Those of you who savor fractiousness and gridlock in your government will no doubt be pleased to know that the usual bickering and stubborn disputes over the awful CPSIA continues unabated.

In a meeting last week about the Waxman Amendment, senior Waxman staff again rejected the concept of allowing the CPSC to assess risk. [Given the extraordinary conservatism of this CPSC Commission, I can't imagine what Waxman is worried about . . . .]

The position of the Waxmanis has significant implications for the controversy over the word “any” in the lead exemption provision. Some commentators have argued that “any” does not mean none and that if “any” is accorded that meaning, then the exemption process would never yield any exemptions. [CPSC staff have reached similar conclusions, hence their universal rejection of exemption requests. This also explains their puzzling approval of nuclear waste for inclusion in children's products.] Resolution of this issue might not only crack the door for exemptions but might also help narrow the scope of CPSC responsibilities by eliminating obviously safe products from the lead rules. This would be good, to restate the obvious.

According to Waxman staff, the CPSC got it exactly right – the word “any” is meant to prevent exemptions if ANY lead could pass from the subject item into the human body. No matter that this means that there will never be any exemptions possible under the exemption process (!). No matter that there are many other environmental sources of lead which pose a far greater hazard in a child’s life than almost all children’s products. No matter that many useful products might be banned (see my latest casualty post). In the Waxmanis’ estimable view, Congress “wanted” ZERO lead in the communal toy box. Otherwise, there might be a “perverse” effect on safety. Or so they say.

This is exceptionally unlikely to be true. Interviews with MANY members of Congress over the past two years confirms that “Congress” believed that the CPSIA included a real and workable mechanism for sensible exemptions. Not that anyone thought about the details of this bill for more than a few micro-seconds, but if they did, they thought there was a viable exemption process. Actually, it takes virtually no effort these days to find members of Congress who assert that the CPSIA was a toy bill. Gotta keep ‘em guessing, I suppose.

It must be nice to be able to project your own views onto an entire institution. This is a good way to defect blame. What did Congress “want”? No one can know what that amorphous institution wanted or wants. At this point, the Waxmanis are self-appointed interpreters of the Congressional psyche. In reality, it only matters what “House baron Henry Waxman” wants. In this case, an impotent exemption process is exactly what he wants. The sham also provides him with cover against more skeptical members of Congress. That you can see through it hardly matters – do you actually expect members of Congress to read the law and figure out how it works? Come on!

That’s participatory government for you. Unfortunately, you only think you are participating. Mr. Waxman will let you know when he needs your input. . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – What does "Any" Mean, Anyhow? Waxman Staff Weighs in.

At this point, other than whatever the AP decides to print tomorrow, we know that anything with lead is really dangerous. The CPSC, following orders, determined that palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium and ruthenium are safe. They blessed these materials for inclusion in children’s products in August 2009 so they must be safe, right? Here’s what the CPSC said: “In addition, in the proposed rule, the Commission preliminarily determined that certain metals and alloys did not exceed the lead content limits under section 101(a) of the CPSIA provided that no lead or lead-containing metal is intentionally added. The metals and alloys considered included surgical steel, precious metals such as gold (at least 10 karat); sterling silver (at least 925/1000); platinum; palladium; rhodium; osmium; iridium; ruthenium.”

So here’s the game: match the following statements from Wikipedia about these elements with the element itself. [To verify my quotes, just go to Wikipedia and search for the element.]

1. Cadmium
2. Palladium
3. Rhodium
4. Osmium
5. Iridium
6. Ruthenium

A. “[This element] reacts with oxygen at room temperature forming volatile [element] tetroxide. . . . [Element] tetroxide is highly volatile and penetrates skin readily, and is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact.”

B. “[This element] is also a potential environmental hazard. Human exposures to environmental [element] are primarily the result of the burning of fossil fuels and municipal wastes. However, there have been notable instances of toxicity as the result of long-term exposure to [this element] in contaminated food and water.”

C. “[This element] chloride was at one time prescribed as a tuberculosis treatment at the rate of 0.065 g per day (approximately one milligram per kilogram of body weight). This treatment did have many negative side-effects, and was later replaced by more effective drugs.”

D. “The compound [element tetroxide] similar to [XXX] tetroxide, is volatile, highly toxic and may cause explosions if allowed to come into contact with combustible materials. [This element] plays no biological role but does strongly stain human skin, may be carcinogenic and bio-accumulates in bone.”

E. “[C]hemical complexes of [this element] can be reactive. Lethal intake for rats is 12.6 mg/kg of [element chloride] [This element] compounds can strongly stain human skin. The element plays no biological role in humans.”

F. “Very little is known about the toxicity of [this element's] compounds because they are used in very small amounts, but soluble salts, such as the [element] halides, could be hazardous due to elements other than [element] or due to [the element] itself.”

It’s good to know that only one of these items is considered dangerous. I feel safer already!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Let’s Play a Cadmium Game!

Last Friday, Commissioner Bob Adler posted his long-awaited position paper on lead and related CPSIA issues. Weighing in at 21 pages and 89 footnotes, Mr. Adler’s paper includes a thorough recitation of facts as well as his recommendations about the law. Among other things, he recommends making the lead exemption process more flexible and allowing clothing to be sold through charity resale shops. He also left the door open to changes that would ease the economic burden of the CPSIA on small businesses and low-income consumers. I agree with all of these changes – but I also think many other and more extensive changes are needed, too. I do not agree with the basis of Mr. Adler’s reasoning, however, and that makes all the difference.

Mr. Adler devotes about half of his statement to a detailed analysis of lead safety, reciting many facts not in dispute. Unfortunately, he then leaps to familiar conclusions that we have seen in recent Commission meetings and which are also found in many of his written statements. He does signal some extremely limited flexibility on lead, more or less hewing to the line put forth by Central Casting.

Ironically, Mr. Adler’s statement sometimes leaves you wondering where he stands, since he seems so sympathetic to both sides. It is frustrating to not have a clear picture of how he really sees the world. I fail to find persuasive his argument that the lead rules are good for us when they lead to ridiculous results like the banning of brash bushings on toy cars. Mr. Adler himself noted in the Learning Curve hearing that the brass bushings pose NO risk to children at a hypothetical tipping point with blood lead levels (in other words, the toys were incontrovertibly safe) – and then voted to ban them because the law compelled it. This should trigger a sense of outrage in the Commissioner . . . but it doesn’t.

To me, as an ex-lawyer, the illogical results documented in the Learning Curve case are intolerable. It is proof of a defective law and a defective system. Banning acknowledged safe products is a SIGN of problems, not something to rejoice in. As you know, it costs money to toss away perfectly good product. It also costs a lot of money to employ CPSC staff and Commissioners to decide silly cases like the brass bushing case. Something’s quite wrong if we are celebrating a system so obviously broken.

i believe there are fundamental flaws in Mr. Adler’s views on lead which prompt him to make recommendations basically defending a broken, illogical and self-destructive legislative system. Let me start by stating what I considered to be incontrovertible facts:

• Lead is bad
• Lead can be dangerous to children
• Harming children is bad, and unacceptable if reasonably foreseeable.
• Lead poisoning in children is largely if not entirely the fault of lead house paint and leaded gasoline

Mr. Adler makes the latter point in his footnote 83: “Clothing is not a significant source of lead poisoning. Far and away the greatest source of lead poisoning is lead paint in older housing, lead-saturated soil from gasoline emanated over the years from automobile exhausts, and lead-saturated dust (both from paint and gasoline).” [Other citations omitted] It is important to remember that Mr. Adler KNOWS that blood lead level problems stem from house paint and the long term consequences of years of leaded gasoline use (particularly in the inner city).

Mr. Adler tries to prove that lead is bad – but that fact beyond dispute. He goes further and builds the case that there is no “safe” level of lead, providing citations. Thus established, he then seems to justify the legislation’s strict terms based on the logic that if science hasn’t identified a safe level for lead, every instance of lead is therefore dangerous: “We may have currently reached the outer limits of our ability to measure negative effects of exposure to small amounts of lead, but that does not mean that no adverse effects are occurring. It basically means that we do not know.” Scary stuff. . . but what does he really think?

It’s hard to tell. Notwithstanding his assertion that no level of lead is safe, Adler seems oddly reassured by the permitted levels set by Congress: “[Given] that lead remains ubiquitous and often unavoidable, policymakers who are fully aware of lead’s risks, have sought to determine some level of lead that would be acceptable – at least until new information becomes available.” And these all-knowing policymakers (Congress) set a retroactive scheme of rapidly declining permitted lead levels. In other words, what was considered “safe” (meaning legal) on February 9, 2009, was “unsafe” on February 10, 2009, and what was considered “safe” on February 10, 2009 became “unsafe” on August 14, 2009, and what was “safe” on August 14, 2009 promises to become “unsafe” on August 14, 2011. Mr. Adler analyzes retroactivity under the CPSIA in his statement and then endorses it. Huh?

I fail to grasp the logic of either Congress or Mr. Adler here. Is lead in substrate dangerous or is it not? Is there a safe level for lead or is there not? Is lead safe on one day, and not safe on the next day? If so, can someone explain the science of that safe/unsafe trigger to me? I believe Mr. Adler’s accommodative attitude toward the lead standards and retroactivity is best explained by politics than by any notions of safety or risk.

It is even harder to take Adler’s stern tones on lead seriously when you consider the volume of lead elsewhere in a child’s life. Will regulation of lead in substrate in children’s products have any material impact on blood lead levels? Can anyone prove that it will, or that the cost of getting rid of all the lead is worth the cost? Remember that we could redeploy the same money for more impactful projects, like eliminating high lead levels in drinking water in schools or remediating soil contaminated with lead. We have already covered the fact that Mr. Adler knows that blood lead levels are fundamentally tied to exposure to leaded house paint and contaminated soil. It is also well-known that cars are coated in lead paint, legally under our laws. Lead is also in our food chain, is found in nature – and enters our bodies every day. [For data on this topic, see "Eat My Dust".] By obsessing on children’s products in the face of these facts, Congress ensured that its new legislation would fail to deliver measurable results.

In essence, the slogan “no safe level for lead” connotes a risk-free condition. “Risk-free” is an unrealistic standard and FAR too expensive as public policy. Mr. Adler uses this formulation in his lengthy analysis of used clothing sales: “In sum, I cannot state with certainty that a “safety” threshold of, say, 1 µg/dL blood level change would never occur from zipper sucking. . . . The fact that I cannot say there is no risk is why I characterize the choice [between allowing and banning resale of used clothing] as between bad and worse.” [Emphasis added] Mr. Adler is not following a legal principle here, he is asserting one. This is the precautionary principle, the famous Nanny State being implemented before your very eyes.

It is difficult to diffuse an argument based on the elimination of all possible risk. If we wish to organize our society around the elimination of risk, rather than the management of risk, we are doomed. All of us, not just the children’s product industry. The sad truth is that no one in the Federal government can prove that the policies of the last 35 years on lead caused injury. Mr. Adler implicitly asserts that our inability to prove that it DIDN’T is enough justification to throw the old system out. This is a belief system, not science.

The fear of risk is fanned by the threat of undetectable dangers. Mr. Adler notes: “To say the effects [of lead on healthy children] are not directly observable is not to say that that they are minor.” He amplifies this point by implying a link to children’s products to lead injuries without any proof of a relationship: “[MRI] technology has permitted us to identify permanent damage in adults stemming from childhood lead exposures.” Exposure to what, precisely? ABC blocks or the soil next to an inner-city apartment building in the leaded gasoline era? Mr. Adler’s assertion that we just don’t know what the harm is dodges the real question – how do you know there is any harm resulting from THESE USES OF LEAD? No answer is supplied because no one can answer that question.

The Adler statement paints a pretty compelling picture and the 89 footnotes were presumably intended to add academic gravitas to his arguments. However, not all academics agree with Adler. Here are videos of the presentations of two Ph.D.s who specialize in risk assessment in children’s products and lead issues taking an opposite view: Richard Reiss of Exponent and Barbara Beck of Gradient. They both note that the dose makes the poison and that only through true risk assessment will a sensible safety system be possible.

A couple brief notes:

- Mr. Adler talks a lot about retroactivity in the CPSIA. At the end of the day, he comes down . . . get ready for it . . . in favor of retaining retroactivity, but also for the recommendation of the Commission to make the pending 100 ppm lead standard prospective. I am not commenting on his arguments other than to say that I think relaxation of this provision would bring considerable economic relief without any possibility of physical harm to anyone. That’s enough reasoning for me.

- In calling for change to the lead exemption process, Adler is apparently willing to support only “a modest expansion in the amount of discretion granted to the Commission”. I find this rather curious and unexplained – he only wants a little discretion. Why? Does he worry that the Commission can’t handle the responsibility for full discretion? Again, why? I wonder if greater powers suggested this very limited recommendation out of a lack of “trust”, namely trust of future Commissions not hand-picked by this Dem-dominated Congress. No matter the explanation, it is curious indeed to see a Commissioner ask Congress to extend his Commission limited discretion.

- Adler devotes considerable space to sale of children’s clothing at resale shops. He ultimately recommends that charity resale shops be allowed to sell children’s clothing (possibly subject to posted Proposition 65-like warnings, see footnote 88). Adler’s logic in this section is puzzling to me. Is Adler trying to defend children or defend the CPSIA? He concedes that clothing has no history of causing injury from lead but is apparently troubled that it cannot be proven that a child couldn’t be harmed by clothing. Incredibly, he resolves the dilemma by distinguishing between resales made by charity shops and by for-profit shops, leaving the latter out of his proposed exemption. So is he approving the sale of unsafe products by charity resale shops to poor people so they can stay warm? Or is he saying that the clothes are probably safe, but can’t be sold by for-profit stores for . . . what reason? If the clothing is safe to sell, sell it . . . and if it isn’t, don’t. WHO sells it shouldn’t matter. But apparently it does.

An aside: Mr. Adler uses some strong language to discuss those of us who have pushed back on this law: “As I have waded into the debate, I have encountered many thoughtful, sincere, and anguished concerns about the CPSIA. I have also heard numerous overheated arguments, scanned many bloviating blogs, and read great numbers of error-laden emails (and letters) commenting on the law.” For those of you who don’t know this SAT word, “bloviating” is defined as “[to] discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner” on dictionary.com. I wish our government officials would stick to the issues and avoid attacking the exercise of Free Speech by U.S. citizens. This is particularly the case here, since after a long fight, many of those bloviaters have been proven right. I don’t expect thanks, but I think this is out of line.

I could go on, but I won’t. Mr. Adler’s voice in the debate is an important one and I appreciate his efforts to set the record straight. I don’t agree with him and appreciate the opportunity to reply.

You be the judge!

Read more here:
CPSIA – In Defense of Lead

I was thinking of that phase today as I was pondering the astounding mental gymnastics employed by Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Bob Adler to justify keeping private the Commissioners’ debate over the agency’s recommendations to change the CPSIA until the report is delivered to Congress. Tenenbaum and Adler both asserted yesterday that the private deliberations currently going on were more than sufficient to create the necessary “vigorous debate” all of us Americans hope would occur on a five-person Commission.

You are probably scratching your head. What’s the big deal about the Commissioners sitting in one room and discussing an important issue? Well, there’s a legal problem here: the Government in the Sunshine Act prohibits meetings of more than two Commissioners without announcing the meeting publicly and making it available to the public. [You owe C-SPAN to this law.] Arguably, three Commissioners can’t take a taxi together or gather around the water cooler to resolve issues relating to the Cubs Spring Training line-up without an Internet camera firing away.

Here’s some background on the Sunshine Act:

“The Government in the Sunshine Act was passed by the Congress of the United States in 1976. It required for the first time that all multithreaded federal agencies (meaning those which have units that work independent of each other) hold their meetings regularly in public session. The bill explicitly defined meetings as essentially any gathering, formal or informal, of agency members, stretching so far as to include conference calls.

This bill was conceived and passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal, when American mistrust of government was running very high. The government responded by creating various committees to open the meetings of the government, but without a legal backbone to stand on, these groups were wholly ineffective. After some pressure from the public, the act was passed in order to provide a legal backbone for the opening of meeting records to the public.”

So the Commissioners are not allowed to meet as a group unless you (the general public) are invited. As the above link attests, this means Commissioners may be constrained in what they choose to say – because you are peering in. Mr. Adler noted this issue yesterday and also expressed his frustration that as soon as he says something in a public meeting, “it’s all over the blogosphere”. You know, like in this column. Aside from the fact that the Sunshine Act is MEANT to facilitate precisely that, it also fosters accountability. I believe these same concepts underlie the Freedom of Speech, something we are all dependent on.

Ms. Nord pointed out that the purpose of a five-person Commission is to meet and work as a group. I would note (the obvious) that the debate proposed by Ms. Northup would occur AFTER all the private deliberations, and thus might occur at a very productive time. Whatever, Mr. Adler said he was satisfied with the current process, notwithstanding Ms. Northup’s point that if meetings involved more than two Commissioners or were exposed to the light of day, errors might get corrected.

Errors – that’s an interesting point, isn’t it? Correcting erroneous information, probably a good thing, right? Bad information could lead to bad decisions. . . .

This leads us back to “bad optics”. As you may recall, the Commission held a hearing on November 4th to decide the fate of Learning Curve and its famous brass bushings. Despite conceding that the brass bushings were perfectly safe, Mr. Adler voted against the exemption petition. Along the way (at about 25:00 in the video of the hearing), Mr. Adler launched into an unprompted and rather condescending bashing of Learning Curve, accusing them of “bad optics”. Why did he do this? As I explained in a blogpost on November 5, Mr. Adler had received erroneous information about the company’s sales practices from a member of another Commissioner’s staff. Taking this information as fact, he gratuitously offered the company some coaching on managing appearances in Washington: “If I had to give any advice to [Learning Curve] on ‘optics’, I don’t think it’s such a good idea to come in and say ‘We admit we’re breaking the law, we’d like an exclusion but oh, by the way, we’re going to continue selling this product during the pendency of the proceeding.’ I would urge them at least as a matter of courtesy to withhold sale and distribution during the pendency of this proceeding.” [Emphasis added] Of course, Learning Curve never said any of this.

You can imagine how Learning Curve must have felt about this – they were later to get whacked with a massive penalty for lead-in-paint, and those negotiations must have been going on at that very moment. When I wrote about this on November 4, Learning Curve’s lawyer read my blog and contacted Mr. Adler, who then urgently called me (as I sat down to dinner while on vacation) to ask that I publish his retraction right away. You will find the retraction in the November 5 blogpost above and on the CPSC website.

Presumably this kind of experience leaves scars but now two months later, Mr. Adler appears to have forgotten it all. In early November, he was left exposed and embarrassed by erroneous information passed along in a private meeting. He was not protected by checks-and-balances because the Commissioners are unable to meet in groups and as a result, laid an egg in a very important hearing. To judge by the urgency of his appeal in November (and his remarks in yesterday’s meeting), Mr. Adler does not like to be wrong nor be exposed as wrong. YET he now defends the very system that caused his own demise.

“Bad optics”, indeed. Mr. Adler, what is the message here?

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Bad Optics" or Did Bob Adler Actually Learn His Lesson?

1. The Waxman amendment is expected to be attached to H.R. 3326 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. It has not been added yet, but will be done just before it goes to the floor of the House, presumably sometime tomorrow. It is expected to appear on the House Rules Committee website at that time. Speaker Pelosi is apparently going to Copenhagen on Wednesday which is also expected to be the last day that the House is in session this year. Thus, this amendment is expected to pass into law by Wednesday as part of this unstoppable appropriations bill.
2. Despite a flurry of frantic back room conversations, there appears little likelihood of change in the pending amendment language or terms. Mr. Waxman’s staff is telling one and all that the amendment is the “best we can do” and if we don’t like it, too bad for us. As noted, this amendment was written unilaterally by the Democrats with the cooperation of the Democrats on the Commission and without even showing the language to the Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee or on the CPSC Commission. Hearings, naturally, are OUT OF THE QUESTION. Nancy Nord commented on the Democrats’ slight today: “While the amendment is less than clear legislative drafting, with its passage, Congress does acknowledge, for the first time, what many of us at the agency have been saying for many months–the inflexible nature of the CPSIA has limited the ability of the CPSC to minimize the unintended consequences of the law–hurting product sellers and limiting consumer choice while not advancing safety. This amendment was drafted in a closed and partisan process, without input from relevant stakeholders and its shortcomings reflect this flawed process.” [Emphasis added.]
3. The subterfuge of Mr. Waxman and his allies on the Commission has resulted in almost no media attention to this critical amendment. The press has barely picked up on it (there was a tentative mention in the Product Safety Letter tonight, but that’s it as far as I can tell). This plays right into their hands by keeping the dissatisfied members of Congress at bay, something that’s not particularly difficult when there is so much attention diverted to “fat cat bankers” and health care legislation, among other things. Still, keeping it out of the papers helps quite a bit.

One can only hope that these tactics will backfire. This much appears clear – the legitimate interests of the regulated community, the well-documented issues of businesses (large and small) under the CPSIA, have been totally ignored. Only a small group of politically-connected industries had the power to jump the queue. Nice for them, but lousy for those of us left behind.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Waxman Amendment Update

• Mr. Waxman now accepts that some aspects of the CPSIA need to be fixed.
• Mr. Waxman now accepts that the CPSC cannot fix the law through rulemaking alone.
• Mr. Waxman is being a “good guy” and showing his “good faith” by allowing a change to the law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum believed that something is better than nothing and made a practical judgment to support the Waxman amendment as a step in the right direction.
• Ms. Tenenbaum concluded that fighting with Ms. Waxman might worsen the situation for the agency and for the victims of the law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum thought that getting an amendment now might open the door to more amendments later.
• Ms. Tenenbaum thought the Commission could use this “loophole” to ease pressure on at least some victims of the law.
• None of this affects the good vibrations that emerged in recent weeks with the CPSC who has noticeably softened its rhetoric and reached out to the regulated community to find amicable solutions to the perplexing issues caused by the CPSIA.

I think that’s about as sympathetic a portrayal as I can paint of the Waxman amendment and the way it was generated. With that sunny scenario in mind, how would I now interpret the events?

1. Waxman is in control, and will not relent. Both minority members of Congress and minority Commissioners have been largely disenfranchised for the future of this law. His need for control made impossible redress of the many other issues documented by the likes of resale shops, education companies and apparel-makers.
2. Waxman will dictate precisely the speed and dimension of fixes to the CPSIA. The pain and disruption in the market does not influence him. As the terms of the original law indicate, he does not regard economics as a factor in setting safety policy. [An economist would characterize this outlook as irrational.] Political pressure does influence him, hence the meager effort to appease the ATV and publishing industries. This amendment is consistent with the longstanding position of his staff – so there is little to indicate further flexibility. If you believe the “one bite at the apple” crowd, this is grim news and contradicts the concept above that one amendment might lead to other amendments.
3. Waxman has no intention to publicly debate the issues under the law. Likewise, he has no intention of possibly losing control of the discussion or the message. Given his stated interest in reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, it remains critical to portray the CPSIA as a success and as an advance in regulatory “theory”. The Waxman amendment makes clear that the legitimate concerns of the regulated community are taking a permanent back seat to a political agenda set by consumer groups and the California contingent. Again, not good for us. . . .
4. The CPSIA is now clearly the Democrats’ law. Republicans have been exiled from the safety debate. It is shocking that party lines now define the children’s product safety debate since injuring children is not a political issue. Yet, any notion of bipartisanship has been crushed.
5. Whether for political gain, sympathy with the original design of the legislation or for practical reasons, the Democrats on the Commission have fallen in line with the Waxmanites. The teamwork on this amendment makes them appear to be allies. If this means that the Waxman views on implementation will also hold sway, it forecasts grim developments ahead for regulated companies.
6. The appearance of appeasement or even complicity by Ms. Tenenbaum is inescapable. Even in the friendliest interpretation of events, Tenenbaum comes out as a weak defender of the legitimate interests and concerns of the regulated community. And “common sense” seems forgotten. What kind of partner does that make her? Do her statements on consulting with stakeholders and open dialogue seem somehow self-serving now? Right now, it is very hard to know when or whether she will toss regulated companies overboard. This makes partnership with her difficult because you must give to get . . . now that the “get” is in doubt, how can the regulated community become comfortable with the “give”? I also think it’s reasonable to ask why Ms. Tenenbaum allowed this provision to be negotiated in the dead of night. That’s not how a partner behaves.
7. There is a BIG issue of trust within the Commission here. The very public way in which the Republican Commissioners received notice of their irrelevance will cause lasting injury to relationships. It is hard to see collegiality restored quickly on the Commission after this betrayal. Of course, I can’t help but recall the mantra repeated by many pro-CPSIA advocates – that the CPSC needs a five-person Commission. Doesn’t the amendment “process” expose this as a joke? If Tenenbaum and Waxman are going to ignore the Republicans, was Congress really saying that the CPSC desperately needed three Democrats in a majority position? Gosh, I think the Republicans that voted for the law might take issue with this . . . .
8. The inclusion of lead labeling for excluded items confirms the zealotry of the Waxmanites, the impotence of the resistance movement and the persistent disregard for the needs of innocent victims of this law. Of course, difficult-to-obtain exclusions are quite anti-small business, as are the lead labels. The labeling is even more incredible if you take into account that exclusions will only be granted in circumstances where the inclusion of lead will have virtually no conceivable health impact. So if the Chairman would sell us down the river with a useless and extraordinarily-limited amendment without addressing ANY of the other pressing issues or demanding the right of the Commission to assess risk, then what else can we reasonably expect from here on out?

That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? Frankly, this amendment and the behind-closed-doors process which excluded all corporate stakeholders and many political stakeholders, sharply erodes trust in all directions. Doing this behind everyone’s backs – during a two-day workshop purportedly designed to solicit stakeholder feedback and get everyone on the same page – seems remarkably disingenuous. You can safely assume many recent conversations in retrospect seem less than candid or straightforward.

To work out the difficulties with this law, leadership on the Commission (Democrats) and in Congress (Democrats) need to come to grips with the fact that the law is incredibly misconceived and destructive. The dream that the Precautionary Principle actually works to anyone’s benefit has been debunked. To cram down this noxious law despite the legitimate concerns of the regulated community will NOT snuff out opposition – but instead will inflame it. The problems won’t go away, and cannot be buried. The issues will fester and rot until addressed.

If the issues marbling the law are allowed to linger long enough, the Democrats can ensure lasting damage to the agency and market catastrophe. I will repeat myself: there is a legacy issue for Tenenbaum and the Dems – and having jettisoned the Republicans, it’s all theirs now. The CPSC can be rendered ineffective and wholly bureaucratic, with all the attendant damage that entails, or it can be restored to glory. The choice is theirs and the stakes are high. Interestingly, the regulated community will support an effort to restore effectiveness at the agency, but that will necessarily involved restoration of risk assessment and political independence at the agency. Hard to see Waxman going along with that.

Do we have the leaders for this effort on the Commission? Time will tell. Like everyone else, they will be judged by their results. You and I are along for the ride, whether we like it or not.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Still Steaming Over Mr. Waxman and His Unilateral CPSIA Amendment

The outrages of this new bill extend beyond discourtesies in Congress. Equally remarkable is Waxman’s apparent consultation of the General Counsel of the CPSC on the text of the amendment without informing certain of the Commissioners. This shocker to the Commissioners is quite extraordinary and possibly poisons the well for Inez Tenenbaum’s CPSC Commission. There seems to be big issues of trust here. It is not known how many Commissioners knew of the existence or terms of this amendment, but it is strongly believed that this language was drafted in consultation with and perhaps under the supervision of Ms. Tenenbaum and her staff. It is also known that the Republican Commissioners were entirely in the dark as recently as 3 PM EST today. The apparently schism in the Commission has now broken into the open with the exclusion of Commissioners from this critical collaborative process along strictly party lines. Apparently safety IS a partisan issue.

The amendment tracks the little-publicized admission by Chairman Tenenbaum in response to the written questions of Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) that a “functional” exception to the CPSIA lead restrictions is needed. [See paragraph 16(b) of the attached document.] This amendment is primarily focused on her request. The subject of a “functional” exception to the law has been discussed behind closed doors by many stakeholders but no common vision of such language emerged. As recently as a few days ago, Congressional staffers were denying that language would be attached to the new appropriations bill. Ah, truth in politics!

The draft language, said to be “final”, can be summarized as follows:

• Redesigns Section 101(b)(1) by adding a VERY limited “functional” exclusion.
• The new language now permits a component to be excluded.
• Gives the Commission the power to exclude WITHOUT a hearing. Evidence no longer needs to be “peer-reviewed”.
• Preserves the loathed “result in the absorption of any lead into the human body” language in the exclusion provision.
• Allows exclusion for product, component part or material “by reason of its functional purpose because it is highly impracticable or not technologically feasible to remove or make inaccessible the lead in such product, component part, or material” if “contact by a child with the lead . . . may reasonably be expected to be infrequent” and it is not expected to be mouthed.
• Each product, component part or material excluded must be labeled to indicate the presence of “accessible lead”.
• The Commission may by regulation require the reduction of lead in the excluded item or material and/or establish a schedule for full compliance.
• The new amendment restricts the ability of the Commission to exclude “an entire product” if ANY part of the product does not meet the foregoing requirements. This provision is entitled “NARROWEST POSSIBLE SCOPE OF EXCLUSION”.
• “Ordinary books” and “ordinary paper-based printed materials” are excluded from the lead restrictions under the CPSIA. This exception seems to include “quick copy” print materials, too. Materials not meeting the strict definitions of these terms are NOT excluded.

This language is not likely to make anyone particularly happy other than publishers and the library people:

The Pro’s:

1. Waxman acknowledges, finally, that the law produced by a “perfect legislative process” needs some tweaks.
2. There is no denying now that the CPSC can’t fix all the problems, and Waxman apparently concedes this point.
3. The Commission can now grant exclusions without a hearing.
4. Books were inadvertent inclusions in the CPSIA, and libraries were unfair victims. That has been corrected.
5. An awkward path for fixing ATVs, bikes and perhaps pens now exists. It is also possible that even rhinestones can be addressed, at least in part, under this language.

The Con’s:

1. The amendment leaves in place the terrible “any lead” language, making exemption requests a (bad) joke.
2. Exclusions will be hard to get and require a great deal of expense to obtain.
3. ALL exclusions come with a Proposition 65-like “consumer right to know” label, making the sales of the product highly unlikely. Few products can carry an accessible lead label and still be sold in volume.
4. The narrowness of the exclusion inherently limits the freedom of the Commission to act according to common sense.
5. The Commission and the CPSC are still not empowered to assess risk.
6. Small business issues were completely ignored, as were testing cost, liability and labeling issues.

Some additional observations:

• The approach of Waxman to fixing this law demonstrates that the CPSIA is now a House Democrats’ law. I will spit every time someone mentions the original 424-1 vote – the illusion of bipartisanship has been snuffed out once and for all. The exclusion of Republican Congressmen and Republican CPSC Commissioners from this process speaks volumes about how Washington intends to administer this law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum’s technique in obtaining this “relief” makes her look like Mr. Waxman’s bag man. The close alignment of Bob Adler and Ms. Tenenbaum on the Commission puts Mr. Adler into this camp, too. [When this subject comes up, Mr. Adler's prior job on Waxman's staff always has heads nodding.] The quiet development of this language breaks the illusion that talking to the Democrats on the Commission will somehow bring changes independent of Mr. Waxman. This bill makes it look like he maintains staffers on the Commission.
• The exclusion of books is nice, but smells a bit funny to me. The American Association of Publishers appointed Tom Allen as its CEO in April. Mr. Allen, a Democrat, served under Henry Waxman on the Energy and Commerce Committee and often followed his lead as a Congressman. Small wonder he got this job, right? It wasn’t a real shock then that books were excluded in this amendment. Despite the holier-than-thou rhetoric, it’s “business as usual” in Washington under Obama and Pelosi. A friend in need is a friend indeed.
• The narrowness of the exclusion process and the requirement of labeling despite the apparent admission that such exclusions pose few health risks strongly suggests that the legislative process is being controlled by zealots who will not yield to reason. The “true believers” who now dominate Washington have a world view that you need to take on board – Californiziation. There is no compromise on these issues, regardless of common sense or hard reality. Given the exposure of the axis between these Congressional leaders and the control block on the Commission, there seems little reason to be especially optimistic of serious advances in implementation of the CPSIA by the agency.
• The Chairman and Democratic majority on the Commission lack the political will to take on Waxman in an effort to fix the CPSIA. This potentially sacrifices the long term effectiveness of the agency in its stated purpose to protect consumer safety and possibly also the vigor and competitiveness of the American children’s product industry, all to avoid the unpleasantness of a contentious job. Complaints at the CPSC that it should be renamed the “Children’s Product Safety Commission” or the “Consumer Product Compliance Commission” will likely gain traction. The lack of political will to fight the good fight and to stand up for common sense create the conditions for a terrible legacy. Will these Commissioners be able to say they left the agency better off than they found it? An interesting question. Guys, there are no free moves in this game . . . .

I continue to shake my head over the timing of this development. Were I Chairman Tenenbaum, I might have told Mr. Waxman that I didn’t need this kind of help. Consider what may have been lost: (a) the bonhomie and trust built in the last couple days at the workshop as CPSC Staff and all sorts of stakeholders mingled in good faith and with open dialogue, (b) the goodwill generated by the CPSC efforts to protect Cepia LLC and their Zhu Zhu Pets from unfair consumer group attacks, goodwill that now must be reevaluated, and (c) the general appearance of a new cooperative, open-minded wind blowing through the CPSC in the last six weeks. I now have my doubts about the candor of discussions and the legitimacy of stated intentions to “fix” the system. The good intentions and well-meaning of the CPSC Staff is not really in question here – but the leadership must be held accountable. You can’t ask for trust and then expect this kind of thing to be ignored. You are either a partner . . . or you aren’t.

The Stay is now on the table. The CPSC Commission has been meeting behind closed doors with a sense of purpose and urgency to figure out what to do with it. Your letters and emails are being read . . . but the open question is whether enough Commissioners care. The Republicans on the Commission have been open in their support for extending the Stay, but the three Dems are unaccounted for. One is said to feel strongly that the Stay needs to go away, on the grounds that Congress wants it gone. Let’s not make any bones over this – it’s not Congress, it’s Henry Waxman. If it were Congress (in other words, a bipartisan movement supporting the existing CPSIA), then perhaps Mr. Waxman wouldn’t have to sneak around to get a CPSIA amendment through Congress without hearings or discussion. So when you hear that “Congress” wants something with this law, connect the dots.

A very disappointing way to wrap up a promising week.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Waxman To Amend the CPSIA . . . Who Can We Trust?

a. Both Anne Northup and Nancy Nord put out press releases today lambasting the Learning Curve decision. The (apparent) polarization of the debate has now gone very public. The shame of it is that the Republicans seem to be the ones advocating for common sense while the Democrats continue to support decisions that would puzzle the man on the street. There is no reason that common sense should divide the Commission. Of course, it would be wrong to accuse the Democratic appointees of lacking common sense. Still, it’s hard to argue with the position of the Republicans from the perspective of real world problems and risks. At least they are speaking out against Congressionally-sponsored folly compelling the agency to hold hearings about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

b. Commissioner Bob Adler called me today to retract his accusation discussed at the end of my last blogpost in a short section entitled “Interesting Side bar”. Mr. Adler was contacted by representatives of Learning Curve who were upset at the idea that they had been selling toy cars in violation of the ban. It turns out that this is not true. When Mr. Adler became of his mistake, he (decently) sought to correct the record immediately. For that, he is to be commended. I want to make clear – the testimony at the LCI hearing that I reported actually took place BUT the substance of Mr. Adler’s remarks was incorrect. Mr. Adler expressed his regret to me, and asked that I pass it along to you.

You have to admit that this is rather ironic. Mr. Adler accused Learning Curve of exhibiting “bad optics”. Bad optics, indeed. The source of his misinformation was a staffer to one of the Commissioners who bought a LCI car from Amazon.com and assumed that this meant that LCI was violating the ban. This staffer took it upon himself/herself to pass on this assumption as a FACT to Mr. Adler. Actually, the inventory for sale on Amazon had been bouncing around for some time, and did not come from LCI after the ban went into effect.

To me, this mistake (and that’s all it was) demonstrates several important points:

• The CPSC has a VERY HARD TIME understanding supply chains. There may be a tendency among some people working at the CPSC to see the economy as a very simple, linear beast. It’s not. This situation illustrates the danger is making assumptions about how the economy is organized or underestimating the complexity of how goods go to market. Let’s not forget the immortal words of Felix Unger in The Odd Couple TV Show: “When you assume you make an ass out of u – you – and me.”
• To a business person (like me), it feels so often that the CPSC holds businesses guilty until proven innocent. Mr. Adler made a mistake, and that’s to be expected of all of us mortals, BUT it feels too easy for the CPSC to judge us without digging too deeply into the merits. Maybe the business community isn’t a nest of vipers. Just a thought. . . .
• The Commission has a tremendous ability to do harm. This (minor) incident will certainly not enhance LCI in any way. The Commission treads with elephant feet – it needs to try to be a ballet dancer.
• The problem of “bad optics” is resident at the CPSC today. The issue of tone and appearance and how they affect market participants – that is VERY deserving of consideration at the CPSC TODAY.

I hope this incident is reviewed carefully at the CPSC for “lessons learned”. Mr. Adler’s culpability here is not, IMHO, the issue. The bigger concern is the hair trigger, the guilty-until-proven-innocent atmosphere, the power to do harm, the effect of words and actions and inactions on behavior in the market. The Commission needs to pause for a moment and use this incident to do some soul searching. If that exercise is productive, we will all be grateful that this mistake took place.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Further Developments in Brass Bushings Case