CPSIA – A 52-Page Morsel for You to Nibble On!

How many pages do you think are necessary to define “Children’s Product”?

Okay, I bet you said 52 pages. That’s cheating! Here is the CPSC’s stab at the definition. No, I haven’t read it yet. It’s 1 AM and I have decided to take a little nap before the sun comes up.

I will be back to you on this important document.

Read more here:
CPSIA – A 52-Page Morsel for You to Nibble On!

CPSIA – Video Blog – Understanding the CPSIA!

I get calls all the time from my readers – “what do I need to read to understand the CPSIA?” Well, you gotta read, read, read! Unfortunately, the CPSC has not provide a list of documents for you to read. To help out, I prepared a little document list for you, and explained it in this video blog:

Read more here:
CPSIA – Video Blog – Understanding the CPSIA!

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Q&A with CPSC

Q&A’s from this afternoon’s session. Gib Mullan responding unless otherwise noted.

A taste of things to come:

1. The biggest impact of the Public Database is how quickly you will have to reply. Hmmm, where have we heard this before??? Hope you are never on vacation. . . .
2. On confidentiality in the Public Database, it is going to be “hard to deal with”. Info from consumers won’t be confidential. Info from businesses will either be confidential or not, perhaps at the company’s pleasure, but it will be hard to act on info businesses provide WITHOUT making it public. RW: Don’t forget to make comments,guys. Your silence will be taken as your approval, trust me.
3. The plan for the DB is to let companies have “every bit of the time” specified in the statute “AND NOTHING MORE”. There will be “minimal CPSC review”. Aha, just like Tenenbaum said, time to get prepared. . . for the first Tuesday in November.
4. One questioner noted that the recalls on cribs has so rattled consumers that it has stimulated the return of co-sleeping arrangements, known to be one of the most dangerous baby scenarios. Hmmm. The CPSC will be doing education to counteract this development. RW: It is inconceivable that their publicity will match the media frenzy over crib recalls. It’s probably safest just to stop having kids.
5. Will there be a mandatory standard for window coverings – because there is (said to be) one death a month. The CPSC says that they are working on it. For you at home, it’s probably safer to just take down all window coverings and let Mrs. Kravitz have a big day.
6. Somebody called for new regulations on the “end of life”, just like in Japan. OMG . . . . Hey, they mean the end of your product’s life! What were you thinking? The CPSC is watching how this system works but has no present plans to expand its current regulatory scheme.
7. When will a promotional product become a “Children’s Product”? Does it become a Children’s Product if screened with the wrong thing? Cheri Falvey responded that you can’t read the WIMA letter (the pen decision) to address this question. It was a “result-oriented” opinion from a two-person Commission. The new rule on Children’s Products, to be voted on by five Commissioners, will sort this out. Might incorporate the pen decision and broaden it, or it might not. So there you go, might be okay, might not, you should wait and see. [RW: I hate the pen decision because it attempts to solve a compliance issue on a technicality with absolutely no regard for safety. Is a pen safe? The decision cannot be reconciled against that question because it only matters what was intended by the manufacturer. Safety is irrelevant when considering compliance . . . ?]
8. Eric Stone noted that changes in the definition of “Children’s Products” may have consequences for manufacturers and asked if the agency has the legal authority to operate prospectively. Falvey declined to give a legal opinion, but noted her personal opinion that the definition could broaden in the new rule. She noted that she has warned about that in the past. Oh, I see, we are to write down her every word, savoring them like pearls, because her oral warnings in any setting are going to be taken as precedent. We were warned. Too bad for those of you who weren’t here to hear her words. Ha Ha Ha Ha! And you can’t use this blog as a citation, either. Remember, my URL doesn’t end in “dot gov”. I am a liar.
9. When the law goes into effect on cribs, Falvey told us this AM that the standards will be RETROACTIVE. A member of the juvenile products industry referred to this news as a “bomb”. He said there could be 20 or 30 million cribs that don’t comply and would be instantly illegal. Gib says the new rule would be retroactive only for cribs in “public settings” like hotels, motels, day care centers. He says that the Commission has the authority to go even further. Oooh, could be a great chance for the government to come into your home – nice! I really like the concept of this rule – it’s really simple, see, it will be retroactive for some people and prospective for others. Apparently, the CPSC and Congress still haven’t figured out that the U.S. economy is rather complex. I see years of fun ahead for the regulators.
10. Learning Curve asked if all document attachments on the Public Database would be made public. Gib said yes. LCI then asked about consumer-obtained test reports and whether they would also be made public without scrutiny. Gib said he hadn’t thought of that one. I can think of a few plaintiff’s lawyers who would be happy to run a real life seminar about this in the future . . . . This Q illustrates the incredible disarray that awaits us all because of this insanely self-destructive provision fobbed off on us by the consumer groups.
11. Gib: not everything in the database will be public. Some area will be explicitly confidential. Some 15(b) disclosures will not appear in the DB.
12. No decision on whether media reports will be included in the DB. I find this hard to be envision – I trust eventually the consumer groups will force all the trash into the DB to help with all their searches. Oh how I look forward to the new era of Sudden Business Death.
13. Will the agency will reconcile multiple reports of the same incident? One of Cheri Falvey’s associates said they would address it in the rule. The rule is now over 25 pages long. Trust me, it won’t be that short when released.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Q&A with CPSC

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Gib Mullan, Head of CPSC Enforcement

Gib Mullan’s remarks on enforcement:

• Import surveillance staff is now up to 18 people.
• Using Commercial Targeting Analysis Center (CTAC) to stop things at the port. Can see what’s coming in before it arrives.
• Is working with the International Trade Commission, the folks responsible for HTS Codes (Harmonized Tariff Schedule). The CPSC is trying to “piggyback” on HTS code to identify the products of interest to the agency. Making “significant headway”.
• Imports samples rising at a rapid rate. Only about half of the samples fail.
• Use of XRF is one of the agency’s “secrets for success”. Will use for cadmium, too. Only one-tenth of items scanned are being sampled. This implies that less than 5% of items scanned fail. Most items are not inspected, which is just a numbers game.
• Field Investigation Division is back to a “growth mode”, in 55 locations with 89 investigators. Expanding to Internet surveillance. They have seen a surge in eBay sales of recalled items after recalls are announced. Interesting!
• Created email address for the public to report sales of recalled products. Now everyone can be on a cop on the beat, how wonderful. Hope I can still trust my kids. . . .
• Retailer reports are rising. Participants in this program include WalMart, Sears, Amazon and others. 20,000 reports a year. Also reports by email and on the hot line 800 number are jumping. The total number of reports is cresting at 50,000 per year. All of this is BEFORE the public database. [Soon a system will be fully constructed that will make doing business in the U.S. children's product industry impossible, something to look forward to (this is my thought, not Gib's remarks).]
• Field “blitzes” are increasing. Examples are pool and spas, drywall, drawstrings, cribs. This is a new activity although blitzes at the port are old hat, in my experience.
• Defect Investigations Division has 19 compliance officers.
• Recalls in 2009 DECLINED from 563 to 466. Number of units went up to an all-time high, 229 million units. Lots of big recalls in 2009. Should we feel safer now? I wonder . . . . Gib himself questions whether this is “good or bad”.
• Fast Track recalls are pretty steady. “Fast tracks” are recalls initiated by companies and brought to the CPSC’s attention by the company itself. CPSC-initiated recalls are steady in the 50-60 range. Cases stemming from regulatory violations declined from 167 to 47.
• Early warning system relating to cribs, bassinets and play yards is resulting in faster recalls. [No info on the availability of cribs and so on was provided, or the cost of those goods now.]
• Joint recalls with Canada was done first on February 19, 2009 (that fills in a hole!). Total of 13 joint recalls in 2009 and 16 in 2010 to date. Expects more joint recalls in the future, broadening to other countries. Gib thinks this makes it simpler for companies going through recalls. Again, not sure how I feel about this but am not opposed in principle.
• Regulatory Enforcement Division has 18 Compliance Officers now. This includes Chemical, Children’s, Flammability and Mechanical hazards. Letters of Advice (“LOAs”) fell a bit in 2009 by perhaps 12%. Only a small percentage result in recalls. In 2009, found 338 lead content violations and 118 lead in paint violations, mainly at the port. Recalls have come down considerably, almost to zero. Stops at the port are higher than that, but don’t result in recalls necessarily. Those are declining, too.
• Compliance Division now has 14 of its own attorneys
• Civil penalties rose a lot in 2009. Gib specifically noted that he was not being “gleeful” about penalties but simply noting that penalties are a more serious risk now. I am okay with this tone, it is common sense. Penalties totalled nearly $9 million. I just hope that penalties moderate and become more purposeful, rather than political.
• Made a STRONG point about fraudulent testing. The CPSC caught fraud in lighter testing and it led to criminal charges. They are working on another case now. This is great news as far as I am concerned. Cheating is a REAL problem (an actual problem, not an imaginary problem). The CPSC should find the bad guys and punish them. The resources of the agency are well-served if focused on removing these unscrupulous people from the market.
• The agency is forging new alliances with the State AGs. They have a monthly conference call with this group. This is the CPSC’s proactive effort to reign in the State AGs by making them part of the process. If this works, great. Again, we need to watch out for the lowest common denominator risk.
• Working with China on implementing “best practices”. Getting better, faster. China recalls went DOWN in 2009 and he anticipates improved safety in Chinese products. This, too, is a good use of agency resources. If we really are getting better, faster, Gib and his team should take a bow. Safety benefits everyone. Next up, consideration of the relationship between these initiatives and cost. Safety is an inherently economic subject. We need recognition of this basic fact.

I have omitted all reference to drywall here. This is a one-of-a-kind problem that seems unrelated to the CPSIA as far as I can tell. Likewise, I have not attempted to summarize the issues relating to ATVs and other tangential product/safety issues brought up by Gib. [He did say that repairs to the Rhino seem to be working well, btw.]

To Gib’s credit, I found his presentation quite balanced with no particular effort to frighten. I appreciate the choice of tone for what could be a quite intimidating topic.

Gib’s presentation was one of the few I can recall in the last two years on the topic of enforcement that did not materially raise my blood pressure or make me think dark thoughts about the future. Let’s hope that the CPSC can build on this base to restore trust among the business community. Safety and fear mongering is an unholy alliance. The CPSC needs the cooperation and trust of the manufacturing base.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Gib Mullan, Head of CPSC Enforcement

CPSIA — ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Jay Howell on Hazard Reduction

Remarks of the CPSC’s Jay Howell on Hazard Identification and Reduction (again, this is not a transcript, just the points I found interesting or notable on issues typically discussed here):

Reasonable Testing Program is applicable for “non-children’s products”. There are several elements to this:

• product specs
• applicable certification test
• product testing plan
• remedial action plans
• program design and implementation documentation

Howell says these are common sense good business practices. I agree, by and large. Some of this is bureaucratic, however, and sets expectations better suited to mass market businesses than to small businesses. Will small businesses devote the considerable resources to this kind of paper pushing? If not, do these requirements set up those small businesses for possible big penalties? Perhaps.

Howell also discussed the need for “event-triggered testing”. Again, this is mainly common sense. On “periodic testing”, Howell acknowledges that there is no “one size fits all” answer to questions of frequency. He points out that testing frequency relates to the potential size of recalls. The more frequently you test, the smaller the batch size and the smaller the potential recall (with tracking labels). This is interesting if they actually will allow businesses to make this assessment themselves. The ability to make risk-reward choices would be a step in the right direction. One can only hope . . . .

He advises that you consider these factors:

• severity of possible injury
• production volume
• variability in test results
• test results close to applicable limits
• testing costs
• product complexity or uniqueness
• hidden hazards
• history of incident reports, warranty claims and returns.

Again, I consider this list to be sensible and basically a description of how to make a “duty of care” decision about your products. This kind of coaching by the CPSC is highly constructive and valuable. My only worry is whether this is a set-up for gotchas. I hope to someday restore my trust of the agency so that I can stop worrying about gotchas. This could be a “gotcha”. The CPSC needs to make sure that coaching is coaching, not a set-up.

The CPSC is sensitive to the issues of small volume producers, custom products, and the need for component part testing rules. There are a lot of issues buried in here. WATCH OUT for these rule releases and REMEMBER that your silence will be taken as TACIT APPROVAL. You will NEED TO send in detailed comments.

Jay also confirmed to me earlier today that the CPSC is now doing some recalls jointly with Health Canada. I noticed this last week but don’t know when it started. Not sure whether this is good or bad, especially since safety issues for manufacturers should be dealt with across all sales regions. Not sure how this will affect costs or risk. Legal actions in other countries can be excruciatingly expensive, and if encountered, has the potential to kill small businesses instantly.

Read more here:
CPSIA — ICPHSO Update – Remarks of Jay Howell on Hazard Reduction

CPSIA – Commission Report to Congress on CPSIA Changes

The CPSC Commission issued its January 15 Congressional report on recommended changes to the CPSIA last Friday. As promised by Inez Tenenbaum, the Commissioners were afforded the opportunity to present individual statements to accompany the Commission report. Four of the Commissioners (Tenenbaum, Adler, Nord and Northup) chose to present their own statements. Adler also promised a supplemental statement on the subject of lead, which has not been released yet to my knowledge.

The Report and the accompanying statements make interesting reading. I do not propose to summarize the documents here, but have set out a few thoughts:

a. The Commission’s Consensus is Important. The Commissioners made a big effort to speak with one voice in the report. While they certainly did not agree on everything, their effort to achieve bipartisanship agreement in the report sends a good message. The Commission needs to work harder to find this middle ground more consistently and less fractiously. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for turning safety into a game of political football. If the Commission can work better together, confidence in their administration will grow and extremes will be avoided.

The prohibition against full Commission meetings in private (the Sunshine Act) is a hidden factor in the report. Since the Commission ill-advisedly voted down a public discussion of the report, the Commissioners were prevented from meeting in groups of three, four or five. When you read this report, imagine how it might have read if the five Commissioners were allowed to sit in a room and duke it out. It might have been a better document, more complete and more prescriptive.

b. Where’s the Functional Purpose Exception??? The report is as interesting for what it DOESN’T say as for what it does say. Most importantly, the functional purpose exemption is GONE. Rumorville has it that the functional purpose exception became more and more ornate and complex as the Commissioners struggled to write a recommendation until even its most ardent supporters had to concede that it wasn’t going to work. This was set up to be Waxman’s excuse to do nothing or nearly nothing. It’s not there anymore.

Too bad for Henry, huh?

c. The Commissioners’ Statements Reveal that Common Sense is Divided on Party Lines. The Commissioners’ statements reveal a lack of communication within the Commission. I know they were talking but it appears that some messages weren’t being heard. The statements of the two Democrats (Moore apparently did not prepare a statement) were straight out of Central Casting. Disappointingly, Ms. Tenenbaum chose to repeat a fairy tale about the law’s origins:

“In response to the flood of dangerous imported products, which were involved in tragic fatalities, poisonings and injuries involving children, Congress closely examined the needs of the CPSC and the statutory changes necessary to enhance the regulatory safety net maintained by the agency. Congress spent considerable time reviewing these needs and continually consulted with the agency’s leaders, staff, consumer groups, and the regulated community in order to carefully craft the proper legislation to achieve this end. Seeing a clear need to reauthorize and reinvigorate CPSC with new energy and purpose, Congress passed a sweeping law.” [Emphasis added]

The re-characterization of what was essentially an anger-fueled legislative mania into some sort of group hug is apparently the Democrats’ effort to justify a passive or inert approach to fixing the law. In addition, both Tenenbaum and Adler repeated the misleading togline about the dangers of lead, although I don’t think that’s news anymore. It’s also not really relevant to discussing the issues under the law – and their persistent refusal to acknowledge this is disappointing.

The Republicans (Nord and Northup) delivered rational and balanced statements that calmly and appropriately diagnosed the issues with the law. They are cognizant of the excesses of the law, the dramatic impact on both the regulated community and the hobbled agency itself. The Reps make no effort to prop up the CPSIA – you know, the law passed by REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE. There’s no pride of authorship by the Reps – to their credit, these Commissioners seem to be trying to restore a rational system of law and regulation designed to provide appropriate levels of safety at an affordable cost.

I am tired of the Dems on the Commission simply being good Dem soldiers rather than committed stewards of safety. The ANGER expressed in Massachusetts today is a strong message to the Dems – America is sick and tired of government aggressively inserting itself into every aspect of our lives, including by way of the CPSIA and its precautionary principle. See tonight’s Wall Street Journal for more details. It will be interesting to see if Massachusetts impacts the CPSIA amendment process.

d. Does it Matter What’s Safe Anymore? I am struck again by the absurdity of the debate over lead. As I see it, the debate is over which incidents of lead that are illegal should be permitted. This is different from defining what constitutes safe lead. This used to be a simple decision. Now the premise is that there is NO safe level of lead. Is that really TRUE?

Think of ALL cases where lead is found in children’s products. Now separate them into two piles, one that is labeled “safe” and one that is labeled “not safe”. How do these piles compare to the piles made by the CPSIA, FHSA and CPSA? Well, that question never comes up in the debate. The big question is about compliance with law, not safety.

This is not a rational system for administering risk. First of all, if lead were so deadly that it needed to be eliminated in all cases in all children’s products, then presumably we would be even MORE motivated to remove it from our food, water and air (not to mention dirt). After all, we consume food etc. and the lead in the food gets into our bloodstreams. But this isn’t an issue today because the CPSIA didn’t make it illegal – and apparently the CPSC does not feel lead is dangerous in food, water or air (or else it would have acted on the threat under the FHSA). It gets worse – consider that lead paint is illegal on children’s products but not on cars. If lead is so dangerous and mere contact with lead-in-substrate is so dangerous that it is utterly intolerable in a modern, sophisticated society likes ours, then why does the CPSC permit kids to touch or even ride in cars? After all, the zipper pull on a kid’s golf bag is illegal if it has a dot of lead paint on it. But a whole car dripping with lead paint, that’s fine.

The answer – it doesn’t matter what’s safe when it comes to lead, it only matters what’s legal. The Dems prefer to portray what’s illegal as unsafe, and imply that what’s legal is safe. [Call this the All-Knowing Congress argument.] It’s hard to take this seriously. It’s time for them to drop the precautionary principle pretense and start being accountable for the rationality of their regulatory positions. If lead is a crisis as they say, then please ban everything with lead in it, including our entire food chain. I am ready to be safe, finally.

e. What Has Been Accomplished in the Last 18 Months??? Does it bother you as much as me that so little has been accomplished by the last 18 months of chaos? The many steps and achievements documented in the report and statements might make a bureaucrat blush with pride but how have injury statistics changed? [Recall statistics are a poor measure of the effectiveness of safety rules.] How much did we pay as a society for these extremely meager achievements? If you add in the cost to our society of a crippled safety agency, the price we paid is staggering. The waste is sickening. It’s not possible for me to read the recounting without a sense of loss.

f. Does Anyone Else Want An Exemption? Umm, Yeah! It’s important to note that the low number of exemption requests does not reflect a lack of interest in exemptions. Exemption requests are very expensive to prepare and are complex. In many cases, the exemption request will obviously be rejected or is too broad to state in any compelling way. For instance, educational products span so many categories that it is impossible to state a coherent exemption request. More importantly, the real inhibition to filing is a fear of losing the request. For many companies, it just doesn’t pay to ask for permission – they prefer to beg for forgiveness if a problem ever arises.

Anne Northup correctly notes in her statement that it is bad law to require that regulated companies line up for exemptions. She is not arguing on behalf of the companies – she focuses on the huge burden these requests place on the CPSC and the Commission. She is TOTALLY correct. The idea that we should have a safety system based on exceptions would only appeal to the IRS. Somebody needs to listen to Northup on this point.

g. The Report Whitewashes Ineffective Help for Resale Shops. It is a sad joke to assert that coaching resale shops with the CPSC’s guidance document and a few workshops is somehow a solution to the massive problem caused by the CPSIA. For one thing, it is quite clear that this message has not reached its audience. The CPSC’s approach is inherently inefficient and unlikely to bring relief to many affected stores. A better law is the necessary solution. Second, it is apparent that the CPSC’s efforts did not relieve anxiety – the stores are still dropping children’s items. This lack of accountability begins to look cynical when you consider that only last week, Scott Wolfson was warning people not to sell cheap jewelry on auction sites or in resale shops. Hmmm, that sounds very reassuring, doesn’t it? Problem solved!

If the Commission truly cares about resale shops, then a more effective approach (including a communication strategy) needs to be implemented.

With the issuance of the report and statements, the shuttlecock has been batted back to Congress. The next step is to work on a long-needed amendment of this awful law. Stay tuned.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Commission Report to Congress on CPSIA Changes

CPSIA – The Votes Are In . . . (The Stay Was Extended)

The CPSC Commission ballot votes were announced today with the five Commissioners’ statements released as well (Adler, Moore, Nord, Northup, Tenenbaum). The Commission made three decisions:

1. Adopted the interim enforcement policy allowing the use of component tests (5-0)
2. Lifted the stay on testing for bike helmets, dive sticks, bunk beds, and rattles (5-0)
3. Extended the stay on testing for lead content to February 10, 2011 “date certain” (4-1, Adler dissenting)

These votes reflect a considerable effort by the Commission to pull together. Other than Mr. Adler’s principled decision to opt out of the endorsement of a longer extension of the stay on lead content, the Commission managed to find common ground. The unification of the Commission, if it sticks, would be a positive development. I hope this is a sign of recognition that safety is not inherently political and therefore Democrats and Republicans can work cooperatively and productively together.

The extended stay (“Stay”) will be of value to manufacturers without endangering consumers. This is helpful . . . but is not a complete solution. It’s a compromise and may have to be revisited again. I believe the Commission was not able to agree on Ms. Northup’s formulation of the extension (six months after the issuance of the so-called “15 Month Rule”) because Mr. Adler’s objected to it as too open-ended and expressed a concern that it might be pushed out indefinitely. So now we have a stay expiring on a “date certain” and an agency with another artificial deadline to meet. The 15 Month Rule was not made an explicit condition of the decision, which means that more market chaos is probable.

Let’s step back at this point and think about the issues that this vote raises:

A. The notion that another year will be enough to tidy up the details on lead content is probably a pipe dream. A few points of reference:

• Today is the one year anniversary of my first comment letter on civil penalty factors. When they finally came out in September, I sent in a second comment letter. To date, the new penalty factors have not been announced. We are in our second year of waiting.
• The phthalate test standards are also in limbo. The agency has had two cracks at that one. The first one allowed testing of the entire product as a single part (based on statutory interpretation) and after a storm of protest from among others the CA AG, the CPSC reversed course and reissued the test standard requiring that each component, even internal inaccessible ones, be individually tested. No doubt this pleased Jerry Brown, candidate for governor of California, but it created (brace for it . . . ) another storm of protest. Yet more comment letters were submitted. And . . . nothing. Please NOTE that the phthalate ban was SO urgent that the CPSC allowed it to become effective RETROACTIVELY with exactly TWO BUSINESS DAYS NOTICE. Obviously, phthalates must be a serious problem right??? Well, the CPSC has twice investigated phthalates and given them a pass both times. A third CHAP is currently grinding away. You get the picture. Hurry up and wait – just like the Army.
• On January 30, Nancy Nord issued her statement in support of the original stay. In that letter, she called for the issuance of the component testing rule. Have you seen it yet? The interim enforcement policy is the closest thing we have to a component testing rule. The birthday party for Ms. Nord’s call to action is about a month away. Get the cake ready.

I am skeptical that the “15 Month Rule” will come out anytime soon. As Ms. Northup notes, it is going to be wickedly complicated. EVERY such rule when issued has been a major speed bump in the implementation process. See above . . . . The CPSC is also not without its other challenges or little projects. There is, of course, the day-to-day business of the agency like hunting for shoes with lead-infused insoles. There are also unexpected emergencies like Chinese drywall. And then there’s that endless time sink, the CPSIA, with its many unfolding requirements. Why just today, the CPSC announced yet another two-day workshop on the public database. Didn’t we just have a hearing on this? Perhaps I should buy a condo in Washington . . . . Anyhow, these other obligations will get in the way of the master plan here. That’s a certainty.

The consequences of these artificial deadlines for businesses are pretty severe. Our problems are largely with the “regulatory compliance exuberance” of our larger and more risk-averse dealers/retailers. This risk-aversion is principally driven by the excessive liability of the new law and the apparent predilection of the CPSC to hand out whopping fines. It is also related to speculation that it is only a matter of time before the agency or one of the State AGs decides to give the felony provisions a road test. Who will be first in line? Our larger customers have no interest in finding out. This may be why we have one customer who insists on testing EVERY item for lead-in-paint . . . even if it has no paint on it. And another customer who wants us to test EVERY item for flammability, even if the products are exempt (like paper-based items).

How do you think these customers will react to a “hard” deadline on testing? With little sympathy and a great deal of advanced planning. They will not want to speculate on whether we will get relief if the CPSC runs late on something important. Likewise, they will not want to stop and start. Some companies are ALREADY incorporating the August 2011 100 ppm lead standard into their requirements NOW – even though the CPSC has made NO determination that it will impose that (ridiculous) standard yet. A one year extension of the Stay means that the testing requirements will take form for us much sooner than February 10, 2011, and once started, will be hard to stop.

B. Some of the remarks of Commissioners at the hearing and in their statements seem detached from market realities. This is worrisome. The denial by certain Commissioners of information they have been provided (Adler: “While there will be some disruption in the marketplace no matter which date is chosen, no hard evidence has been brought to my attention that would require an even longer extension of this stay than two years from the passage of this landmark legislation”) and the misconstruction of the impact of their decisions (Adler: “I know of no company that has indicated that it will withhold production until the 15-month rule becomes effective.”) erodes confidence.

It’s time to abandon pretense and role-playing. The decisions being made have very serious consequences for many people (perhaps this is why I am still up at 1 AM writing this blog) and must be handled with the utmost sensitivity. If the Commissioners seem to be stuck in a tunnel with no end, believe me, so are manufacturers. Let’s not make the situation worse – particularly since there is NO crisis to resolve right now.

C. Of particular concern to me is that the agency seems to have lost its ability to determine what is safe and what is not. Today’s recall of Timberland scuffproof boots is just an illustration of our broken compass. The CPSIA’s famous “precautionary principle” holds that we cannot trust anything until it is proven safe upfront. Thus, the CPSIA subjects every product and every component in every children’s industry to new regulation, and requires the CPSC to carve out exceptions. This MAXIMIZES workload, chaos and confusion because it requires in-depth inquiries into EVERYTHING. This approach multiplies complexity as regulations devolve from common sense guidelines into endless lists of exceptions. Look around you – this entire mess, the last 18 months of misery and the coming months of new misery, is the inevitable outcome of this defective way to regulate our markets.

The mounting exceptions are only part of the mess. Then there are the interpretations. There is simply no way to catalog all of these decisions. Every nuance needs a regulator’s okay. Ms. Northup highlights the determination that a children’s water slide is NOT a “children’s product” because it must be designed to withstand the weight of an adult. Very good, quite a helpful decision, but HOW are manufacturers supposed to replicate that reasoning without taking undue liability risk? Isn’t it obvious that such determinations are quirky and hard to apply? The trend to greater opacity is unstoppable under this regime.

As long as we ignore this fundamental problem, we will face a worsening environment at the CPSC. The cohesiveness of this Commission today will degenerate quickly. The morale of CPSC staff will decline further. The rules and interpretations will pile high into the sky and manufacturers will start to ignore them – or just leave the marketplace for sunnier climes. Ridiculous demands of retailers for testing will drive more companies from the market or just cripple the ability of U.S. companies to compete internationally. The flaws in the CPSIA will also likely spark a consolidation trend toward bigger and bigger companies as this kind of environment is deadly to small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Not a pretty picture. Thanks Congress!

So with this stay decision, I conclude that little has been accomplished to address the basic problems. We kicked the can down the road, which is fine, but the fundamental issues remain and will pop up again in short order. Until we put them to rest, the fighting will intensify, the agency will descend into gridlock and personal reputations and legacies will be harmed.

There is no need to stand idly by and let this carnage happen. As has been pointed out by many in recent days, the CPSC needs to tell Congress honestly what needs to be done to fix the law. Mr. Waxman has conceded a fix is necessary. We need now must tell Congress where they went wrong. I disagree with Ms. Northup that the CPSIA’s flaws were mysterious in July 2008 – but whether or not that’s true, they are pretty obvious now.

I wish the Commissioners and all my readers a restful holiday season, but after you have had a nice nap and a chance to catch up with the relatives, it’s back to work. We need to put together the list of fixes and march over to the Hill.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Votes Are In . . . (The Stay Was Extended)

CPSIA – Testing Guidance Comments

The CPSC put out long awaited guidance on testing and certification. The hearings on this guidance took place on November 9. I wanted to give some preliminary comments:

General Comments:

The Guidance is generally helpful and clearly well-intended. This is a helpful change in tone that will be welcomed by the business community. I encourage the CPSC to keep working on the tone of its communications to rebuild trust with the business community.

As a general matter, I find that this guidance speaks with two voices, one focused on reasonableness and good judgment with the goal of safety, and the other focused on rule-following and a byzantine structure for compliance judgments that is divorced from concepts of safety. For instance, the guidance stresses the importance of third party testing of lead-in-paint on children’s products. The guidance includes an extensive section with very specific suggestions on how to accommodate lab testing for various paint scenarios (Sec. D), suggesting that the CPSC thinks that lab testing is absolutely required to assure compliance with this standard. Later, the guidance notes that “Painted non-children’s products likely to be used in the home and around children, and wet paint in the can also must comply but can be accompanied by a general certificate of conformity.” So, the CPSC apparently thinks it is essential to test SOME products for lead-in-paint that children will regularly encounter in the home, and as for the rest, they are prepared to trust the manufacturer. It also suggests a much lower sense of urgency on lead levels in those other products. From a safety perspective, one of these approaches must be right but they both cannot be right at the same time. How does the CPSC expect their rules to be respected (or understood) if they blow hot and cold on such an important subject?

There are other conundrums, such as conflicting uses of the term “reasonable certainty” and “reasonable assurance” when describing compliance. These terms have very different meanings and connotations. [The better term is "reasonable assurances" because "reasonable certainty" is an illogical term akin to "nearly precise".] In addition, at times in the guidance, the CPSC describes in great detail the factors that a reasonable manufacturer should weigh in making judgments, and then in other seemingly similar circumstances, articulates bright line compliance requirements. Bright line rules are almost certain to cause chafing, as there are so many different industries affected, and many companies have innovated in safety and supply chain processes designed to assure good quality. Specific bright line rules will offend innovators and will tend to force them to share or squander their proprietary efficiency gains. For instance, phthalate testing plans and frequency is something that should be left to the best judgment of manufacturers. Why? Because phthalates are additives not found in nature, and if the manufacturer’s supply chain has been trained to eliminate it as an additive, testing and retesting won’t find it. The incentive to run your business well is eliminated when you cannot capture the benefits of efficiency.

It would be my strong preference that the CPSC rethink this guidance from the perspective solely of a safe environment for children. As a starting point, the CPSC Staff must candidly decide if they think children are in danger now and describe precisely how they are in danger. The concept of “no safe levels of lead” has been debunked by CPSC Staff and even the Commission itself. To my recollection, no lead exemption request under Section 101(b) has been rejected for safety reasons, only for lack of flexibility in the statute. In addition, in last week’s brass bushings hearing, Commissioner Adler repeated the consumer group’s slogan “no safe level for lead” and then went on to state that the Learning Curve toy cars (subject of the exemption request) were perfectly safe to use even with a child at some hypothetical tipping point in blood lead levels. Thus, both CPSC staff and Commissioners concede that there are safe (tolerable) levels of lead. We need to move past sound bites and refocus on the real safety problems faced by children. Some of these problems probably involve lead (bio-available lead). I believe the agency can identify those risks that deserve attention, and would concede that the rest do not (at this time). This is crucial for a system of rules that will be respected by the stakeholders in the safety debate. Silly implementing rules lead to silly results, unfortunately; famously, the CPSC has “okayed” several metals for inclusion in children’s products that are KNOWN to be quite dangerous – all because they are also known to be lead-free. A set of rules focused on real safety considerations will be much better received and will be far more effective, too.

It is also worth noting that the complexity of this guidance will likely defeat its purpose. When it takes 31 pages to explain how to sensibly test your products, with two dozen FAQs to clarify the ornate rules, it is clear that something’s wrong. If the CPSC wants rules that will be understood by the “masses”, the rules must be simpler and more focused and manageable. It is important that to note that the regulated community will not put the time into mastering the nuances of these rules like the few interested parties have done for the last year. Rules that work are shorter and simpler. My preference would be rules along the line of the factors listed in B.4 coupled with a requirement that manufacturers exercise good faith, make best efforts to comply and use reasonable or best judgment in making decisions. This both describes how a best-of-class enterprise thinks through safety issues and creates a basis for the CPSC to take action against “bad guys”. The rules can sacrifice some complexity and even some coverage in favor of ease of understanding in order to assure practical effectiveness.

Specific comments:

a. The Five Steps approach to designing a “reasonable testing program” creates a mega-bureaucracy, but to what end? Is this being created because the CPSC thinks it is necessary to solve a known safety problem or crisis, or just to accommodate a badly-written law? I think it’s the latter, and thus I believe it is appropriate to consider the new mega-bureaucracy to be a misdirected tax we will pay (to testing companies and others) annually. I think that’s bad government policy, as I think taxes (if necessary) should be paid to the government, not to private parties. Notably, the five steps do not include any advice on supply chain management. The issues in supply chain management (addressed in part in a different list in B.4.) are the source of most non-design legal compliance issues. A testing-focused set of guidelines is unlikely to change safety statistics, in my view.

b. I am blown away by the list of items subject now to GCCs outside children’s products. This completely escaped my attention previously. I think this will shock a lot of people. Again, this is a most unwelcome creation of new bureaucracy that is unlikely to serve any safety purpose. It is not designed to solve a real problem and thus cannot be justified.

c. The guidance makes the following distinction: “regulations concerning reporting, recordkeeping, inspections,: guaranties, certification, or tracking labels are not ‘similar’” but “any requirement of a rule, standard or ban under another act enforced by the Commission other than the CPSA that requires a warning or instruction, or specifies the form thereof, is similar”. How are manufacturers supposed to figure this out? What’s an “instruction”? Why is a “tracking label” not “similar” but a “warning” is “similar”?

d. In the section entitled “Will the Commission Require General Conformity Certification that a Product is Not Subject to a Ban?”, the guidance articulates a rule that everything within a class of products subject to a ban must be tested to back up a GCC. This will significantly increase costs but may not contribute to safety. The better rule is again to leave it to the reasonable judgment of manufacturers, as this will retain a focus on compliance, rather than testing for compliance. Overtesting, for instance for phthalates, will hurt small businesses disproportionately. If a business can organize its affairs to comply, they should be rewarded, not subjected to the same costs of companies less capable of managing their compliance obligations.

Overtesting and other bureaucracy that is not focused on safety will tend to punish U.S. small businesses in the international marketplace. Many companies, like ours, make a significant market outside the U.S. where our competitors do not have to follow U.S. rules to compete in those foreign markets. Overtesting for the U.S. market, or barriers like retesting for changing suppliers, will tend to create a long term cost advantages for foreign companies in foreign markets, reducing the ability of U.S. small business to enter foreign markets or remain competitive there. [Some members of the toy industry are advocating for international harmonization around U.S., rather than attempting to get U.S. standards and practices to become more rational. This "race to the bottom" can do tremendous damage - we need to rise above and set up a system that works but costs a lot less.]

e. The guidance should differentiate treatment of ink under the L-I-P rules and should state plainly the basic rule that if the can says “ink”, it’s ink and is not subject to the L-I-P test requirements.

f. The rules on retesting for a change in manufacturer need to be loosened. The guidance strongly favors mass market companies for their economies of scale and creates a barrier preventing or inhibiting small volume manufacturers from lowering their manufacturing costs. It goes without saying that lowered costs cannot sacrifice legal compliance or the duty of care toward consumers. It rarely does, in fact. The requirement for retesting will significantly hurt small businesses, however. It is important to note that changes in manufacturers is the most common reason for a change in components. For companies with stable product lines, swapping of components may not be very common. In our business, it is rare to change a component and not change the factory. Thus, we will gain little advantage from the rules focused on switching out components.

g. In Section B.2, the guidance strongly encourages annual testing. This will hurt small businesses. Our company’s focus is on producing safe and legally compliant products. We tend to focus on those issues that might affect safety or legal compliance. In our case, few things change in our manufacturing processes that would affect either safety or compliance over time. Thus, annual testing is a waste of money and rarely provides useful information in the administration of our business. If you test and test and test and get the same results each time, what is likely achieved by the next test? Again, the guidance should be focused on substantive safety compliance, not substantive testing compliance. The ONLY solution that will work for all companies in all circumstances is a rule dependent on good faith and best judgment. The principles outlined in B.4. form a good starting point on principles of supply chain management for this purpose.

h. The concept that someone can track the myriad different testing cycles by the components in a product, for most businesses, is a fantasy. In addition, the guidance notes that it may make sense to simply retest the whole product on a regular schedule “a means of simplifying cost, administrative burdens, or other factors.” In other words, the CPSC concedes that the market will not likely accept this relief. The scheme is unworkable as a practical matter. The CPSC should not put out rules it knows won’ t work.

i. Small volume is not best described as 10,000 units. Remember, there are 300 million people living in this country and more than 100,000 elementary schools. TRU won’t sell a product that sells only 10,000 pieces per year in its stores – and that’s just one outlet. The better definition would be 100,000 pieces or at a minimum, 50,000 pieces.

j. The guidance confuses the purpose of testing for compliance with the purpose of MAQL testing/inspections. Testing for MAQL (Minimum Acceptable Quality Levels) requires a MILSPEC sample size. This is appropriate because you are usually looking for defects in manufacturing, not legal compliance issues. In my experience, most if not all defects that have legal compliance implications are managed adequately with a single sample. Think of lead-in-paint, for instance. Multiple samples pulled from the same lot will NEVER produce different test results unless there are two or more sources of paint being used. That’s so rare and unexpected that it cannot justify regular testing of multiple samples. As with most of this guidance, the variance from the standard approach should only be justified by a real need, nothing less.

k. I must admit that while I find the rules on component testing helpful, I cannot help but think that they are making the CPSIA testing regime into a sham. A thick bundle of component tests performed at different times, in different labs, for a patchwork quilt of standards, will defeat the CPSC’s, Customs’ and our customers’ best efforts to understand them. If the purpose of the testing is not to communicate information, then what are we trying to achieve? The absurdly complex result from the component testing rules may bring relief to small businesses but at a high cost – by turning the entire testing scheme into a “check the box” exercise for manufacturers, dealers and regulators. If that’s what this is all about, why is anyone contending that children are not safe and need all these tests to be “safe”? This scheme is simply a by-product of writing rules to implement a mis-focused law, resulting in misguided rules that don’t make a lot of sense for their original purpose, rendering the entire system an embarrassing mess. Rather than burn in a terrible legacy of high costs, incomprehensible rules and test reports that cannot be interpreted, why not rethink the system from scratch and come up with rules responding to real, known problems, and leaving everything else to the best judgment and good faith of manufacturers? After all, without any additional regulation by the CPSC, every manufacturer is already subject to a common law duty of care. Why not simply describe minimally some basics of a duty of care and let the market sort out the rest, reserving the right to regulate in greater detail as real dangers are identified?

l. The sample size rules on lead-in-paint will not work for products purchased through trading companies. This is a somewhat complex subject that requires more details than I can provide in this space right now (it’s late!). Again, there needs to be some recognition that the general purpose of the legislation is to get people to test for lead-in-paint. If so, why not leave the rules on this to the best judgment of manufacturers when facing the de minimus paint issue? These instances are not likely to be true human health issues anyhow. The CPSC should also consider a de minimus rule on lead-in-paint to avoid the massive and wasteful losses from recalls like the Sarge cars in 2007 (over 400,000 units recalled because of two bad cans of paint used for detailing the cars). If you can’t obtain enough paint from one sample to perform the test, perhaps the amount of lead at issue is simply not worth worry about!

m. The guidance (logic) on one-of-a-kind products (which allows the manufacturer to exercise judgment as to whether versions are “the same product”) should apply to all manufacturers and all products. That is, manufacturers should be free to exercise this judgment on all products to simplify their testing without making any compliance sacrifices. This is something they can likely do with great insight. Consider, for instance, a manufacturer of 3-D topographical maps: do they need to test each different map or can they consider each variant the same “product”? The rules should permit this reasonable judgment by ALL manufacturers.. This will save many companies a lot of money. They are waiting for the CPSC to say it’s okay, and then they can start grouping test reports to save money. This will be a big win for small businesses, if accepted by the CPSC.

n. The CPSC should put out a FAQ about the formation of groups for testing purposes. In other words, they should bless companies or trade associations testing on behalf of groups of users of components or materials.

To sum up, the rules are helpful but would be much better if refocused on real safety issues, if shorter and less complex, and if they were more reliant on the good faith and best judgment of manufacturers based on common sense principles of duty of care.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Testing Guidance Comments

CPSIA Video Blog: Tracking Labels and "Reasonable Judgment"

In this video, I discuss the recent Tracking Labels guidance and its use of terms like “reasonable judgment” and “good faith efforts”. No one is quite sure what these terms mean precisely, creating doubts in the marketplace on how to make those difficult “gray area” decisions

See the original post here:
CPSIA Video Blog: Tracking Labels and "Reasonable Judgment"

CPSIA – Video Blog on Tracking Labels Guidance

In this video, I analyze the recent CPSC Tracking Labels Guidance to answer the following question: “If I don’t label my products (as provided in the guidance) BUT must be able provide all the information specified in Section 103, how is it possible to do that without labels ?” The guidance, deemed sensitive to the needs of small business, addresses this question. For my take on the new requirements, please watch below.

Go here to read the rest:
CPSIA – Video Blog on Tracking Labels Guidance