CPSIA – Functional Purpose Exception Is All About Dollars Now

The purported Functional Purpose Exception in the last draft of ECADA is unavailable to all but the largest and most well-funded of corporate supplicants.  Is it even THAT good? Let’s start with the premise that the holding by the CPSC Staff that it is “technologically feasible” to make everything without lead at 100 ppm concentrations.  In other words, in CPSIA-speak, it is ”possible” to make EVERYTHING without lead.  As noted previously many times, the term “technological feasibility” does not incorporate any concept of money or economics.  It simply signifies that it is possible in the real world to do it, damn the cost. Thus, the functional purpose exception is intended for products, components or materials that are either not possible to make without lead at compliant levels (not “technologically feasible”) or if possible, are unreasonably expensive or disruptive to make (“not practicable”).  In other words, the functional purpose test boils down to this:  ”not possible to make” or “possible to make but too expensive”.  As previously noted, this is further limited to items REQUIRING the inclusion of lead.  These items are quite limited, generally they are metals only.  You’ll never see the law reflect this metals limitation honestly because the Dems want to fool you into thinking this provision is something much more than it is. They don’t want you to know it’s not really for you. The retort to my argument yesterday is that this exception will be a boon for everyone because you can use evidence from prior hearings (paid for by preceding supplicants) to prove your case.  But since EVERYTHING can be made without lead according to CPSC Staff, the evidence of preceding supplicants is much less likely to be helpful or even available to you.  Why?  Because evidence dealing with technological feasibility is a settled question now.  There is no need for further evidence so all those expensive consultant reports are moot.  The only evidence of prior supplicants that would be useful must  reflect on the question of “practicability”.  How likely is it that you can use other people’s data on practicability? The pending draft reads as follows:  “In demonstrating that it meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), a party seeking an exception under such subparagraph may rely on any nonproprietary information submitted by any other party seeking such an exception and such information shall be considered part of the record presented by the party that relies on that information.”  [Emphasis added]  In other words, you can only rely on non-proprietary evidence of others reflecting on practicability.  Of this, there will be none. The issue of “practicability” is essentially one of having to take steps that are unreasonably burdensome in economic terms.  Each competitor in a marketplace has a different cost structure and sets different profit margins. This is very confidential and highly proprietary information.  Sources are confidential, manufacturing processes and innovations are usually trade secrets. All these secrets provide competitive advantage and will not be disclosed publicly. Furthermore, the disclosure of such information could devastate the market for the product, once profit margins or technical manufacturing data are disclosed to customers and resellers.  No one will disclose this information except under seal.  Many people won’t even take that step, distrusting the sanctity of their most precious information assets once it is out of their control.  So there won’t be any non-proprietary information to share or use.  Besides, each case will be different.  In reality, the case for Kawasaki to use lead in its ATV engine blocks will be different from the case of Arctic Cat ATVs because their manufacturing processes, cost levels, manufacturing location(s), market position and so on are different.  Deciding practicability for one manufacturer sheds no light on another manufacturer because the entire question is one of economics.  Let’s not forget, practicability will be determined not by whether ANY additional costs are imposed, but instead by whether the new costs are unreasonable AND unbearable.  That will vary in case by case, market by market. No doubt extraneous subjective factors like the Dems’ paranoia about lead will make for inconsistent judgments of what constitutes an unreasonable burden.  After all, there’s no safe level of lead!  Nothing will extend from one case to another.  Nothing at all. It is not surprising that this confusion lingers.  The original concept of the functional purpose exception (a lame idea from the get-go) was focused on the question of technological feasibility.  The ability to use other people’s submitted consultant reports had some value in that case.  But since that question is now resolved, so the value of sharing the reports is gone.  All that’s left is the taste in everyone’s mouth. Where does this leave us?  With no exceptions to the CPSIA, none, zippo, nada, nuthin’.   You can thank the ever-intransigent Dems for this terrible situation.  The functional purpose exception should be DROPPED and replaced with something actually useful to real businesses, before we all expire.  The House Energy and Commerce Committee needs to ask:  Who are we trying to benefit?  What problem are we trying to solve? How will the new provision solve that problem? Who will be the beneficiaries of that solution?  [In the real world] Do we like the order in which relief is likely to be doled out?  Is it okay to design a provision such that only big companies can get relief in practical effect, or one in which big companies must be granted relief first ? How much will the process cost?  How risky is the investment in applying for relief?  Is the application for relief essentially automatic, or will it be a case-by-case trial in front of the Commission? How burdensome will the application process be?  Is the exemption intended to benefit companies with small high-value product lines of 5-15 products (e.g., ATV manufacturers), or companies with broad product lines (e.g., science educational suppliers can carry many thousands of items)? Let’s get real about the relief we are purportedly offering.  Something good and useful can be crafted but not if it must followed the form of the useless functional purpose exception.  Please, Congress, don’t play games – write a provision that speaks clearly and honestly about who will benefit and how.  After three years of this, we deserve at least something clear and understandable.

See original article:
CPSIA – Functional Purpose Exception Is All About Dollars Now

CPSIA – Hypocrisy on Display

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum was home in South Carolina last week and made an appearance to commemorate a new State ATV safety law known as ” Chandler’s Law “.  This law is supported, even encouraged, by the ATV industry.  Notes Paul Vitrano of the SVIA, “Chandler’s Law is a major step in the right direction. It’s something to be celebrated and we extend sincere thanks to everyone involved in its enactment. But there’s much more work to be done in South Carolina and all over America. ATVs are safe when used properly, but they are not toys. No responsible parent would hand the keys to the family car over to their child and send them on their way.” [Emphasis added] ATVs are not toys.  But ATVs are regulated by the CPSIA as though they are toys.  Notably, as a consequence of the CPSIA, access to youth-model ATVs has been all but eliminated .  Incredibly, there is still NOT ONE test lab certified by the CPSC to test ATVs for compliance either.  Testimony to this effect was given at the February 16th CPSC hearing at which I appeared.  Jay Howell of the CPSC acknowledged that the expense of testing ATVs cannot apparently be recovered by labs because there are so few youth model ATVs left on the market.  No lab wants to invest for testing at a loss.  The market speaks?  The absence of youth model ATVs from the market also means that they are not being rented out.  Rental and sales are the same thing under the CPSIA.  They’re gone. Interestingly, Chandler’s Law prohibits children under 16 from riding adult-sized ATVs.   If you can connect even two dots, you will realize that this is a tacit ban on children riding ATVs.  Period.  This is the secret agenda of the consumer group zealots like the former AAP majordomo Cindy Pelligrini as she admitted at a meeting of stakeholders with the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff on January 6, 2011.   So in other words, the consumer groups have a political agenda that they cannot accomplish via direct legislation – taking away ATVs from your kids, even using youth model ATVs developed at the request of the CPSC.  ATV riding is too popular regionally for a ban to ever pass Congress - so the consumer groups obtained their objective under the cover of darkness with the CPSIA and sympathetic Dem plants on the CPSC Commission.  And here’s the hypocrisy of Ms. Tenenbaum on public display.   Appearing to herald the restrictions on youth access to adult-sized ATVs, Ms. Tenenbaum does not mention that she is ALSO responsible for the removal of youth-model ATVs from the market and that Chandler’s Law essentially implements a ban on ATV use by children under 16 years of age in South Carolina.  Had she admitted it, the publicity storm would have been bad for South Carolina legislators and Dems all over the country.  She’ll never breathe a word. Not unlike the rest of the CPSIA mess, the reality is kept beneath a cloak, out of sight.  You will only notice, if you ever do, when you go to the store and try to buy something wonderful that you have used safely in the past . . . and it’s gone.  Where did it go?  The self-appointed ” fun suckers ” have been there first.  Youth model ATVs – they’re against them.  Trampolines, backyard pools, fireworks, rhinestones, brass instruments  - all too “dangerous” for you to be allowed to use.  They know what’s best, and you should be thankful. It’s our country but they’re running it.  When are you going to do something about it?  After three years, you don’t have much time left to figure it out.

See the article here:
CPSIA – Hypocrisy on Display

CPSIA – Futile Provision or Gimme for Big Biz?

In response to my blogpost on the “Functional Purpose” exception so desperately desired by the Dems (Waxman and his Waxmanis, plus the Dem CSPC Commissioners) as the “solution” to the inflexibility of the CPSIA restrictions on lead, I am informed that some people think the door is still cracked open for exclusions. I must disagree. Here is the language on the functional purpose exception from the last published version of ECADA :  “(1) FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE EXCEPTION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission, on its own initiative or upon petition by an interested party, shall grant an exception to the prohibition in subsection (a) for a specific product, class of product, material, or component part if the Commission, after notice and comment in accordance with subparagraph (B), determines that—(i) the product, class of product, material, or component part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture such product, class of product , material, or component part , as the case may be, in accordance with subsection (a) by removing the excessive lead or by making the lead inaccessible; (ii) the product, class of product, material, or component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product, class of product, material, or component part by a child; and (iii) an exception for the product, class of product, material, or component part will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse.”  I have added color to the key words in this section.  In blue , I have highlighted that the exemption will ONLY apply to those products or materials which “require” the inclusion of lead.  In yellow , I have highlighted the two parts of the exception, namely cases where the inclusion of lead is not practicable or not technologically feasible.  Who will benefit from this provision, and how will they benefit? First, to take advantage of this provision, you must demonstrate that your product “requires the inclusion of lead”.  When might lead be required?  According to the CPSC Staff in their recently released report on the ”technological feasibility” of 100 ppm lead , no products or components under 600 ppm concentration requires lead:  “Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). Therefore, staff does not believe that children’s product manufacturers intentionally design or make products or components with the maximum allowable lead content because lead concentration near the maximum limit would have no benefit or purpose to the product or the manufacturer.”  No benefit whatsoever of trace lead content.  Who would have guessed that?! Thus, this provision only applies to items, components or materials well over 600 ppm lead.  For those of you on the sidelines hoping that this will save your trace levels of lead in components, like metals in bicycle components, sorry!  It’s not for you. I believe this provision is only intended for a very limited list of components – namely, brass, metal alloys or possibly rhinestones.  In reality, it’s just for metal alloys which actually require lead as a component, like engine components (or brass).  There will be almost no argument possible where there is a market substitute that the CPSC thinks is adequate. They get to run your business now, don’t forget. Rhinestones are so done. For those items, components or materials that make it through the “requires the inclusion of lead” filter, the provision then further limits coverage where avoiding the inclusion of lead is not “practicable” or technologically feasible.  The above-referenced report states the opinion of CPSC Staff that NOTHING requires the inclusion of lead as defined by the CPSIA:  “Based upon this analysis, the staff could not recommend that the Commission make a determination that it is not technologically feasible for a product or product category to meet the 100 ppm lead content limit for children’s products under section 101(d) of the CPSIA. No such determination has been made by the Commission. Therefore, all children’s products sold, offered for sale, manufactured for sale, distributed in commerce, or imported for sale in the United States must meet the 100 ppm lead content limit beginning August 14, 2011 as statutorily mandated by the CPSIA unless otherwise excluded . . . .” Some people believe the legal definition of “practicable” in certain legal rulings (case law) takes into account economics  and is intended to be a more pragmatic standard allowing applicants to plead that the law will ruin their businesses.  This theory depends on a richer, more nuanced meaning of the term than provided in online legal dictionaries (” when something can be done or performed ” or ” anytime something can be done or performed “). A more detailed explanation, closer to the wishes of those pinning their hopes on this provision, comes from JustAnswer.com :  ” Normally one would say, in a legal arena, that if it does not cause an undue hardship to one party or the other, then it is ‘practicable’. An example would be if during a child support hearing, one party wants the other party to pay for a brand new corvette for their 16 years old child to drive, that would be considered impracticable whereas if they asked for the other parent to provide safe transportation and it is agreed to get a used Ford Escort, that would be practicable. If during a hearing on a property easement the land owner wants $200,000 for a 40 foot easement, the easement holder to pour a new driveway for them both to use, and he can only use it on Fridays, that would be impracticable. Does that make sense? It is basically saying that if there is a reasonable way to provide whatever is being asked, or rather ‘whenever practicable’, that should be done .” Anyone hoping to win an exception under this provision must be prepared to explain that there is no reasonable way to accomplish their goal, that it is in that sense not “practicable”.  This definition does not permit exceptions simply because in their absence costs might rise.  The cost must be “unreasonable” but can be much greater than zero.  What might be deemed an “unreasonable” cost by this CPSC Commission? Well, I think some factors are quite relevant in evaluating whether such exceptions will EVER be granted.  First, the three Dem Commission has taken the position publicly that there is no safe level of lead .  This is wrong, as we know, because since every human takes lead into his/her body every minute of the day and night through lead in air, water, food and dirt (at a minimum), we cannot conclude that life degrades in the presence of lead alone.  The source, concentration and exposure to lead determines the nature of the risk (as they say, the dose makes the poison).  Unfortunately, these Dem non-scientists are beyond convincing.  Try telling them that money is more important than their unthinking appraisal of the “risks” confronting children with lead.  I can’t see it. As if that weren’t enough, the CPSC Staff has publicly stated that everything can be made lead-free based on the bizarre definition of “technological feasibility” under the CPSIA. That term of art does not have the expected meaning of its English words since economics were written out of the definition.  This Commission knows that everything can be made without lead, and given their caveman fear of lead, any applicant will have to explain why other available options are no good.  The concept of technological feasibility and not practicable are not really as divorced as they seem. CPSC Staff shed some light on practicability in their 100 ppm report: a.  ” . . . low-lead materials that can be used in the production of children’s products generally appear to be commercially available in the market place” b.  “In general, for cost increases affecting a broad base of industries, there will be a mixture of effects: both increases in the retail prices of children’s products and reductions in overall production levels.” c.  “Alternatively, some manufacturers may need to redesign or re-engineer their products. Valve stems for bicycles, for example, may need to be fitted with more secure caps, which will effectively render them inaccessible and potentially more difficult to use. In addition, products may be simplified to reduce the number of components for testing.” Overall, the implication of the economic analysis is that the bulk of economic damage (rising costs) has already occurred.  In addition, the CPSC seems to think there is more than one way to skin a cat – and that would be quite relevant in any proceeding under the Functional Purpose Exception provision  Which items would likely be eligible for consideration for relief?  It would likely only be items that are being sold subject to a stay (ATVs and bicycles) because everything else that’s on the market is already compliant.  And how many items are being openly sold today are NOT in compliance with the current lead standards?  Damn near zero.  As Mike Larson notes in the Star-Tribune (March 27, 2011):  “Unfortunately, this hasn’t helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there’s now a limited availability of these products for consumers.  In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles.” My conclusion:  No one can apply for this exception and if they do, they are highly likely to be turned down. Just like the last three years.  It’s a big win for Waxman – he appears to be “listening” but instead is perpetrating a fraud on all the dupes in the children’s product industry.  He cares not about your petty problems (that he created).  It’s truly heartwarming . . . . One last thought:  Who really gets the short end of the stick here?  It’s you as usual, the little guy.  The CPSC Staff acknowledges that the 100 ppm standard is anti-small business:  “Despite the existence of complying materials and components in the marketplace, some manufacturers, especially very small ones, may not be able to readily purchase these materials and components due to the lack of available distribution channels. For example, the Handmade Toy Alliance stated that its members would be unable to consistently obtain materials complying with such a low lead limit because its members do not purchase raw materials, but instead purchase component parts from retail stores.” But, heck, who will take the time to actually read their 59-page report?  Believe me, Waxman ain’t losing sleep over the possibility that you will read it, much less actual members of Congress. And then there’s the practicality of the exception process – it’s like major litigation against the government. Think of the cost – you would need to hire experts, lawyers, consultants and would have to prepare dossiers on each and every material, component and product you want exempted.  You will bear the burden of proof, you will be judged ONLY on the “proof” you submit, and best of all, you will be judged by a panel controlled by Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore.  Who on Earth will waste their money and their time on this?  Perhaps Mattel, WalMart and a few Asian manufacturers of bicycles (China makes 58% of world bicycle production).  It’s not for you – you can’t afford it.  This is a meager gimme for big business, like “firewalled test labs”, something to ease the troubles of the mega companies affected by the CPSIA. As for the rest of us, let’s not forget the wisdom of Senator Dick Durbin’s office : “I think you are right that the CPSIA imposes costs on businesses, and because of economies of scale it’s the smaller businesses that will feel these costs more acutely. This is part of a larger calculation that it’s worth the costs to shift from the old system of post-market correction (once a dangerous product is out in the market and leads to sick kids, recalls, lawsuits, etc.) to a new system of pre-market testing and certification (instead of just assuming products are safe and paying the price for false assumptions).” [Correspondence dated April 16, 2009] I think the real false assumption is that the Democrats care about anything other than getting reelected.

Follow this link:
CPSIA – Futile Provision or Gimme for Big Biz?

CPSIA – Oversight Hearing Set for July 6th

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on July 6th entitled ” The Views of the Independent Agencies on Regulatory Reform ” featuring CPSC Commissioners Bob Adler and Anne Northup.  Other agencies will also be questioned (FCC, FERC and FTC).  Break out the popcorn!

Read More:
CPSIA – Oversight Hearing Set for July 6th

CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up Delayed . . . What Did You Expect?

Continuing Congress’ recent tradition of partisan gridlock, the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday “postponed” the mark-up on the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA).  This is no doubt due to the politically-advantageous intransigence of the Dems on basically ANY amendment of the CPSIA.  Although they (through the mouthpiece of Henry Waxman) concede that the law must be changed, they really don’t mean it.  Your concerns . . . your complaints . . . your data-driven critiques of the awful CPSIA . . . your lost revenue . . . your lost business opportunities . . . your escalating costs . . . your job cuts . . . have ALL fallen on deaf Dem ears, all for the greater good of putting more Dems in a position to say THEY hold the high moral ground and love children more than evil Republicans.  Soon they will finish the job by preventing any fixes to the CPSIA. The next chance for a mark-up is the weeks of July 7 or 14.  And, if you aren’t aware somehow, on August 14, the lead standard drops to 100 ppm by legal action under the original CPSIA.  Among the many reasons why the Republicans have been working on this amendment since the FIRST DAY OF THE NEW CONGRESS (see my blogposts of January 7th  and thereafter) is to head off that terrible change in law.  Aside from the absurdity that Congress ENDORSED the sale of merchandise with 300 ppm lead for two years only to legislate a reverse course on August 14, 2011 when the merchandise magically becomes dangerous overnight, the provision has been interpreted to be RETROACTIVE in effect.  In other words, your inventory becomes unsaleable after August 13 even if in compliance with prior law if even a single component violates the trace 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard.  For perspective, consider that the dirt in the White House vegetable garden has been tested out at 93 ppm lead. As previously discussed in this space, retroactive bans are extremely rare in American law and never before have they been so carelessly used or endorsed as in the awful CPSIA.  So there is a ticking time bomb in the CPSIA – and the Dems are perfectly content to let it explode in your warehouse or your store.  Expect many order cancellations soon. Thanks Dems.  Good job governing. 

Read this article:
CPSIA – ECADA Mark-up Delayed . . . What Did You Expect?

CPSIA – I Think I Found Someone Who Lost a Few IQ Points . . . .

Morons on parade . . . . Never failing to disappoint, the Tribune (via its South Florida Sun-Sentinel) today published the latest left wing tripe about the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA).  In an article entitled ” Pandering politicians threaten to make hay of product safety “, Nicole Brochu unquestioningly falls in line with Henry Waxman and Rachel Weintraub on ECADA and trashes safety legislation she clearly does not understand. I am pretty sure Ms. Brochu is not a regular reader of this blog.  She has successfully remained ignorant of many indisputable facts about safety in children’s products, not to mention the detailed nature of the problems caused by CPSIA.  That certainly makes it easier to react emotionally to the “threat” posed by ANY effort to change the ill-conceived CPSIA.  And that she does . . . . Ms. Brochu starts by confirming her bias against business and ruling out any consideration of opposing viewpoints (possibly involving FACTS):   ” I don’t know about you, but when it comes to keeping the nation’s supply of kids’ toys and other consumer products safe, I’m going with the advice of doctors, scientists and watchdogs. I’m not sure we can rely on toymakers and motorcycle distributors to have the public’s collective back on this one . . . . [The] only thing [ECADA] proposes to enhance is special interests’ bottom lines — not the CPSC’s authority, or its protections of the consumers in its care.” Ah, special interests again!  She must have been talking to the estimable Jan Schakowsky.  As everyone knows, I am a “very cynical . . . special interest”.  You should see my lapel pin! Ms. Brochu regurgitates the platitudes and slogans of the shrill groups opposing any change to the law: ECADA and CPSIA are toy bills. CPSIA was passed by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress and was signed by “pro-business Republican President George W. Bush”. As a result of the CPSIA, there has been a “noticeable improvement in the public’s wounded confidence” (presumably in children’s products and the federal government). “[A] bunch of pandering politicians [are trying] to muck it all up for us.  Since Republicans took over majority control of the U.S. House last year (and even before), they have set their sights on diminishing the safety act’s laudatory provisions in the name of lifting the burden off small-business owners.”  [ Ed. Note :  This is a variant of the argument that only Democrats and consumer groups care about kids, certainly not businesses or Republicans.] ECADA is “a hyperventilating overreach that would put the country’s health and safety at risk.  And that’s just what an impressive contingent of folks — including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Kids In Danger, Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the CPSC’s chairman and two of its commissioners — say this measure would do.”  ECADA “[waters] down the safety act’s firm hold on lead content in children’s products . . . .” The book industry and motorcycle  industry are “special interests” seeking a pass for their products. No matter the merits of their claims, the law’s protections cannot be weakened in any way.  [ Ed. Note :  This is the "zero sum" argument again - if manufacturers are made better off by ECADA, it follows "logically" that children MUST BE worse off.] In each case, I have already replied to these misstatements and mischaracterizations in this space.  Since I seem to repeat myself endlessly, I am going to spare you one more trip around the same block today.  You can find the answers in my recent postings on ECADA. The author finishes up with one of the biggest misconceptions promoted by the opponents of ECADA: ” The bill would do away with the requirement that manufacturers test their products before bringing them to market, putting the onus instead on the tax-funded CPSC to conduct extensive, costly analyses to determine if testing is necessary. Taxpaying consumers shouldn’t shoulder the burden, or the cost, of making sure the products they buy are safe. In any reasonable scenario, that responsibility should fall on the businesses — big or small — making money selling their wares to the American public.” This remark reflects a gross misunderstanding of how businesses operate and how the proposed change in law affects businesses regulated under the CPSIA.  ECADA does not eliminate the need to test children’s products for compliance with the strictures of the CPSIA.  The lead standards are still on the books, the rabid regulators are still breathing down our necks and THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF YOU COMPLY WITHOUT PERFORMING PRODUCT TESTS.  What ECADA accomplishes, Ms. Brochu, is to stop the government from telling us how to run our businesses.  We know better how to comply with these rules than they do, and can save vast sums of money wasted on government-mandated testing overkill.  We will STILL HAVE TO TEST. There is no way around it.  And if we screw up, we pay.  This is not really a change, btw.  We have always been subject to American tort law and have always been on the hook for our failures. I wonder if the knuckleheads who believe that ECADA eviscerates the CPSIA understand that the government has no way to force businesses to test.  Mandated testing does not mean that every children’s product will be tested, any more than posted speed limits mean that you will never get a speeding ticket.  To survey compliance, the CPSC will always have to test products – and cops will always need radar guns.  Scurrilous businesses that don’t want to spend the money to comply will lie – and good businesses will spend themselves into bankruptcy paying for endlessly repetitive tests.  The mandated testing regime has little to do with these behaviors because this is the realm of compliance .  Rules do not eliminate bad behavior as common experience instructs.   The drafters of ECADA get this point, and have incorporated the modest concession that the standards are more important to safety than attempting to manage thousands of businesses.  Ms. Brochu would know this if she read my blog. I want to draw your attention AGAIN to the important point that Ms. Brochu’s safety neurotics have yet to answer my query – WHERE ARE THE VICTIMS OF LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE?  If we are saving children from a dreaded threat NOW, presumably children were suffering grave consequences in the past.  Yet when asked to name these victims and provide case histories and other identifying and validating data, the advocates cannot name even ONE victim – from any country, at any time, using any children’s product by any manufacturer under any living conditions.  Zero known victims – but we must bear billions in costs to comply with a neurotics’ legislative and regulatory wet dream.  Notably, in May 2010 I published my own analysis of 11 years of CPSC recalls from 1999-2010 and found only three alleged injuries (all from lead-in-paint) and one death (from swallowing a lead bangle from a bracelet).  That’s it – and there are no known victims of lead-in-substrate in the CPSC’s publicly-available recall records in that time period to the best of my knowledge.  Or at any other time in the history of the world .  The absence of lead-in-substrate injuries is stark in comparison to prosaic risks we bear EVERY DAY.  Stair falls have killed almost as many people in Japan as fires despite the fact that many structures in Japan are made of wood (1976).  In Canada, injuries and fatalities on stairs are at least ten times greater than those from natural disasters (1985).  In the UK, it has been estimated that more than 100,000 stair injuries occur annually (1999).  Yet the federal government wants us to spend literally BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually to protect against a health threat not associated with a SINGLE documented injury.  We are being governed by idiots. Maybe someday we can expect the media to think before it speaks.  Maybe someday the standards for journalism will include knowing what you’re talking about, investigating and challenging preconceived notions and a healthy skepticism for pat answers.  Until then, we have the Tribune and Ms. Brochu. VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

See more here:
CPSIA – I Think I Found Someone Who Lost a Few IQ Points . . . .

CPSIA – Kids Don’t Lick ATV’s, Apparently. Who Knew?!

In today’s Desert Sun newspaper , John Paliwoda, Executive Director of the California Motorcycle Dealers Association, published an Op-Ed entitled “Note to Congress:  Kids don’t lick their ATVs”.  You’re kidding! A few salient take-aways: a.  Although ATVs and dirt bikes are now “banned hazardous materials” under the law because of trace levels of lead in metal parts like engine components, scientists agree that the risk of injury is “remote at best”.  Even the CPSC staff acknowledge this (in writing).  Mr. Paliwoda notes that “there have been no cases of lead poisoning documented from children riding youth model ATVs”.  No one seems to care, however. b.  The CPSC acknowledges that children face a ” far graver and more immediate risk ” by being exposed to adult-sized ATVs than exposure to lead in metal components in youth-model ATVs.  The very EXISTENCE of youth-model ATVs is the handiwork of the CPSC – so their ban reverses the safety gains earned by the Commission (work that actually saved lives).  This ban of youth-model ATVs under the CPSIA is part of a larger political objective to ban ATV use by kids altogether, as publicly admitted by Cindy Pelligrini of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Subterfuge as public policy?  Apparently.  Still, Mr. Paliwoda observes:  “The one thing that the government, ATV manufacturers, dealers and consumer groups all agree on is that the key to reducing injuries and fatalities to children riding ATVs is to keep riders younger than 16 off adult-size ATVs.”  Hmmm.  Job well done, Congress! c.  The manufacturing and sale of youth-model ATVs has been severely curtailed by the law despite the temporary stay protecting manufacturers and retailers.  Why?  The stay of enforcement “failed because many manufacturers and dealers are not comfortable selling youth model powersports vehicles while the ban is on the books.”  And the impact on the industry?  Mr. Paliwoda:  “[For] motorcycle dealers in California, [the CPSIA] has been devastating.” Sadly, Mr. Paliwoda’s reasoning and documentation will not likely sway any Dems.  Why?  Aren’t they listening?  No.  Don’t they care about data?  Nope.  Don’t they care about the creation of jobs in their districts?  Doesn’t seem like it.  What motivates them, then?  It’s certainly not children’s safety, by all appearances.  My best guess is that they want to be reelected as their top priority and feel that taking a reasoned stand to repair an idiotic law ostensibly “protecting” children is too politically dangerous to risk.  The public can’t be expected to actually think about the details, after all, and the rabid and equally uncomprehending media will certainly take the other side of any effort to bring relief to this suffocating law.  Data be damned. Or, you, your company, your market and your customers be damned. PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

Read More:
CPSIA – Kids Don’t Lick ATV’s, Apparently. Who Knew?!

CPSIA – Fools in Charge

So happy to be so safe . . . and so unemployed! Today’s initial jobless claims report is yet ANOTHER report card on the dense and unthinking approach to economics implemented by Mr. Obama, Mr. Waxman and their Dem minions since the 2008 election.  A full three years after the economic cataclysm, and with a diminishing ability to blame this misfortune on someone else, the Dems stubbornly stick to their over-regulation agenda dooming Americans to safe, safe unemployment.  Can’t be too careful, you know. The CPSIA is the poster child for the Nanny State.  Mr. Obama told David Letterman on September 21, 2009 that the national problem he had to fix was that we had ” too little government, too little regulation “. Our industry has become a classic example of the cure being worse than the disease.  The story has been told again and again.  For instance, the CPSC heard (and promptly ignored) at its February 16th hearing from a representative of the bicycle industry, all the small bicycle manufacturers have left the children’s market and the big makes of bikes have sharply cut their product lines.  They also informed the CPSC that if the 100 ppm lead standard comes into force, the rest of the bikes will disappear from the market.  Quite a stimulus plan – you can imagine all the jobs this useful plan has created.  Other consequences is a general reduction in choice and availability in child-size bikes, which not only punishes families but also retailers. Do any of the numskulls running our safety apparatus have evidence that any child has EVER been poisoned by lead-in-substrate from a bike?  No, they don’t – because there is no evidence that any child was ever injured by lead-in-substrate anywhere using any product at any time.  Did you realize that one of the big problems in making a bike comply with this moronic law is that bikes use recycled steel for the frames – and the law provides that paint does not constitute a “barrier” over the steel.  The lead content of recycled steel is hard or impossible to consistently control at the levels dictated by the law.  The industry representative submitted testimony and evidence to the CPSC (consistent with evidence I have also supplied) showing that tests on the SAME PART in ten places yields ten different lead contents.  This law is killing jobs, products, companies and markets.  The evidence and data is right there for any thinking individual to read and consider.  The true believers stand in the way of rationality. Please send Mr. Waxman and Mr. Obama a thank you note for the weak, sinking economy.  They have CHOSEN this path of Nanny Statism to keep you “safe” although they really can’t demonstrate you were ever unsafe or that you needed this further protection.  If you are one of the unlucky 9.1% who can’t find a job, perhaps you will take some comfort in knowing that your Dem-led government made this choice for you.  Safe but unemployed – that’s what you need, what you want, what you got.  The best government money can buy . . . . The solution to fools in charge is to amend the CPSIA and restore sanity in safety administration.  PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

More here:
CPSIA – Fools in Charge

CPSIA – Illinois Keeps Its Priorities Straight: Meaningless Legislation

In a further triumph for populism and public waste, the bankrupt State of Illinois today passed a high priority change in the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (LPPA) as previously disclosed in this space.  This Stop-The-Presses change in the law took priority over the incomplete deficit-ridden Illinois budget, Illinois’ failure to pay its bills, its unfunded pension liabilities estimated at $140 Billion and the failure of its recent 67% increase in income tax rates to make a dent in its financial problems.  Yes, the raging issue among the legislators was to fiddle with the meaningless and useless LPPA, better known for its utility on the stump looking for votes.  Thanks heavens for politicians!

Continued here:
CPSIA – Illinois Keeps Its Priorities Straight: Meaningless Legislation

CPSIA – Tell me What You Think

With the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) stalled for the moment, it’s a good time to reflect on where we are. I want to know what you think. As I see it, this is a case of the unstoppable force colliding with the immovable object. Guess where we are located? At the point of collision. On one side, you have the Republicans. They have always decently listened to our issues and tried to help. Only after the 2010 Midterm elections were they in a position to get things done. With the power of the House majority behind them today, they have taken the political risk and shown the political will to craft a reasonable, measured and, frankly, surgical amendment of the acknowledged defective CPSIA. Interesting sidelight : The legislative dynamic in Congress in 2008 seems long-forgotten. At that time, the Dems controlled both Houses and the dominant player was San Francisco’s own Nancy Pelosi. The CPSIA was negotiated during a time when she and her minions ran the show. True, there was a Republican President BUT owing to the media frenzy at the time, no one was willing to take the political risk of asking any questions. Congressional hearings were controlled by the Dems in both Houses and stage-managed them to achieve the right “tone”. Behind the scenes, the legislative negotiations between the parties at that time are best described as stiff-arms. The Republicans were jammed on many of the worst anti-business terms in the CPSIA and the sting never went away. This may be why they are so sympathetic to our cause today. Please keep this in mind when the consumer groups and the Dems cluck about the 2008 super-majority, bipartisan vote on the original bill. In fact, the Repbulicans would tell you that they had no choice. Sounds convenient, perhaps, but if you talk to them, you will quickly see that they really mean it. On the other side of this collision are the unscrupulous consumer groups and the Dems. This cabal works together for political advantage. The Dems, led by Henry Waxamn, see that they can use ECADA to score political points. They know that the Republicans don’t want consumer groups to send out letters to their constituents saying that the incumbent voted to endanger children with lead in toys. I know it’s sick, but that’s reality in Washington. This may give you some perspective on why people say Washington is “broken”. It is. The Dems want to score points against the Republicans, and the fact that we are being squished in the process is a cost they are willing to bear. Get it, your demise is a cost they are willing to bear, all for the “greater good” of politically endangering the Republicans. Remember, Members of the House are continually running for office. It takes true courage to do the right thing when you are exposed to Machievellian forces like Mr. Waxman and his merry band of manipulators. For this reason, I am fairly pessimistic about the prospects of this law. You get the same sinking feeling watching the talking heads on CNBC discuss the deficit and war over the national debt limit and hearing our national leaders talk blandly about the consequences of default on U.S. Treasuries. No big deal . . . . The politicians are playing with our lives, but act as though it is some of kabuki theater, Model UN gone mad. Do you think they are looking for a good grade, rather than doing the right thing for America? I rule out that the Dems are totally ignorant of science. I rule out that they don’t understand the data on injuries or what it means for their law. I think they simply don’t care about these things. Their profession is politics, and all that matters is the taste left the mouths of voters. A bill easing up on businesses over lead in children’s products has political weaknesses that the Dems prefer to exploit. The needs of our community are a secondary consideration. A distant second, too. So . . . what do you think? What do you recommend in this hot stove league? Can we do anything about this tragi-comedy, can we save products, companies, markets and jobs before the consequences of inaction suffocates them all out of existence? Let me know. Thanks.

View the original here:
CPSIA – Tell me What You Think

« Previous Page — Next Page »