whole product on a regular schedule “a means of simplifying cost, administrative burdens, or other factors.” In other words, the CPSC concedes that the market will not likely accept this relief. The scheme is unworkable as a practical matter. The CPSC should not put out rules it knows won’ t work.

i. Small volume is not best described as 10,000 units. Remember, there are 300 million people living in this country and more than 100,000 elementary schools. TRU won’t sell a product that sells only 10,000 pieces per year in its stores – and that’s just one outlet. The better definition would be 100,000 pieces or at a minimum, 50,000 pieces.

j. The guidance confuses the purpose of testing for compliance with the purpose of MAQL testing/inspections. Testing for MAQL (Minimum Acceptable Quality Levels) requires a MILSPEC sample size. This is appropriate because you are usually looking for defects in manufacturing, not legal compliance issues. In my experience, most if not all defects that have legal compliance implications are managed adequately with a single sample. Think of lead-in-paint, for instance. Multiple samples pulled from the same lot will NEVER produce different test results unless there are two or more sources of paint being used. That’s so rare and unexpected that it cannot justify regular testing of multiple samples. As with most of this guidance, the variance from the standard approach should only be justified by a real need, nothing less.

k. I must admit that while I find the rules on component testing helpful, I cannot help but think that they are making the CPSIA testing regime into a sham. A thick bundle of component tests performed at different times, in different labs, for a patchwork quilt of standards, will defeat the CPSC’s, Customs’ and our customers’ best efforts to understand them. If the purpose of the testing is not to communicate information, then what are we trying to achieve? The absurdly complex result from the component testing rules may bring relief to small businesses but at a high cost – by turning the entire testing scheme into a “check the box” exercise for manufacturers, dealers and regulators. If that’s what this is all about, why is anyone contending that children are not safe and need all these tests to be “safe”? This scheme is simply a by-product of writing rules to implement a mis-focused law, resulting in misguided rules that don’t make a lot of sense for their original purpose, rendering the entire system an embarrassing mess. Rather than burn in a terrible legacy of high costs, incomprehensible rules and test reports that cannot be interpreted, why not rethink the system from scratch and come up with rules responding to real, known problems, and leaving everything else to the best judgment and good faith of manufacturers? After all, without any additional regulation by the CPSC, every manufacturer is already subject to a common law duty of care. Why not simply describe minimally some basics of a duty of care and let the market sort out the rest, reserving the right to regulate in greater detail as real dangers are identified?

l. The sample size rules on lead-in-paint will not work for products purchased through trading companies. This is a somewhat complex subject that requires more details than I can provide in this space right now (it’s late!). Again, there needs to be some recognition that the general purpose of the legislation is to get people to test for lead-in-paint. If so, why not leave the rules on this to the best judgment of manufacturers when facing the de minimus paint issue? These instances are not likely to be true human health issues anyhow. The CPSC should also consider a de minimus rule on lead-in-paint to avoid the massive and wasteful losses from recalls like the Sarge cars in 2007 (over 400,000 units recalled because of two bad cans of paint used for detailing the cars). If you can’t obtain enough paint from one sample to perform the test, perhaps the amount of lead at issue is simply not worth worry about!

m. The guidance (logic) on one-of-a-kind products (which allows the manufacturer to exercise judgment as to whether versions are “the same product”) should apply to all manufacturers and all products. That is, manufacturers should be free to exercise this judgment on all products to simplify their testing without making any compliance sacrifices. This is something they can likely do with great insight. Consider, for instance, a manufacturer of 3-D topographical maps: do they need to test each different map or can they consider each variant the same “product”? The rules should permit this reasonable judgment by ALL manufacturers.. This will save many companies a lot of money. They are waiting for the CPSC to say it’s okay, and then they can start grouping test reports to save money. This will be a big win for small businesses, if accepted by the CPSC.

n. The CPSC should put out a FAQ about the formation of groups for testing purposes. In other words, they should bless companies or trade associations testing on behalf of groups of users of components or materials.

To sum up, the rules are helpful but would be much better if refocused on real safety issues, if shorter and less complex, and if they were more reliant on the good faith and best judgment of manufacturers based on common sense principles of duty of care.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Testing Guidance Comments

CPSIA – Randy Swart Takes My Spot in PSL!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Randy Swart Takes My Spot in PSL!

CPSIA – Do-Gooder Congress Ends The Green Toy Movement

Read more here:
CPSIA – Do-Gooder Congress Ends The Green Toy Movement

Next Page »