CPSIA – 100 ppm Vote – What They Knew and When They Knew it

What did they know and when did they know it?  The vote on 100 ppm is going on this AM, so it’s too late to do anything about the projected 3-2 vote implementing this pointless and self-destructive provision of the CPSIA.  From my perspective, having investing time and money in trying to stop this train wreck, it has been a long time since there was anything we could do about it.  It’s not our country. I have written about this provision endlessly in this space. I thought I would just put up a couple bits of info previously disclosed here for perspective on the vote. The 100 ppm lead limit vote is a vote of conscience.   The Commission knows what they are about to unleash.  I told them in no uncertain terms during my February 16th testimony : From the CPSC Staff analysis of 100 ppm : “[While] staff does not have data on potential lead exposure from products that have lead content less than 300 ppm, but more than 100 ppm, staff expects that the overall contribution of such products to lead exposure in children is minimal.” “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). . . . Without the intentional use of lead in materials or the use of certain recycled materials, the lead content of most materials is substantially below the mandated limits.” Notably, NO consumer group has responded to my call or Congress’ call for the identities of previous victims of the “hazard” that the CPSC purports to regulate.  With no victims identified EVER ANYWHERE , the claims of benefits from this provision are spurious at best. What is the EPA’s opinion on lead in dirt ?   400 ppm in play yards and 1200 ppm elsewhere is just fine.  No word yet whether G-d, the manufacturer of dirt, has to provide comprehensive testing for compliance. What is the economic impact of this change?   The CPSC did not do a cost-benefit analysis as Obama’s Executive Order requires now, but only provided “Economic Information” (cost only, no benefit analysis): “[Bringing] products that do not currently comply with the 100 ppm limit into conformance is generally expected to result in increased manufacturing costs. . . . [Manufacturers] of children’s bicycles experienced a 20 to 25 percent increase in the costs of metallic components when the lead content limits were reduced from 600 ppm to 300 ppm. . . . Learning Resources, Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials and learning toys, said it expects a 10 to 20 percent increase in the cost of producing finished goods when the lead content limit is reduced to 100 ppm. . . . testing costs may rise . . . . Because there are limits to the reduction in profits that firms are willing and able to accept, some manufacturers are likely to reduce their selection of children’s products or exit the children’s market altogether. Some manufacturers may even go out of business. . . .” “The higher costs associated with metal components will probably result in some efforts to substitute lower cost materials. Plastics, for example, might be substituted for metal parts in some products. Some of these types of substitutions may affect the utility of the children’s products. . . . Additionally, and as noted in comments from the Handmade Toy Alliance and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association, it is likely that the costs will have relatively greater consequences for smaller manufacturers and artisans, who have less bargaining power with components suppliers, fewer technical resources, smaller production runs to spread testing costs over, and smaller product lines.. . . ,There appear to be few readily available options for mitigating the costs associated with the 100 ppm content limit. . . .” Mr. Obama’s Executive Order requires the agency to make actual cost-benefit assessments of this change in law now.   I made the same call on February 16, 2011 during my testimony on 100 ppm: You can find numerous other clips from the 100 ppm hearing in posts in this space in late February or on YouTube.  You can also read my comment letter on 100 ppm.

Read the article:
CPSIA – 100 ppm Vote – What They Knew and When They Knew it

CPSIA – Fait Accompli

Tomorrow the stage is set for the ultimate triumph of the Waxmanis:  the predicted approval of the 100 ppm lead standard by 3-2 party line vote.  The three Democrats will express regret, saying that Congress forced them to do it, and calling on Congress to let them make this standard prospective only.  They will no doubt also assert that this is good for all of us, given that “there is no safe level of lead”, that old chestnut unsupported by any injury data. No doubt the 100 ppm lead limit will fix all of these imaginary problems.  The Republicans will note the pointlessness of it all, and remind us of the cost of the provision.  Jobs will be lost.  The Republicans will be right, but the Dems have a political agenda to implement, and you will be sacrificed.  Mr. Obama’s Executive Order will not give the Dems pause. After three years, I am numb to this behavior.  The Dem Commissioners are and have always been beyond reach, unimpressed by reason or data.  That comes from a strong conviction of the correctness of their position with no need to reconsider.  As Bob Adler’s testimony at the Oversight hearing on July 7th indicates, the Dems are ever ready to defend the CPSIA faith.  [Check out the testimony given in questioning by the estimable Jan Schakowsky.]  Data, schmata. For those of you who have expended energy, or committed resources, to providing information to the CPSC after three years on this provision (comment letters, testimony, etc.), please note that it was all a set-up.  The decision facing the Commission is whether the 100 ppm lead level is “technologically feasible”. The legislative definition of this term of art does NOT take into consideration cost, perhaps because every life is precious and of infinite value.  It does not matter what it costs to comply, only whether it is somehow possible.  CPSC Staff confirms that everything can be made without lead using this definition however absurd.  So the Dems have no reason to vote against the new standard.   No reason . . . .   Consider the views of the American Apparel and Footwear Association in a letter dated July 11, 2011 on this topic: “We strongly urge the Commission to declare that it is not technologically feasible to meet the 100ppm standard for the simple reasons that:  (a) it is impossible to meet a standard retroactively; (b) compliance cannot be assured because of continued issues with material variability, especially with metals; (c) compliance is complicated by the regulatory uncertainty generated by the technological unfeasibility issue as well as the ongoing delay in the so-called “15-month rule”; (d) the new standard will impose significant costs on manufacturers, costs which disproportionately affect smaller companies; and (e) inter-lab variability, especially at the lower limits, make consistent compliance impossible.” Details, details – the Dems DON’T CARE.  Tomorrow the Commission will enact an egregiously out-of-whack rule from a cost-benefit standpoint a mere two days after Obama ordered the CSPC by name to review all rules for being overly burdensome.  Yawn.  After three years of this, what else would you expect?

Read the original post:
CPSIA – Fait Accompli

CPSIA – Letter to CPSC re Executive Order on Regulatory Review

President Obama issued an  Executive Order yesterday instructing the CPSC to institute “retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”   Notably, the order specifies “allowing interested members of the public to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking”. In the White House blog announcing the Executive Order, Inez Tenenbaum is quoted as follows:   “Earlier this year, I directed agency staff to reinvigorate CPSC’s voluntary review process, which is intended to look at ways to maximize openness and public participation, and effectively review substantive regulations that may require revision, repeal, or strengthening . . . . I believe this approach is consistent with President Obama’s call for a sensible and streamlined regulatory system that is protective of public health and safety, and I look forward to working with the President and Congress, as appropriate, as our review process moves forward.” As you know, I have participated in CPSC public forums numerous times in the last three years, in addition to testifying before a House subcommittee twice on the CPSIA.  I have testified at the CPSC at least five times by my count, several times at the invitation/request of the agency.  I have done so at my expense.  In each case, I believe my testimony was disregarded.  My positions on the CPSIA have been publicly documented, principally in my blog which I know you read.  My positions have been consistent and backed up by data open to anyone’s review.   Now that the CPSC is subject to an Executive Order demanding real public input, I call on the agency to break with its past of disregarding inconvenient opinions or those that may subvert a political agenda, and allow the public to participate MEANINGFULLY in this critical process.  Those of us who have attempted to stop the CPSIA train wreck have been thoroughly marginalized by a process that uses us to create an impression of public dialogue without actually taking any meaningful feedback or adjusting any preexisting plans.  The President did not order the agency to provide a public forum for VENTING.  He has ordered the CPSC to afford the public a “meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking”.   To me, the Executive Order means that when we present reasoned arguments with actual data, the agency has NO OPTION other than to listen and take into account our views.  There is nothing in the Executive Order that indicates that consumer groups speak for the public or should be accorded extra weight in your deliberations, nor that manufacturers are somehow excluded from the group considered to be “the public”. It is time to recognize the legitimacy of the views of those of us who create much-needed jobs.    With that in mind, I call your attention to a blogpost I wrote on cost/benefit analysis of CPSC decisions and policies under the CPSIA.  Please see my post ” Do Accidents Happen? ” dated June 29th.  In this post, I explain that, as a matter of accepted economic theory and legal theory, the policies and decisions of the CPSC in the wake of the CPSIA have crossed the line into inefficiency and bad public policy.  This is PRECISELY the issue that the President has charged  the agency with investigating and resolving.  Speaking as a business owner in the field of children’s products, I can assure you that time is of the essence.  Every day counts at this point  as the cumulative impact of three years of CPSIA duress has taken a terrible economic toll with virtually no identifiable public health benefit. Writing a law with noble intentions does not ensure that it will be good law or one that benefits society.  In the case of the CPSIA, the issue has never been “What price safety?”  A failure to effectively enforce the law prior to the CPSIA never constituted a need for new safety rules anymore that a failure to enforce traffic laws means that we need lower speed limits.  New approaches to enforcement, perhaps, but new standards, no.  The question today is “What price survival”? Businesses and markets have been punished mercilessly in service of the CPSIA but to what end? President Obama’s order comes after years of public outrage over regulatory excesses and significantly, was issued shortly after a House Oversight hearing featuring two CPSC Commissioners examining the question of economy inefficiency in rulemaking.  I fully believe that the agency can never fix this mess without taking a strong stance on real CPSIA reform. The CPSIA took away the agency’s right to assess risk, not its ABILITY to assess risk.  This is a truly counterintuitive approach to safety, as safety is all about risk management.  There is no logic to this approach which sadly renders the expert opinions of the CPSCs legions of Ph.D.s meaningless at critical junctures for my market.  I am frustrated, to put it mildly, that ALL CPSC Commissioners do not regularly protest this subversion of process and responsibility.  This problem is at the core of the issue with the CPSIA and should be offensive to Democrats and Republicans alike.  The failure of any Commissioner to demand the right to exercise his/her honest judgment is akin to acknowledging that they do not trust themselves to act prudently and in the interest of the public.  Do the Commissioners really believe that taking away their authority is necessary to ensure sound decision-making?  That reasoning never worked with my teenagers.   Resolving the issues that the President has ordered the CPSC to examine will certainly require the exercise of judgment.  It is inescapable that the Commission must be prepared to deliver this unpleasant news to Congress for better or worse.   I look forward to a meaningful public process investigating these issues, and pledge my support and engagement in this process. I want to be helpful but ask in return that the agency turn over a new leaf and let rational arguments supported with data influence outcomes in CPSIA rulemakings and policies. Please do not hesitate to contact me with your comments and questions.  Thank you for considering my views on this important subject. Respectfully, Richard Woldenberg Chairman Learning Resources, Inc. Vernon Hills, Illinois

Continue reading here:
CPSIA – Letter to CPSC re Executive Order on Regulatory Review

CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

CPSC Spokesman Scott Wolfson wants you to read an article: Scott_Wolfson: If #opengov #gov20 are important to u, pls read this LATimes column: http://t.co/MrrgGwO #SaferProducts.gov #cpsc  [From Scott Wolfson's Twitter feed] Wolfson refers you to a hatchet job by David Lazarus of the LA Times  on the CPSIA Product Database. I have taken issue with the blather emitted from Lazarus’ PC in the past.  In his latest example of irresponsible journalism, endorsed by the CPSC, Lazarus displays his studied ignorance of the issues relating to the database. His lack of research certainly didn’t prevent him from making declarative statements. Wolfson wanted to be sure you didn’t miss it. Lazarus ponders what the issues could possibly be with the controversial database:  ” You’ve got to wonder why businesses are fighting so hard to keep this resource away from consumers. Is it because their fears are justified that we’ll misuse this tool (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)? Or is it because the last thing they want is a consuming public armed with the latest and most thorough information on the safety of their goods? And if it’s the latter, you might now ask, what are they trying to hide? ” I cannot think of any objections to the database other than self-interest, can you?  It’s all a conspiracy, as anyone on the Left can tell you.  Businesses have so much to hide!  And did you know that evil billionaires are against the database?  Lazarus sorts it all out:  “Koch Industries — run by billionaires Charles and David Koch, who are active in conservative causes — also reported spending more than $200,000 lobbying against creation of the database.”  Lazarus asserts that it is significant that Members of Congress aligned against the database also received campaign contributions from businesses.  [Can you find a single member of Congress who has NOT taken contributions from businesses or business people?  Just curious.]  Lazarus notes that both Reps. Emerson and Pompeo received contributions from business people who are ALSO against the database.  It’s all making sense now . . . . Perhaps it was an oversight, but Lazarus fails to mention that the folks on the Left who so vigorously defend the database as implemented have been richly financed by TRIAL LAWYERS.  Rep. Henry Waxman raised more than $165,000 in 2010 from lawyers (11% of his total raise).  In fact, his top PAC contributor was the American Association for Justice , a group of plaintiff’s attorneys actively opposing tort reform.  He also received individual contributions from AAJ lobbyists .  Rep. Jan Schakowsky raised a mere $224,000 from lawyers in 2010 (about 15% of her raise).  Ditto for AAJ support.  Poke around on OpenSecrets.org to check out your other favorites in Congress.  It goes without saying that the support Waxman, Schakowsky and their ilk lavish on the database has NOTHING to do with campaign contributions by trial lawyers.   It all comes from the heart, cloaked in white.  Any idea who pays the bill for all the litigation initiated by the AAJ and its members?  Hint:  it’s not Waxmn or Schakowsky. No Lazarus article would be complete without the quotes of Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America.  The strangely influential Weintraub is the Left’s favorite mouthpiece on the CPSIA.  Here she tries a new angle to preserve the database, the “sunk cost” argument:  “The thing that’s so insidious is that the database is already up and running,  This would basically waste all the money and resources that have gone into creating the database.”  Insidious! That thrifty Rachel, she literally weeps over government waste.  Of course, the database is not controversial simply because it exists; the principal reason the issue lingers on is that Lefties like Weintraub and Bob Adler insisted on unfair administrative procedures that create unreasonable risks for manufacturers unrelated to actual product hazards, like brand slander, misidentified products, lack of accountability by complaint filers, manipulation of civil disputes and unbalanced data creating misleading commercial impressions. These problems are well-documented but have apparently escaped Lazarus’ beady-eyed (in)attention. The Axis of Misinformation is at work here.  You have the ignorant journalist (perhaps intentionally so or at a minimum, biased against manufacturers and disinterested in their POV), the shrill consumer “advocate” and the self-serving agency spokesman whose job is to manipulate how we feel about the CPSC (irrespective of reality or the “truth”).  CPSC as PR agency is offensive to me.  That’s not its function and besides, I think it’s dangerous to me as a consumer.  As a practitioner noted this week in private correspondence:  ” CPSC stacks the deck by creating alarming recall notices that do not really put hazards in perspective for readers, nor does the agency give consumers enough information to determine whether the amounts that they wind up indirectly paying for the costs of recalls are justified, especially when those costs are spread out to affect products that have not been recalled and present no risk. Hazards and risks are generally overstated, and you will never see any mention of costs to the public even though, as we all know, there is, after all, no free lunch .” It is worth noting that I hear complaints from the CPSC through various channels when they object to the portrayals in this space.  It’s so unfair that we have freedom of speech in this country.  No doubt that makes the job of regulating all of us idiots so much more difficult.  Still, if I get to exercise my freedom of speech, so does Wolfson.  Go ahead and read Lazarus.  It is informative in a way.  It will take you less than 30 seconds to recognize the shoddy journalism and the slanted, biased presentation of a one-sided story.  Consider the source of this lead – Scott Wolfson and the CPSC.  As I said, it’s informative.

View post:
CPSIA – The Axis of Misinformation

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 – Nancy Nord Points Out the Unpleasant Truth

In the June 1st edition of the WSJ, Nancy Nord was featured in a Letter to the Editor about over-regulation.   Commissioner Nord has had a front seat for the baloney “effort” by the Obama Dems to “reduce” burdensome regulation and to eliminate “uneconomic” regulations.  As Ms. Nord points out, the CPSC has been an oasis of normalcy during this period of regulatory introspection.  Certainly no such deregulation project has been started at the CPSC.  As she notes, she has lost vote after vote requesting cost-benefit analysis for CPSIA and other regulations – all on a party line vote.  Yes, the Dems are voting AGAINST a cost-benefit analysis again and again on the CPSC Commission. It’s your money they are spending.  It’s your business that is crumpling under the burden of their over-reaching laws and rules.  There’s nothing we can do to stop it – except to vote ALL Democrats out of office, including the big guy.  Since they won’t play ball, this is their just desserts. Here is Nancy Nord’s letter: Administration Isn’t Serious About Regulatory Reform I read with interest Cass Sunstein’s assertion that federal agencies are working to eliminate excessively burdensome regulations (“21st-Century Regulation: An Update on the President’s Reforms,” op-ed, May 26). As a commissioner at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), I can attest that no such activity is happening at this agency. We certainly have not combed through our regulations to eliminate those that are “out-of-date, unnecessary, [or] excessively burdensome,” as he suggests is being done across the government. Instead, we are regulating at an unprecedented pace and have pretty much abandoned any efforts to weigh societal benefits from regulations with the costs imposed on the public. The CPSC is an independent regulatory agency and therefore, technically, it is not required to follow the president’s executive orders such as the one Mr. Sunstein refers to mandating a “cost-effective approach to regulation.” In past administrations, the agency has always followed the lead of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which Mr. Sunstein heads, in such matters. However, under this administration, we have ignored the recent direction to look for and eliminate burdensome regulations. We are just too busy putting out new regulations. I have repeatedly requested that the agency do cost-benefit analysis on our various regulations only to have that request voted down by my fellow commissioners on a party-line basis. Consequently, we are issuing regulations without having done the necessary work to understand the impact of our actions both on those being regulated and on the public. As a result we have imposed regulatory burdens and caused people to lose their livelihoods without a real payback in terms of safety. At the CPSC, common sense regulation doesn’t even get a head-nod. Nancy A. Nord Commissioner Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington

View original post here:
CPSIA – Nancy Nord Points Out the Unpleasant Truth

CPSIA – Quick Observations about the New CPSIA Amendment Draft

The revised amendment of the CPSIA (oddly titled ” Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 “) published today is due to be “marked up” by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade on Thursday.

CPSIA – April 7th CPSIA Hearing Video (Unedited)

Watch this video to the end for a surprise!

CPSIA – Database Fun and Games

Quote :

CPSIA – Where are We Now?

I wanted to give you a sense of where the CPSIA amendment effort is right now.

« Previous Page — Next Page »