CPSIA – Freedom of Information Act Request – Follow-up

As sent today:

Dear Sir,

It has now been almost two months since I submitted the below request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. Your office acknowledged receipt of this request on April 1 and stated the following:

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

My request relates to pending legislation currently under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. As such, the request is both relevant to the development of this legislation and rather time-sensitive. The public has a right to know about these documents. Disclosure of these documents is in the public’s interest – transparency in how we are governed is a paramount interest of U.S. citizens. The disclosure of these documents are very relevant to the development of the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act, the subject of a recent hearing by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I testified at that hearing.

Notwithstanding the assertion in the April 1 letter above, the requested documents have not been disclosed yet. This is especially disappointing as the documents involved in this request are few, easily-located and in the possession of very few, easily-identified people at the CPSC. The effort to gather, review, redact (if necessary, which seems unlikely), duplicate and transmit these documents is almost certainly inconsequential. I find the delay inexplicable and inexcusable under your statute.

I urge you to rapidly comply with this request for disclosure. As I noted in my original request, your agency’s rules demand it – “disclosure is the rule and withholding is the exception.”

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

——————————————————————————–
From: Rick Woldenberg
Sent: Tue 3/23/2010 3:44 PM
To: ‘cpsc-foia@cpsc.gov’
Subject: Fast Track FOIA Request Relating to Draft House Legislation Know as “Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act of 2010”

I am making this document request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and 16 CFR §1015. I would like to receive copies of all documents (written or electronic, including notes and staff briefing packages) relating to (a) interactions between Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and/or Commissioner Robert Adler and/or their staff and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (and/or staff associated with that committee or its members) relating to the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA), and (b) any CPSC legal analyses or legal opinions relating to the CPSEA. Since the CPSEA is presently being circulated in draft form on Capitol Hill and since the committee’s staff is seeking feedback from various stakeholders at this time, time is of the essence for this information request. Please accord this request “fast track” status.

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

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

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Freedom of Information Act Request – Follow-up

CPSIA – Anyone Interested in Dialogue? Apparently not . . . .

The American Enterprise Institute’s Center of Regulatory Studies invited me to participate in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C. on April 19th about the CPSIA. At least, I thought they did. . . . The purpose of this meeting was to debate the following statement: “Many argue this new law [the CPSIA] has unintended consequences and in some instances has done more harm than good. AEI will host a panel discussion of the impact of the law and needed changes.”

For the panelists, all grizzled veterans of the CPSIA war, this is old hat. We could debate this in our sleep.

The composition of the AEI panel was in flux. At some point, the panel became packed with advocates for the law, so to achieve better balance, the AEI reconstituted the panel with two “pro” and two “con” speakers. The other panelists were to be CPSC Commissioner and former Acting Chairman Nancy Nord, Commissioner Bob Adler and Rachel Weintraub of Consumer Federation of America. I was the last addition. [I was penciled in as a "con" panelist, in case you haven't caught my drift yet.]

And when the Dems found out that I was to be the final panelist, well . . . first Bob Adler bailed out. And ten minutes later Rachel Weintraub withdrew. Ouch.

AEI was forced to cancel the event. And, believe me, I was ready to take on Nancy Nord, too!

Isn’t that great? What do you suppose would make CPSIA advocates pull out of an unstaged open debate on the merits of their favorite law? The panel discussion was to be filmed, btw, and would have been available for any and all to watch, again and again. Get it yet? Do you think anyone in favor of the CPSIA wants to defend the exemption decision on brass or the rhinestones ban on camera in front of a room full of impartial policy experts? I was ready to stand for that test. The CPSIA’rs were not.

It’s sad that it is apparently impossible to sit in a room and debate this law like civilized adults. The issues under this terrible law deserve discussion but the “have’s” (those that favor the law) seem to consider the matter closed. Under those circumstances, a debate on neutral ground presents lots of downside but no upside for them. After all, they already won the game.

So what does this mean for you? Well, minds certainly seem to be made up, so let’s hope you never need to plead your case. When the CPSIA saga began, I would have told you to trust the process and the agency. But as the meaning of the word “safety” became blurred over time and then lost all meaning, my feelings changed. Today I pine for the old days, when I believed the agency would listen and could be a partner in safety. Unfortunately, I feel they have become an angry police force now. The withdrawal of a Democrat Commissioner and a consumer advocate from the AEI debate after my appointment is just another signal that a true exchange of views is unwelcome.

Dialogue – it’s overrated. Do you think that’s the change we can believe in?

Read more here:
CPSIA – Anyone Interested in Dialogue? Apparently not . . . .

CPSIA – WSJ’s 7th Editorial Against the CPSIA

From tonight’s Wall Street Journal website:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
APRIL 6, 2010

Waxman’s Lead Poison

A fix of a bad law that is no fix at all.

The word “enhancement” is suspect in any form of advertising, and it turns out the same applies to Congress. In his forthcoming Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act, House baron Henry Waxman is botching the opportunity to fix a bad law while adding provisions that make life even worse for small businesses.

Since the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act passed in 2008 after a scare over lead in toys from China, Democrats have defended their handiwork while blaming the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the law’s ruthless implementation. The CPSC, under Republicans and Democrats, has correctly replied that it lacks the discretion to judge whether a product really poses a threat of lead poisoning. It also can’t permit exemptions from the law based on risk, even for books or pogo sticks.

Mr. Waxman is insisting that any product applying for an exemption would still be subject to a three-pronged test to determine whether stripping lead from the product is “practicable or technologically feasible,” whether a product might end up in a child’s mouth and whether its exemption would affect public safety. In a response, CPSC Commissioner Nancy Nord explained that since all three tests have to be met for a product to qualify, “the exception is as empty as the exception for no absorption of any lead. Such a provision does not really help anyone.”

Equally problematic is a provision that would require companies to disclose previously confidential information about product concerns. Today, a company may file something called a Section 15 report acknowledging complaints or internal concerns about a product, and the report remains confidential unless there is a recall or similar action. Under the new law, those reports could become public immediately, which would discourage companies from filing them at all, further compromising the transparency Democrats claim to want.

If Mr. Waxman wants to enhance Congress’s original creation, he should start by letting product safety regulators consider whether products are safe.

Read more here:
CPSIA – WSJ’s 7th Editorial Against the CPSIA

CPSIA – WSJ’s 7th Editorial Against the CPSIA

From tonight’s Wall Street Journal website:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
APRIL 6, 2010

Waxman’s Lead Poison

A fix of a bad law that is no fix at all.

The word “enhancement” is suspect in any form of advertising, and it turns out the same applies to Congress. In his forthcoming Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act, House baron Henry Waxman is botching the opportunity to fix a bad law while adding provisions that make life even worse for small businesses.

Since the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act passed in 2008 after a scare over lead in toys from China, Democrats have defended their handiwork while blaming the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the law’s ruthless implementation. The CPSC, under Republicans and Democrats, has correctly replied that it lacks the discretion to judge whether a product really poses a threat of lead poisoning. It also can’t permit exemptions from the law based on risk, even for books or pogo sticks.

Mr. Waxman is insisting that any product applying for an exemption would still be subject to a three-pronged test to determine whether stripping lead from the product is “practicable or technologically feasible,” whether a product might end up in a child’s mouth and whether its exemption would affect public safety. In a response, CPSC Commissioner Nancy Nord explained that since all three tests have to be met for a product to qualify, “the exception is as empty as the exception for no absorption of any lead. Such a provision does not really help anyone.”

Equally problematic is a provision that would require companies to disclose previously confidential information about product concerns. Today, a company may file something called a Section 15 report acknowledging complaints or internal concerns about a product, and the report remains confidential unless there is a recall or similar action. Under the new law, those reports could become public immediately, which would discourage companies from filing them at all, further compromising the transparency Democrats claim to want.

If Mr. Waxman wants to enhance Congress’s original creation, he should start by letting product safety regulators consider whether products are safe.

Read more here:
CPSIA – WSJ’s 7th Editorial Against the CPSIA

CPSIA – Freedom of Information Act Document Request

As submitted today:

To: cpsc-foia@cpsc.gov

Re: Fast Track FOIA Request Relating to Draft House Legislation Known as “Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act of 2010”

I am making this document request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and 16 CFR §1015. I would like to receive copies of all documents (written or electronic, including notes and staff briefing packages) relating to (a) interactions between Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and/or Commissioner Robert Adler and/or their staff and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (and/or staff associated with that committee or its members) relating to the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA), and (b) any CPSC legal analyses or legal opinions relating to the CPSEA. Since the CPSEA is presently being circulated in draft form on Capitol Hill and since the committee’s staff is seeking feedback from various stakeholders at this time, time is of the essence for this information request. Please accord this request “fast track” status.

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

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

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Freedom of Information Act Document Request

CPSIA – Treatment of Section 101(b)(2) in the New Waxman Amendment

i have attached a conformed version of Section 101(b) reflecting the new Waxman amendment’s proposed changes for your reference.

The dilemma posed by the current Section 101(b)(2) is that exclusions to the lead standard are basically impossible to obtain. There have been several rejected exemption requests and much pleading by Nancy Nord and Anne Northup for changes providing flexibility.

Last December, Mr. Waxman (supposedly with input from Chairman Tenenbaum) launched a sneak effort to implement something called the “functional purpose” exemption to “solve” these issues. The original construct of this exemption applied to situations where the manufacturer could demonstrate that the lead served a “functional” purpose and could not be removed without consequences (not including economic loss). This provision would have permitted ATV manufacturers to assert the need to put lead in certain parts to strengthen the steel, for instance. The functional purpose concept derives from a similar procedure under the EU’s ROHS-WEEE and is also present in the treatment of electronics under the CPSIA.

Waxman’s functional purpose language generated howls of protest as the “solution” solved nothing for anyone. Later, the Commission could not agree on a functional purpose recommendation for its January 15h report, and the idea “died”.

In the new Waxman Amendment which emerged last week, a new version of the functional purpose exemption was introduced to modify Section 101(b)(2). You may find the conformed version of Section 101(b)(2) helpful in understanding how the new provision works.

My thoughts on the new language:

a. The limitations of the exemption process in Section 101(b)(1) are UNCHANGED. In other words, the problematic “any” language is still effective. The new functional purpose exception will be an exception to the exception. Get it?

b. The Section 101(b) structure which limits exceptions to specific products, materials (or component part, in the case of the functional purpose section) remains in place. The language does NOT permit exceptions by product class. You must apply product by product, material by material. The rule even specifies that each component must be individually considered. How many parts are in an ATV . . . .

c. The Commission is now allowed to act “on its own initiative” to exempt “a specific product, material, or component part”. A petitioner may also seek the same relief.

It is hard to imagine how this would take place – will a Commission of five people pick lucky companies or industries for random acts of kindness? Of course, the first products likely to be accorded this “on its own initiative” treatment would be books, ATVs and bikes because of political pressure. [Let's not call that "influence peddling".] More complex product categories, like school supplies (my industry), would be stuck without an effective means to seek exemption.

d. The process, regardless of who initiates it, will be subject to a notice and comment period. This is new and presumably is designed to enable consumer groups to “participate in” (read, slow down or obstruct) the exception process. You have to hand it to the authors of this provision – they found a way to make a slow, expensive and tedious process even worse.

e. The standard for obtaining a functional purpose exception has several parts (all of which must be satisfied) -

“(i) the product, material, or component part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture such product, component part, or material in accordance with subsection (a) by removing the excessive lead or by making the lead inaccessible.”

This clause has several tricky parts in it. First, the word “practicable” was supposedly chosen because of a Supreme Court decision holding that “practicable” implies consideration of economic factors. So bickering over what “practicable” means is almost certain under this provision. The legal standard will need to be developed to make this provision workable – another nice project for Cheryl Falvey and her CPSC legal department. No guidance has been provided on how much economic pain needs to be incurred before lead removal is deemed not “practicable”. Consider for instance the use of recycled metal for bike frames. When is removal of lead from bike frames not “practicable”? Each frame is presumably different. Virgin metal is available without lead. You figure it out, I can’t.

Let’s not forget that the amendment also uses the term “technologically feasible” as defined in CPSIA Section 101(d). The CPSIA definition omits any reference to economics – intentionally. So the phrase “is not practicable or not technologically feasible” means that it is either too expensive or impossible to remove lead. This makes no sense to me, as the term “practicable” with its advertised meaning incorporates technologically feasibility and makes inclusion of the latter term duplicative. If there is a reason to use both terms, I can’t figure it out. Readers?

In addition to the problematic standard of “practicable”, the petitioners must also demonstrate that it is both too expensive to remove the lead to levels below the standard AND also too expensive to make the part inaccessible. Since the standard for “too expensive” (not “practicable”) is not specified, this language means we must invite the CPSC, the Commission and (due to the notice and comment period) the general public and our competitors into our business processes. That rag-tag lot will get to decide whether the expense of money on the removal of lead from the subject product, material or component is “practicable”. Yes, that’s what it means – you must publicly expose your judgments and economic choices to the Commission for their feedback and approval. Presumably, this would require you to publicly disclose your costs to obtain the “not practicable” decision.

That really sounds like FUN! I can’t see a deterrent to submitting a petition . . . can you?

“(ii) the product, material, or component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested, taking into account normal and foreseeable use and abuse of such product, material, or component part by a child; and”

Two years ago, I might have thought this was reasonable language. In a world where logic prevails, this language is something that most companies could fairly easily (and probably already do) consider. However, after Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony about rhinestones on September 10, 2009 in which she speculated about the ingestion of 50 rhinestones by a child, it is hard to predict which imaginary risk the CPSC will fixate on. Recent events suggest that “foreseeable” is now in the eyes of the beholder.

“(iii) an exception for the product, component part, or material will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety.”

This third plank in the exception standard is supposedly meant to connote that contact with a subject product which produces less than 1 micro-gram per deciliter change in blood lead levels (the smallest increment for measuring blood lead levels today) is okay. It does not say so explicitly but wink-wink-nudge-nudge, that’s what it means.

Unfortunately, the precision of this “standard” promises more than it delivers. There are few identifiable lead threats in children’s products that could foreseeably cause this kind of change in blood lead levels other than lead-in-paint (probably above 90 ppm, too) and lead in jewelry. So if each case must be argued and decided, isn’t the standard and the process some sort of sham? I think the difficulty and expense of proving the negative in this case is a strategy by the Dems to keep their ridiculous standard in place while appearing to be magnanimous in offering an exception process. Few companies will get exceptions.

Sadly, fear does not allow for the use of science. There’s a lot of hypocrisy here, too. Apparently, the risk from lead in handlebars of a bike is far more worrisome than lead in our air, water or food supply. Likewise, it must be far more serious than, say, lead-in-paint on cars and boats (both of which are perfectly legal). And for those cases which this law obsesses over, lead-in-substrate in children’s products, the zealots cannot agree on how to measure what’s safe – mainly because they don’t know. Let’s not forget that Commissioner Bob Adler wrote a lengthy paper )with 89 footnotes) on how there is NO safe level for lead. The non-scientists who now control this issue have even drafted a MOVING target for safety – it is dependent on what we can measure. If we can measure lead blood levels more precisely in the future, the exception standard will automatically tighten. Like a noose.

f. The Commission can require a warning label for those items afforded an exception under this strict standard. What? Are they going to warn us that the product is safe? No, it’s Proposition 65 creeping into federal law – apparently, the Dems think that the Commission may decide to warn the public that they weren’t able to rid these items of lead, even though they have determined in an investigation that the products are safe. Again, since the zealots think “there is no safe level for lead”, it is very scary for them to concede that anything could be safe if it contains lead. This is a belief system, stop trying to figure it out.

Btw, have any of you ever tried selling a children’s product with such a warning label? At our company, we would drop such an item rather than try to sell it. No one will buy such a product for their child or for use in their classroom. The imposition of a Prop. 65-style lead warning on a children’s product is a tacit ban.

g. The petitioner has the burden of proof in applying for an exception under this provision. That means a small business has to make the same case as a Big Business. Why not simply say that small businesses can’t have an exception under this provision?

The petitioner may utilize data submitted by other petitioners in making its case, but there is no requirement that such data be made publicly available. In recent cases, the submission of the petitioners has not always been made public.

h. The language allows a sunset date to be imposed for the exceptions, even though the very terms of the exception requires that the CPSC conclude that public health and safety will not be imperiled by sale of the product. I am made to understand that the motivation behind this illogical provision is that exceptions should not last forever. Why not? I think it’s the belief system again, or it could be some sense of unjust enrichment. In any event, the CPSC would be empowered to force the continued gratuitous erosion of a company’s cost structure for no particular reason other to remedy the offense of an exception to the rule.

i. The exception will have retroactive effect unless otherwise specified by the Commission. This sounds good . . . other than the fact that we have been shooting our businesses in the foot since August 2008. The ability to give retroactive effect to exceptions might have been valuable two years ago. To put it in an amendment now, two years too late, is an insult to the regulated community. Alternatively, it is yet more evidence of the absolute inability of Democratic legislators to even SIMULATE understanding of business issues under this law.

Next up – discussion of the Resale Shop Exception under Section 101(b)(3).

Read more here:
CPSIA – Treatment of Section 101(b)(2) in the New Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – Decorum

I have received some comments in the last 24 hours that I consider abusive and personal in nature. This blog space is intended to be a forum for discussion of a limited topic, the issues surrounding the CPSIA, its implementation and its administration. I do not attack people personally for their views, although I certainly reserve the right to disagree with the positions, tactics or methods of the various actors in this drama. This is not personal and will not become personal while I am on the watch.

Let’s keep it clean, guys. I do not filter comments to this blog and do not want to. To date, the only comments I have deleted are comments that promote other people’s businesses (generally, these comments promote “adult” businesses) and one comment that I felt was insulting to a Commissioner (a Democrat, as it turns out). Some things are just across the line. I do not want to restrain your ability to comment here BUT if you won’t obey the rules, I will turn on the filter and will shut you down.

Please don’t ruin this for everyone. I will not tolerate personal attacks or other violations of ordinary decorum in this space.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Decorum

CPSIA – Mike Green Attacks Anne Northup in WSJ

In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Mike Green of the notorious Center for Environmental Health, a known Proposition 65 bounty hunter, attacked Commissioner Anne Northup for her criticisms of the CPSIA:

“Anne Northup notes that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) passed with bipartisan support, so it is surprising to see her partisan attack on this children’s health protection law (”There Is No Joy in Toyland,” op-ed, Dec. 24). She states that lead in metals used in children’s products is not “bioavailable,” and thus cannot harm children. This will come as a shock to Juanna Graham, whose son died after swallowing a metal charm. At least eight other children have suffered lead poisoning after sucking on or swallowing small lead pieces from toys or jewelry.

Ms. Northup also errs in stating that lead is not absorbable in materials other than paint. Over the past five years we have found high levels of lead in numerous vinyl children’s items, including baby bibs, lunchboxes, rain gear, toys, and others. Independent lab tests showed that lead in these products can wipe off and expose children to unsafe levels of lead.

Michael Green
Executive Director
Center for Environmental Health
Oakland, Calif.”

This is nonsense, of course. It is very important to leave comments on this misleading and manipulative letter at the WSJ.com website. If you click at the link above, you will see a block to leave a comment. I left one and you should, too.

Thank you.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Mike Green Attacks Anne Northup in WSJ

CPSIA – How Important is Testing After All?

Let’s zoom up to 40,000 feet and look down on the CPSIA mess. If Martians were watching this affair unfold before their uncomprehending eyes, what would they think?

In 2007/8, a large number of toy recalls and jewelry recalls dominated the newspaper headlines. A closer examination of these recalls shows that they were largely restricted to lead-in-paint and lead-in-jewelry, but few people bothered with the details – hysteria was a lot easier. Sold on a rationale that it is “impossible” to know if something’s safe without testing it, Congress wrote up legislation to require prophylactic testing of all children’s products, a mind-boggling array of products ranging from pens to t-shirts to science kits to ATVs to shoes.

Being entirely unable to anticipate any problems with this brilliant construct, Congress was shocked to find that the CPSC couldn’t implement these requirements without crushing small businesses (among others). A finger-pointing contest broke out, where Congress insisted that the CPSC had the power to implement the new law with “common sense” (read, make up law to make the whiners go away) and the CPSC pushed back that it lacked regulatory flexibility under the CPSIA and legally was forbidden to assess risk. Standoff!

Of late, a weary and perhaps more sensitive CPSC is now taking a more conciliatory stance, expressing an interest, in the words of Ms. Tenenbaum, “to get it right”. Aside from soliciting feedback from stakeholders, the agency is clearly trying to draft rules permitting small companies to reduce their compliance costs. The net effect: testing is ebbing away. Now with component testing, it is possible for companies to get out of testing altogether for many of their products. Other rules, like flexible rules on rules on sampling and testing frequency, among other rules being crafted, are further reducing the testing burden. [I strongly support this movement by the CPSC, let there be no doubt.]

But I am confused now. Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America famously taught us that “Businesses’ assertion that they’re having to test products they know are safe is absurd. You only know if a product is safe if it’s been tested.” [Emphasis added.] Yet the CPSC seems to be pulling away from Ms. Weintraub and her wisdom on testing. Is testing critical or not? Is safety achievable in other ways (perhaps various elements in combination)? If testing isn’t so essential after all, what’s really going on here?

I have a theory to share on this question: The recent movement by the CPSC on testing is tacit acknowledgement of our argument that there is more to safety administration than testing. Furthermore, the ebbing of testing requirements is a further acknowledgement that we are not facing a massive public health crisis in children’s products – and never were. Yes, that means poison zippers, brass bushings, ATVs, pens and bikes really is a joke, as you thought. So why the big fuss, why isn’t everyone linking arms and singing Kumbaya, if there is acceptance that a lesser standard will be sufficient to ensure safety?

It’s simple – the issues go beyond this law, and that’s why the Dems in Congress will budge. In fact, we are pawns in a bigger game, namely the battle to establish the precautionary principle in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is Mr. Waxman’s dream legislation, his effort to rein in the chemical industry. The folks behind the TSCA reform legislation are deeply suspicious of chemicals in our lives and want to regulate them on a precautionary basis, not entirely unlike the way we approve drugs. It’s the “fear of everything” all over again but BIGGER.

How does this tie back to the CPSIA? We are the test case, kids. The CPSIA was the first skirmish in the TSCA war. The two substances regulated on a precautionary basis under the CPSIA, lead and phthalates, either make or break the case on TSCA. If the Dems give in to our demands and acknowledge that their precautionary scheme didn’t work, that it ate up the regulatory agency (now nicknamed the Children’s Product Safety Commission), then how can they win approval of TSCA?

This is why the Dems are so resistant to rational change of this ridiculous law. This is why they won’t listen to reason or consider facts. The facts are contrary to their larger goals, so they need to ignore them or deny them. In this context, it is better to send us down the river than deal with our issues. Although their tough testing scheme is being unraveled, they won’t admit that it means that the crisis never was; without a crisis to fix, the entire logic of the CPSIA and their precautionary trial balloon fizzles. The Dems must insist that the crisis is still severe and that there is only one solution, the precautionary principle. Otherwise, they don’t get TSCA.

[Side note: There was a "telltale" in the Waxman amendment to the CPSIA last week on TSCA. A big issue in TSCA reform legislation is the possible use of "junk science" to justify removing valuable chemicals from use in our country. With all the self-appointed consumer representatives clamoring for a chemical-free world, there is good reason to fear manipulative use of science under TSCA to disrupt the chemical industry. It's no different than the misuse of lead toxicity and antimony health effects by consumer groups to attack toys and other children's products under the CPSIA. Some people have been insisting on a "peer-review" standard for these scientific challenges to chemical use - which Mr. Waxman fear may hobble his precautionary principle law. This term is used in Section 101 (b) in the CPSIA to make it more difficult to get exemptions - but was stripped out of the law in Mr. Waxman's unilateral amendment. See my first blogpost on his amendment. His "generous act" in removing this ridiculous stumbling block wasn't a signal of increasing sympathy with our problems. No, in fact, it was simply aimed at resolving one of his problems with TSCA.]

I have no easy answers for how this ends. If you feel your anger welling up, you’re not alone. Actually, I think the regulators are sick of it, too. The CPSIA has truly consumed the CPSC and made the daily affairs of that agency some kind of purgatory for the staff there. I can’t imagine it’s much fun being a Commissioner either. Frankly, the biggest shame of all is that by Congress (the Dems, really) insisting on an unworkable scheme for reasons unrelated to children’s product safety, the agency has been rendered ineffective, bureaucratic and stuck in gridlock. The CPSC’s essential role has been mooted. That’s bad for everybody – in a perfect world, the agency is free to do its job and look for real safety problems to solve. Instead, it has to spend its time figuring out whether water slides are primarily intended for children and the like. What a tragic waste.

In the wake of last week’s demise of the Waxman amendment and the extension of the lead content Stay, we must retain our focus and continue to push hard for a change in the law. The facts are piling up and the excuses for inaction are fading. It’s time for action – for the good of consumers, for the good of industry and for the good of the CPSC.

Read more here:
CPSIA – How Important is Testing After All?

CPSIA – Commission Delays Vote on Lead Content Stay for One Day

In this morning’s hearing on extending the testing and certification stay (the “Stay”), the Commission opted to carve-out lead content from the Stay. The decision on how to handle lead content under the Stay is docketed for a ballot vote tomorrow. [Just to clarify, other aspects of the Stay were extended today including situations where the rules and certifications have not been completed, such as ASTM F963 and phthalates.]

Frankly, the demise of the Waxman CPSIA amendment throws a HUGE curve ball at the Commission. Now that Waxman’s fractious process derailed his attempt to “fix” the CPSIA, however ham-handed that attempt may have been, it seems that change is in the air. Will the Commission plunge on ahead with its big decision as though nothing has changed? Your guess is as good as mine. Unfortunately, things are happening so fast that events are literally overlapping – the news about the dead amendment came as the CPSC was completing its morning hearing. It seems to me that the Commission must now take even more time to carefully consider its next steps – this historic opportunity to force common sense change should not be squandered.

It seems equally important that the Commission reject partisanship and pull together, even if it takes more time and more debating (off-line and in the public eye). The poisoned partisan atmosphere of Waxman’s House Energy and Commerce Committee sadly seems to have migrated to the CPSC Commission. In today’s hearing, Commissioner Northup called for more effort by the Commission to reach 5-0 votes. What a timely call THAT was! The failure of the Waxman amendment can be interpreted as Congressional rejection of partisan control of safety by the Democrats alone. Over the course of the past year, partisan hubris led to extremism, culminating in a small number of Democrats co-opting the law as self-appointed defenders of the “will of Congress”. Safety belongs to everyone – it’s not political. The call to action now is for the Commission to act as one. Whatever damage the Waxman fiasco caused to working relationships needs to be rapidly repaired through the individual leadership of the Chairman and the other Commissioners.

The Commission has balloted Anne Northup’s motion to delay lifting the Stay on lead content until six months after the issuance of the so-called “15 Month Rule”. This proposal, acknowledged by Inez Tenenbaum to be based on “common sense”, is not likely to be adopted without a gentle shove. Ms. Tenenbaum herself stated that manufacturers had asked for a “date certain” when the Stay would be lifted. [One can only hope that she was confusing a reasonable request for certainty, as in knowing what the rules are and when they will be imposed, with a request for a deadline. I cannot imagine who would demand a compliance deadline from the CPSC without knowing what the rules actually are, and if such a (neurotic) person exists, I would like to speak to him/her to better understand WHY they think this would be helpful.]

Even more worrisome, Commissioner Bob Adler contended that “Congress” wanted to be sure that everyone is in compliance with the law. [This personification of Congress is very troubling, especially since the Waxman fiasco makes clear that the original CPSIA votes no longer reflect the will of Congress today - or else how was an amendment by the powerful Henry Waxman stopped? This kind of thinking needs to be revisited.] Mr. Adler further asserted that based on feedback from small manufacturers, the most serious concern today is component testing which will be addressed by the CPSC’s new interim enforcement policy. Adler was rather dismissive of the market impact of the 15 Month Rule beyond component testing and he even asserted that the VAST MAJORITY of manufacturers would be “just fine” with lifting the Stay today if they got effective protection for component testing. I question Mr. Adler’s research on this point.

The lines are drawn for tomorrow’s fight. Mr. Adler has stated a preference for a date certain of August 14, 2010 for full implementation of the testing and certification rules. Ms. Tenenbaum says she would vote to extend the Stay again if the 15 Month Rule is not completed by August 14, thereby signalling her approval of Mr. Adler’s formulation. [Market chaos be damned?] Mr. Moore generally follows the party line so you can count him in, too. If the Dems don’t move off these positions by tomorrow, we are looking at a date certain of August 14 for lifting the Stay on lead content. This would sadly be more of the same. [Makes you wonder why we all took two days out of our lives to go to the CPSC to give comments at last week's 15 Month Rule workshop, or even more bizarre, why the CPSC called for comment letters on the 15 Month Rule by January 11 - if the Commission is seriously thinking of voting tomorrow to lift the Stay without considering ANY of this input. So - which process is a sham, the workshops and the comment letters, tomorrow's vote, neither . . . or both?]

The problem with the August 14 “date certain” proposal is that the following matters have not been resolved:

• Testing frequency
• Component testing
• Re-testing requirements
• Sampling requirements
• ASTM F963
• Lab certifications

It was noted in today’s hearing that only EIGHT certified laboratories have been approved for lead content in children’s non-metal products, three on the West Coast and the rest overseas. Here’s the list:

1. Bureau Veritas (three China lab locations)
2. CTC Group
3. Intertek (two China lab locations)
4. Istituto Italiano Sicurezza Dei Giocattoli S.r.l.
5. MSR Laboratories, LLC
6. SGS (one China lab, one U.S. lab, one India lab location)
7. Specialized Technology Resources Ltd. (one China lab location)
8. Union Technology Research & Service Center

For perspective, consider these long lists of locations for three leading labs: SGS (worldwide), Intertek (China list only) and Bureau Veritas (China list only). That’s just the tip of the iceberg of the testing market (admittedly not all of these labs focus on or serve the children’s product industry). One lab we use, not on the above list, reportedly can’t seem to get someone from the CPSC to visit them to certify them for lead content testing. It’s understandable – the effort to process all these (pointless) certifications is taking a lot of the agency’s resources and time. The CPSC is just not ready to manage this enormous bureaucracy even 16 months after passage of the law. Eight labs to serve the worldwide children’s product industry for access to the U.S. market by August 14 – that’s a BAAAD joke.

With the Waxman amendment behind us, the Commission has a great chance here to focus its efforts in the right direction. The recent Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3288) contains these instructions: “The CPSC is directed to assess enforcement efforts of [CPSIA] section 101(a), including difficulties encountered, as well as recommendations for improvement to the statute, and to report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, no later than January 15, 2010.” This report should be the focus for the Commission at this time. The Stay is secondary to this historic opportunity, and as such the Commission should not get caught up in the moment. MANY legitimate concerns have been raised by manufacturers relating to the lead content aspects of the Stay. We are not all guilty until proven innocent – why can’t these valid doubts justify taking the time to “do this right” (as Ms. Tenenbaum called for in a November hearing)?

With change in the air, the Commission needs to seize the moment and lead us out of the wilderness by calling for a technical amendment to the law. The January 15 information request is the golden opportunity. The agency should not simply respond with something designed to please Henry Waxman – that would fumble the ball. Instead, the agency must offer up suggestions designed to meet the will of Congress expressed this week – namely, a proposal to fix the flaws in the CPSIA while providing reasonable protection to children.

It’s time to do the hard work. I am ready to help – are you?

Read more here:
CPSIA – Commission Delays Vote on Lead Content Stay for One Day

Next Page »