CPSIA – What’s the Difference?

The current debate over the need for mandatory CPSIA testing of children’s products derives from consumer advocate assertions that American consumers “want” this testing to be “assured” that products are not laden with lead.  This assertion has never been backed up with real data (other than ” push poll ” data) but strikes a nice chord with certain politicians seeking to have something nice to say on the stump. Has this very notion, that mandatory testing “assures” anxious consumers, ever been tested?  More to the point, how does mandating testing achieve anything – given that the core issue preceding the CPSIA was compliance with the rules.  In other words, prior to the CPSIA, a small number of companies making children’s products (some of them large multinationals like Mattel) did a poor job of following the rules. Some quite  notoriously ignored the rules , too.  Despite the fact that the agency had the legal power to enforce against these companies and despite the fact that these companies were not following the rules, Congress decided what we really needed were more rules.  Apparently, when companies don’t follow one set of rules, there is a big need for more rules. More rules certainly solved the problem. . . . And out of that effort grew the myth that mandated testing was absolutely necessary to keep America safe.  Of course, mandated testing for real hazards isn’t controversial.  For instance, you will not find one peep from me about testing for lead-in-paint since 2008.  That’s a real hazard, actually linked to real, actual victims.  However, the CPSIA invented a couple new standards concerning “hazards” not previously documented to have caused any actual injuries, and instituted mandated testing.  This was Congress’ solution to a perceived lack of compliance by the market. How does that work logically?  There were standards or rules previously, and they were notoriously ignored by a small number companies. That made everyone “mad” and gave people like Dick Durbin something to spout off about.  But the fact is, the rules were well-known and were nevertheless ignored.  We can certainly conclude from this experience that the existence of a rule is not assurance that the rule will actually be followed.  Compliance is independent from posted restrictions.  [Have you ever been cited for speeding?  'Nuf said.] The new rules mandated third party testing for every product.  Why?  Purportedly to make SURE that every product complied with the standards that Congress felt were being ignored.  Since we “cannot trust” companies to obey these standards, they must test.  Apaparently, we trust these companies to test even though they previously ignored the mandated standards.  And this apparently helps the CFA sleep better at night. But if a small number of companies were ignoring the old rules, what makes Congress think a small number of companies won’t ignore the NEW rules and simply lie about their testing or cut a few corners . . . until they get caught?  Good question?  I have no answer to it.  The Dems don’t like to talk about this.  In their perfect world, while the old standards were rules that might be ignored, the replacement rules (mandated testing) will CERTAINLY be universally followed.  No reason for this conclusion has ever been provided.  The lack of rationale has not deterred the Dems from clinging to this idea like grim death . . . . Not all of the new CPSIA rules work to protect consumers, but disclosure of the facts is not forthcoming if it might reflect badly on the agency or Congress.  For instance, you may recall that companies can petition to certify firewalled in-house labs to conduct testing on a “trust me” basis - this rule effectively only benefits big companies like Mattel.  Yet when Mattel recalled 11 million units of its toys last September , nothing was disclosed about the involvement of its firewalled labs in the recalls.   Were any of these items tested in0house and passed?  Let’s not forget that Mattel is largely responsible for the CPSIA because of its bad acts.  Was the firewalled lab rule a bummer for American consumers?  This is not a question welcomed by Dems. And if a small number of companies will skirt the NEW rules on madndated testing, what happens to the rest of us?  Well, our costs will certainly go through the roof and put us at a disadvantage to the scofflaws.  In other words, the more compliant you are, the worse you fare competitively.  Many of us would rather eat sand than knowingly break the law.  So our costs skyrocket, and the basic problem that Congress wanted to solve (presumably, making consumers safer, not making consumer advocates sleep easier in their naivete) is not advanced at all. Is this economically-efficient? Stupid question - to this politicos, it only matters what the CPSIA sounds like on the stump.  Is anyone safer?  Well, first tell me whether a markedly lower percentage of cheaters are present in the market. Let’s get one thing straight:  there is no way to know if you are complying with lead content standards without testing.  Whether testing is mandated or not, testing will need to take place to assess compliance with mandated levels of lead in children’s products.  Mandating compliance with the standard and mandating testing is the SAME THING – but the big difference is that in the former case, we can run our businesses and succeed or fail based on our ability to run those businesses well and competitively.  In the latter case, the government becomes our partner and nothing we do is beyond their scrutiny and “advice” (needed or not). After all, they have nothing better to do.  Catch criminals?  Please – watching over our shoulders is all they have time for. We can only hope that some Dems will wake up and do the right thing for our economy and job creation.  This three-year disaster is a metaphor for everything that’s wrong with our current government and political leadership.  I wish it were otherwise, but there is no sign that the Dems care what we have to say.  Until this storm breaks, we are doomed to slowly asphyxiate through mandated testing under the supervision of the government.

Visit link:
CPSIA – What’s the Difference?

CPSIA – In My Fantasies, the CPSC is Just Like Homeland Security

On Monday, March 15, the Department of Homeland Security did something we probably will never see from this CPSC:

“[Docket No. DHS–2011–0015]

Reducing Regulatory Burden; Retrospective Review Under Executive
Order 13563

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, DHS.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (Department or DHS) must develop a preliminary plan to facilitate the review of existing DHS significant regulations through the use of retrospective analyses. The preliminary plan will include criteria for identifying existing DHS significant rules that might be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, so as to make DHS’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives. The Department is soliciting views from the public on how best to develop its preliminary plan. The Department is also seeking views from the public on specific existing significant DHS rules that the Department should consider as candidates for modification, streamlining, expansion, or repeal. These efforts will help DHS ensure that its regulations contain necessary, properly tailored, and up-to-date requirements that effectively achieve regulatory objectives without imposing unwarranted costs.” [Emphasis added]

Imagine that, an agency that wants to streamline and to avoid imposing unwarranted costs!

Of course, Homeland Security is not facing anything as dreaded as LEAD – have I mentioned that there is NO safe level of lead? – and can probably cut a few corners without any untoward effects. Homeland Security doesn’t seem too busy, just checking a few boarding passes, looking serious and so on. I guess when you have an unimportant, almost trivial responsibility in the government, you can afford to review your rules for fat, waste and stupidity. But when CHILDREN’S SAFETY is concerned, and bicycle licking is possibly at stake, well then, you can’t take ANY chances.

Damn the cost, man, we have to be SAFE!!!

Read more here:
CPSIA – In My Fantasies, the CPSC is Just Like Homeland Security

CPSIA – "Must Read" in PSL

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

My response: Amen, brother!

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

Please read Eric’s Op-Ed.

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

CPSIA – My Testimony at the CPSC Hearing on 100 ppm Lead Standard 2-16-11

Here are clips from my testimony at the CPSC Hearing on 100 ppm Lead Standard on February 16, 2011. As noted in previous blogposts, there’s much more to see and hear in this panel discussion. The clips focus on me and my testimony. I admire the testimony of the other panelists and especially the quality of the dialogue after the testimony under questioning by the Commission. If you want to see it unedited, check out the full video at the CPSC website.

I have already published the links from the morning session. Viewing those clips before watching these clips may help you understand the flow of the argument better.

My full testimony:

[Notably, Ms. Tenenbaum cut me a break and let me go over my 10 minute allotment. I appreciate that courtesy.]

Commissioner Bob Adler questions me on the future of small business under the CPSIA and the need for the Commission to “follow the law” and implement the new standard despite the known consequences. This may be the most interesting interchange on the troubling issues under the CPSIA that I have participated in over the past four years. Check it out!

Commissioner Anne Northup asks about the ability of small business to obtain exemptions from the lead standard:

Commissioner Nancy Nord questions me about recycled materials, the cost implications of the new standards and injuries:

My call for a Five Year Stay on the new lead standard to allow for development of real injury statistics:

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Testimony at the CPSC Hearing on 100 ppm Lead Standard 2-16-11

CPSIA – House Hearing Testimony of Jolie Fay and Wayne Morris

Testimony of Jolie Fay, HTA Board Member:

Testimony of Wayne Morris, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM):

Read more here:
CPSIA – House Hearing Testimony of Jolie Fay and Wayne Morris

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on Compliance and Field Operations

Marc Schoem moderated a discussion involving four other heads of department (he is an acting department head, too):

• Dean Woodard, Dir., Defect Investigation Div.
• Mary Toro, Dir., Regulatory Enforcement Div.
• Dennis Blasiua, Eastern District Div., Field Investigations Div.
• Kathleen Lisius, Compliance Investigator, Import Surveillance Div (standing in for the director today).

DW: This division has four teams. Fast Track Recall program does not let you off the hook for reporting violations. It does avoid a “Preliminary Determination”. This is a very “successful” and very “positive” program. Less bureaucracy and less “red tape”. “Saves lives” and “limits your exposure” to whatever issues there may have been.

[RW: It is ALSO one of the most remarkably coercive programs administered by the CPSC. You are very often, if not always, given a short period of time to decide whether to participate. By "short", this could mean HOURS to decide. Hope you are always at the ready!]

MT: Four teams based on hazard. Four team leaders and 16 compliance officers. Different backgrounds on the team, lots of tech know-how and skills. This team does a lot of advising and gives a lot of guidance to industry. Have more than double the previous total of regulations that they have to enforce. Field staff goes out to do inspections. Develop field investigation programs for the year. Now MUST report under Section 15 for a violation of a mandatory standard. [Them's a lot of reports!] All such items also have a certification requirement.

DB – Does hundreds of inspections annually. Surveys, too. Visits to consumer homes and “no one leaves in handcuffs”. [He said this in a joking manner.] Has roughly 100 investigations but gets tens of thousands of complaints annually. [RW: Now all that crap will go into the database. Can we see any issues here?] Emphasizes the politeness of his investigators. [RW: I appreciate this approach. I take him at his word.]

DB: Says we need to monitor the Internet for consumer complaints online. The CPSC is monitoring it so you better. Hmmm. DB says this may warrant investigation or spawn an investigation. More and more will send out investigators or ask for proof of destruction of recalled merchandise. Apparently, the re-export of recalled merchandise is up to Tim Geithner. [Fortunately, he's not too busy . . . .]

KL: Import Surveillance Div: Last year, not surprisingly, set a record of samples taken at port. 91% of the samples were violations, but only two products were recalled. Stopping at the port prevented the recalls. [This is interesting data. Are they clairvoyant or does everything coming into this country violate this godforsaken law in SOME way?] In apparel imports, the “first thing they look for” is drawstrings. Don’t go there. . . .

Q&A: What if you disagree with the conclusions of your compliance officer? What are your due process rights?

MS: You are encouraged to call “up the chain”. We are concerned to be responsive and want to know if you feel something is amiss.

60% of recalls come in under the Fast Track Recall program. In other words, this decision is made to pick up the “benefits” of the FTR program but also muddy the water about the state of the law on “substantial product hazards”.

[RW: This is a total cop-out on the part of the agency and contributes significantly to the confusion on the workings of the law. In addition, the defects in the FTR program make everything worse. Marc Schoem admitted during Q&A that you often have only a DAY to decide whether or not to participate, which is inherently coercive. For most companies, unprepared for a federal agency descending on them with an "offer that you can't refuse" with an eight hour time limit, the pressure can be overwhelming. It is not unusual to get this "fine" offer before all relevant facts are known, and even when basically NO relevant facts are known. One wonders if the Shrek glasses recall was one such event. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?]

Why call everything a “recall”? MS: We like the word “recall” and think it’s most effective to “get the word out”. [See Nancy Nord's blogpost from earlier today. The word also has tremendous under the CPSIA - perhaps Mr. Schoem's favorite word needs to be revisited since things have changed. It is also a tough word when there is litigation going on.]

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on Compliance and Field Operations

CPSIA – RW on The Laura Ingraham Show re CPSIA

789 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 21 days left until Election Day.

I was interviewed today on The Laura Ingraham Show. To listen to this interview, just click HERE.

Read more here:
CPSIA – RW on The Laura Ingraham Show re CPSIA

CPSIA – RW on The Laura Ingraham Show re CPSIA

789 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 21 days left until Election Day.

I was interviewed today on The Laura Ingraham Show. To listen to this interview, just click HERE.

Read more here:
CPSIA – RW on The Laura Ingraham Show re CPSIA

CPSIA – RW on The Laura Ingraham Show re CPSIA

789 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 21 days left until Election Day.

I was interviewed today on The Laura Ingraham Show. To listen to this interview, just click HERE.

Read more here:
CPSIA – RW on The Laura Ingraham Show re CPSIA

CPSIA – Double-Speak Patrol

760 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 51 days left until Election Day.

Consider the following two events:

a. August 2, 2010: The CPSC Commission voted to authorize yet more Mattel firewalled labs (2) and a lab operated by Hanesbrands, a $2.3 billion market cap maker of underwear. [Oooo, lead in underwear! Is this a sick joke or does the CPSC really think kids are chewing on their dirty underwear? Ew!] I believe, without checking, that Mattel now has nine approved firewalled labs, enabling it to save lots of money which is well beyond the practical reach of any small business. The only parties who have thusfar achieved this relief are mass market companies.

b. August 15, 2010: CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum gave an interview with the Baltimore Sun featuring the following exchange:

“Q: How do you respond to some critics of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act who say the law puts heavy testing burdens on manufacturers, especially smaller producers?

A: We have to have high standards to protect the consumer. So regardless if you’re a large business or a small business, we can’t let you put lead in children’s products, or cadmium. Or overlook flammability laws or use other toxic chemicals. We look at what the danger is. We think if we had a small-business ombudsman who was out there regularly educating small businesses, we could help them prevent problems in terms of compliance. Large corporations have a whole office full of lawyers and engineers and chemists and toxicologists. Small businesses do not. And we don’t want to put anyone out of business. We want to help them learn how to comply and sell safe products.” [Emphasis added]

Put side-by-side, these two events separated by only a few days, make clear the utter insensitivity of our government to our plight. The dismissive condescension of Tenenbaum in daring to suggest that an ombudsman would make the problems disappear for small businesses is infuriating. The necessary implication is that we small businesses are just too stupid to understand their complicated rules – I guess she thinks only Mattel can read the English language. Of course, the pending testing frequency rule (which I believe will be implemented in the coming weeks, get ready for it) will cause our company to spend $15 million per annum on testing. This sum far exceeds our profits. Perhaps the ombudsman will help us terminate our people to pay for testing, or provide a shoulder to cry on. And we’ll be crying alright.

At the same time, Tenenbaum is actively feathering the nest of the VERY Big Business that caused the CPSIA, Mattel. How ironic, isn’t it? The fact that she is tilting the children’s market fatally in favor of Big Business doesn’t seem to be a source of guilt for Ms. Tenenbaum. Empty words are the solution.

Please keep this in mind the next time you suffer through the dark intonations of our Fearless Leader laying the blame for the economic problems of the small business community at the feet of the Republicans. The problems in our market won’t be solved with yet another handout – the Dems should try loosening the garrote they are busily tightening around our air passages. Tax relief won’t provide much help when the new regulations makes profit impossible.

Let’s stipulate that the Dems in Congress and at the CPSC are fully aware of the inequities and other problems embedded in the CPSIA. In the face of a continuous and vigorous public debate for two years+, this seems beyond dispute. I am also aware that this blog is widely and loyally read by these people. Ignorance is not a possible explanation. Stubbornness, self-preservation, zealotry, a lack of political will, exhaustion – any of those make more sense to me as an explanation.

I have no outlet for my anger over this. I just hope you are not a sucker for the Dems’ baloney and spinning. Our ONLY hope is a Republican-led Congress that will act to make these people accountable for the damage they are inflicting. The Dems have proven their stripes – to hope they will come to their senses is simply wishful thinking without any basis in reality or fact.

Can you take two more years of this? I cannot and I will not. I need your help, however – you need to vote the scoundrels out of office on November 2. Here is a list of Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

Henry A. Waxman, CA
John D. Dingell, MI
Edward J. Markey, MA
Rick Boucher, VA
Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Bart Gordon, TN
Bobby L. Rush, IL
Anna G. Eshoo, CA
Bart Stupak, MI
Eliot L. Engel, NY
Gene Green, TX
Diana DeGette, CO
Lois Capps, CA
Mike Doyle, PA
Jane Harman, CA
Jan Schakowsky, IL
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX
Jay Inslee, WA
Tammy Baldwin, WI
Mike Ross, AR
Anthony D. Weiner, NY
Jim Matheson, UT
G. K. Butterfield, NC
Charlie Melancon, LA
John Barrow, GA
Baron P. Hill, IN
Doris O. Matsui, CA
Donna M. Christensen, VI
Kathy Castor, FL
John P. Sarbanes, MD
Christopher S. Murphy, CT
Zachary T. Space, OH
Jerry McNerney CA
Betty Sutton, OH
Bruce L. Braley, IA
Peter Welch, VT

Please help their opponents with cash and labor, and votes. My guy is Joel Pollak, running against Jan Schakowsky. Can you imagine Congress without her? Oh, to dream. . . . His website is www.pollakforcongress.com – please consider supporting his candidacy generously.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Double-Speak Patrol

Next Page »