CPSIA – Witness List for April 7th CPSIA Amendment Hearing

Memo to Members of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade: When you listen to Dr. Dana Best fling around numbers tomorrow, please remember that “bazillions” is not a real number. When she asserts that there are possibly “millions” of injured children from lead-in-substrate, please demand real, auditable data! The Witnesses: Panel 1 Mr. Robert Jay Howell Assistant Executive Director Hazard Identification and Reduction U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission  Dr. Barbara D. Beck, Ph.D., DABT, FATS Principal Gradient Dr. Dana Best, MD, MPH, FAAP American Academy of Pediatrics  Panel 2 Ms. Erika Z. Jones Partner Mayer Brown On Behalf of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association   Mr. Paul C. Vitrano General Counsel Motorcycle Industry Council Principal Ms. Sheila A. Millar Partner Keller and Heckman LLP Caroline Cox Research Director Center for Environmental Health Panel 3 Mr. Frederick Locker Locker Greenberg & Brainin PC Mr. Charles A. Samuels Member Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Mr. Dan Marshall Vice President, Handmade Toy Alliance Co-Owner, Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care   Ms. Rachel Weintraub Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel Consumer Federation of America

See the original post:
CPSIA – Witness List for April 7th CPSIA Amendment Hearing

CPSIA – Congressional Hearing Testimony

The hearing held yesterday by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade can be watched at this link. I will be posting snippets from this video soon if you want to wait to watch highlights.

Testimony of the participants:

Panel 1
The Honorable Inez Tenenbaum
Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission

The Honorable Anne Northup
Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission

Panel 2

Ms. Jolie Fay
Founder, Skipping Hippos; Secretary, Handmade Toy Alliance

Mr. Wayne Morris
Vice President, Division Services, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Mr. Rick Woldenberg (oral testimony and written testimony)
Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.

Ms. Nancy A. Cowles
Executive Director, Kids In Danger

Read more here:
CPSIA – Congressional Hearing Testimony

CPSIA – House CPSIA Hearing Line-up

Here is the line-up for today’s hearing. Please note that the format is first, Members’ opening statements, second, Panel 1 presentations (five minutes each), third, questions by Members of the first panel (five minutes per member asking questions), fourth, second panel presentations, fifth, questions for the second panel. As the first panel today is Inez Tenenbaum and Anne Northup, we are certainly second fiddle so you can expect that portion of the hearing to take some time.

February 17, 2011

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade will hold a hearing on Thursday, February 17, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled “A Review of CPSIA and CPSC Resources.”

WITNESS LIST

Panel 1:

The Honorable Inez Tenenbaum
Chairman
Consumer Product Safety Commission

The Honorable Anne Northup
Commissioner
Consumer Product Safety Commission

Panel 2:

Ms. Jolie Fay
Founder, Skipping Hippos
Secretary, Handmade Toy Alliance

Mr. Wayne Morris
Vice President, Division Services
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Mr. Rick Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

Ms. Nancy A. Cowles
Executive Director
Kids In Danger

Read more here:
CPSIA – House CPSIA Hearing Line-up

CPSIA – Dan Marshall of HTA is Profiled in WSJ

Dan Marshall of Peapod Natural Toys and Baby Care in St. Paul, MN and founder of the Handmade Toy Alliance, was profiled in Saturday’s WSJ in an article entitled “Small Crafts v. Big Government“.

Let me give you a hint who is winning . . . it has the initials “B.G.”

Here is the body of the article:

This is a story about artisanal cheese and hand-polished wooden toys, organic spinach and exquisitely smocked baby dresses—the burgeoning small-scale economy so beloved by members of the “creative class.” But it’s also about another, much-discussed growth industry: the production of political cynicism among formerly idealistic Americans.

The story begins in 2007, an unusually good year for Peapods Natural Toys and Baby Care, in St. Paul, Minn., and many similar mom-and-pop businesses. Frightened by news that toys made in China contained unsafe levels of lead, customers were looking for alternatives to the usual big-box offerings. Just as organic farmers gain market share whenever there’s a food-safety panic, the lead scare boosted sales of artisanal children’s goods. “People wanted made-in-USA products, and we were the only place in town that had them,” says Dan Marshall, the owner of Peapods.

Vendors offering organic materials and a personal touch seemed poised to prosper. But the short-term boon soon turned into a long-term disaster. In response to the lead panic, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, or CPSIA, by an overwhelming majority. The law mandates third-party testing and detailed labels not only for toys but for every single product aimed at children 12 and under.

“It’s everything from shoes to hair bows, Boy Scout patches and bicycles—it’s everything,” says Mr. Marshall. But few people producing or selling artisanal kids’ products even realized that the CPSIA applied to them until months after President George W. Bush had signed it. By then it was too late.

Although big companies like Mattel could spread the extra costs over millions of toys, Mr. Marshall’s small-scale suppliers couldn’t. Unable to afford thousands of dollars in testing per product, some went out of business. Others moved production to China to cut costs. Many slashed their product lines, reserving the expensive new tests for only their top sellers. The European companies that used to sell Peapods such specialty items as wooden swords and shields or beeswax-finished cherry-wood rattles simply abandoned the U.S. market. The survivors jacked up prices.

Mr. Marshall and other entrepreneurs formed the Handmade Toy Alliance to try to get the law changed, without success. “When Ron Paul’s the only guy who votes against something it’s really hard to go back and fix it,” says Mr. Marshall, exaggerating only slightly. Neither political officials nor the mainstream media have been especially sympathetic.

“I’m a lot more cynical than I was,” says Cecilia Leibovitz, who owns Craftsbury Kids, an online shop selling handmade toys and children’s clothes, and also leads the CPSIA discussion group among Etsy.com’s online sellers. Mostly individuals producing one-of-a-kind items, Etsy crafters find it especially hard to comply with, or even interpret, the law’s requirements.

By contrast, consider the recently enacted Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act. Like the CPSIA, it establishes expensive new labeling, record-keeping, inspection and reporting requirements. But, unlike the CPSIA, it carves out an exception for small operations.

The reason for the exemption is not that small farms are safer than big ones. It’s that a vocal, established and well-connected interest group didn’t want the law to put small farmers out of business.

Agriculture is a highly politicized industry, and proponents of small-scale farming are organized, ideological, and well represented in the elite media. Buying handmade toys may be nice, but eating produce from the farmer’s market is a quasi-religious ritual of group identity. The exemption is what Michael Pollan, the best-selling author and leading locavore, calls “a very important signal—that this is a different economy and it’s going to play by slightly different rules.”

Other artisanal businesses have gotten a less supportive signal. It’s not enough, they’ve learned, to light a single hand-poured beeswax candle rather than curse the mass-market darkness. Unless you have the right protection, Congress can easily snuff it out.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Dan Marshall of HTA is Profiled in WSJ

CPSIA – Today’s Hearing Testimony

Here is the text of my oral testimony and written testimony from today’s hearing. For your convenience, here are the written statements of the other witnesses:

1. Rosario Palmieri, Vice President for Infrastructure, Legal, and Regulatory Policy, National Association of Manufacturers
2. Paul Vitrano, General Counsel, Motorcycle Industry Council
3. Jim Gibbons, President and Chief Executive Officer, Goodwill Industries International
4. Dan Marshall, Handmade Toy Alliance
5. Rachel Weintraub, Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel, Consumer Federation of America
6. Steve Levy, American Apparel and Footwear Association

The hearing today was apparently available only by audio feed. That is unfortunate because it was good theater, you would have enjoyed it. I don’t know if the video will make an appearance (ever) but when we get links to whatever media is available, I will post it for you.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Today’s Hearing Testimony

CPSIA – Witness List for Thursday’s Hearing in Washington

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has posted its witness list and briefing memo on the web page for the upcoming hearing on the Waxman Amendment (CPSEA). Thursday’s hearing is scheduled for 10 AM EST and will be webcast. I do not have a link to the webcast at this point and may not have it before the hearing. You should be able to find the link at the foregoing webpage. If you miss the hearing, it should also be available for later viewing on the Committee site. I will post that link when available.

The witnesses will be:

• Rosario Palmieri, Vice President for Infrastructure, Legal, and Regulatory Policy, National Association of Manufacturers [N.b., the briefing memo says it will be John Engler.]
• Paul Vitrano, General Counsel, Motorcycle Industry Council
• Jim Gibbons, President and Chief Executive Officer, Goodwill Industries International
• Dan Marshall, Handmade Toy Alliance
• Steve Levy, American Apparel and Footwear Association
• Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.

The briefing memo states: “The following organizations support the text of this legislation and urge its enactment: the National Association of Manufacturers, the Retail Industry Leaders Association [Ed. Note: this is Wal-Mart and Target], the Motorcycle Industry Council, the Handmade Toy Alliance, and Goodwill Industries, Inc.” So, four of the witnesses are already on record as supporting the amendment.

I haven’t changed my view that the Waxman Amendment should be OPPOSED.

As if to amplify my point, the briefing memo hawks the amendment’s beneficence to small business: “To this end, the legislation provides three major forms of relief . . . Relief for small batch manufacturers and other businesses by allowing the commission to approve alternative testing requirements for certain small batch manufacturers, by requiring CPSC outreach and assistance to small businesses, and by providing that the law’s phthalates limits shall not apply to inaccessible component parts.”

As I have explained in the past, there are NO alternative testing methods available two years after passage of the CPSIA. Too bad for small business, huh? Thus, there is no possibility of relief under this provision. Still, the committee apparently thinks that “outreach and assistance” will do the trick. What is that, psychiatry for small businesses? There are days when I think I need it, too . . . .

It’s also worth noting that the exception to the phthalates ban for inaccessible parts – portrayed here as some sort of small business bonus – was included in this amendment at the urgent request of two famous small businesses who consider it essential for the smooth operation of their businesses. You know them well, they have stores in your neighborhood – Wal-Mart and Target. Now that’s some straight shooting by the Majority, isn’t it?

Anyone still wondering why I feel small business is getting the short end of the stick?

I fail to understand why Wal-Mart and Target get the ears of this committee but small business interests are completely ignored or brushed over. This is a really sad turn of events for our federal government.

Remember, if the committee doesn’t do the hard work of fixing this bill, REALLY fixing it, those of us who survive will be back. This issue isn’t going away.

Tune in on Thursday. I’ll do my best for you.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Witness List for Thursday’s Hearing in Washington

CPSIA – "Low Volume Manufacturers" under Waxman Amendment

The proposed Waxman Amendment adds a new term to our CPSIA lexicon: “Low Volume Manufacturers” (LVMs). This term is introduced in the ironically-named Section 4: “RELIEF FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS AND OTHER BUSINESSES”.

How small is “small”? The definition of a LVM is a manufacturer that

“(A) manufactured or imported no more than 2,000 units of all products manufactured by the manufacturer during the most recent calendar year; and (B) had gross receipts totaling not more than $200,000 during such year.”

To clarify, the definition intones:

“the products and gross receipts of a manufacturer shall be considered to include all products and gross receipts of each entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such manufacturer.“

Yep, THAT’S small alright. In other words, if you made or imported 2000+ units of anything regardless of value (all products added together) OR had gross receipts of $200,001 last year, you get nothing here. So, if you sold 3,000 Popsicle sticks for $50, you are out. If you sold 201 cabinets for $1,000 each, you are out. Only the true small fry are included here. Happy?

Hey, isn’t there some sort of federal definition of a “Small Business”? Yessir, the SBA publishes size standards to define Small Business. These federal standards are found in myriad federal legislation (shocking, right?). They are widely used – so why not include them here? That question was posed directly to the Dems – especially since earlier drafts of this amendment featured a higher dollar limit (also inadequate). Why did the Dems tighten the standard so much? Why not incorporate the SBA standards, like every other federal agency?

The best explanation I can give is that the Dems don’t really have any interest in providing relief to small businesses. They also may want to appear to give relief, principally to fool members of Congress who have expressed concern for the fate of crafters under the CPSIA.

Do you think I’m being too cynical? Let’s not forget the words of Senator Durbin’s associate a year ago: “I think you are right that the CPSIA imposes costs on businesses, and because of economies of scale it’s the smaller businesses that will feel these costs more acutely. This is part of a larger calculation that it’s worth the costs to shift from the old system of post-market correction (once a dangerous product is out in the market and leads to sick kids, recalls, lawsuits, etc.) to a new system of pre-market testing and certification (instead of just assuming products are safe and paying the price for false assumptions).“

She said it – small business problems induced by the CPSIA were part of a “larger calculation”. With this amendment, the Dems again test our gullibility.

The provisions relating to LVMs provide the following “relief”:

a. This provision is designed to provide modified requirements for LVMs under Section 14(d) of the CPSA, in other words, the long-delayed and never drafted “15 Month Rule”. For those of you scoring at home, the “15 Month Rule” is now four months late – call it the “19 Month (and counting) Rule”.

b. The “relief” that the CPSC can offer LVMs is “alternative testing requirements” that “provide for reasonable testing methodologies to assure certification based on compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards”. The alternative methods must ASSURE COMPLIANCE. Can you picture what such “assured compliance” might look like? If these words have their normal English language meaning, the “relief” should be nil if compliance must be assured.

c. The CPSC has the right to implement such alternative testing requirements for LVMs on a product, product class or even for a specific safety standard or part of a standard.

d. NO relief is allowed for lead-in-paint, cribs, pacifiers, small parts, children’s metal jewelry, baby bouncers, walkers and jumpers and durable infant or toddler products (as defined somewhere). All of you LVMs, make a note!

Have you ever heard the expression “trap for the unwary”?

e. This provision also calls for the creation of an “Office for Business Education, Outreach, and Advocacy”. Since I called for such education resources in my first speech at the CPSC back in November 2008, I shouldn’t make fun of this. I just like the legislative goal of this organization: “assist the Commission in informing and educating manufacturers and retailers about requirements under this Act or any other Act enforced by the Commission”. This is much needed. Of course, given that you must master literally thousands of pages of gobbledygook to fully understand the CPSIA as implemented, I would DEFINITELY not want this job. If anyone calls about this opening, tell them I am at the dentist.

f. The provision adds an idyllic sounding provision (Section 4) to the CPSIA which states the pleasant intention to “cooperate” with LVMs “in enforcing the lead limits and third-party testing requirements”. Of course, all cooperation must be “consistent with [he] goals of statute”. In other words, you must be able to prove you comply. There are soothing words about assessing the practicability of tracking labels for these micro-businesses. [Remember that "practicable" incorporates concepts of economics .]

Shame that you and I won’t be eligible for tracking labels relief, too . . . .

This charade purports to provide relief to small businesses but in fact, will benefit virtually no one. Even the Handmade Toy Alliance, a CPSIA advocacy group created by crafters, has few members that would benefit. Notably, there are many more small businesses affected by this law beyond the HTA, so the failure to impact HTA members is just an indicator of how lame the proposed relief actually is.

The SBA sets a high bar in its definition of small business for several reasons (as high as 500 employees or $500 million in revenue). Among them is a fear that legal benefits for small businesses may be unfairly distributed if the definition is too narrow. Many small businesses could miss out on needed protections. Furthermore, the complexity of the U.S. economy makes it difficult to describe a small business. The high bar in the SBA definition leaves room for small businesses in every industry from airplanes to pencils to baby clothing.

The SBA certainly doesn’t want to disincentivize growth or prosperity among small businesses. They recognize that the small business community is a huge jobs creator, so maintaining its financial health is a public policy imperative. The SBA wouldn’t want small businesses to lose special legal benefits because of an immaterial event, like a small incremental sale. So a law that TAKES EVERYTHING AWAY when you sell one more unit of ANYTHING or take in one incremental revenue dollar (all at a very low level of sales that would not coincide with a fundamental change in the nature of your business) would never fly. Never fly with the SBA, that is. Mr. Waxman apparently thinks this is fine – but actually, it’s UN-AMERICAN. Our laws are supposed to encourage us to grow. At least they used to.

If there is one basic reason to be critical of this provision, it’s the very conceit of granting relief by business size. This misses the point of SAFETY entirely. Size of business only became an issue under the CPSIA because the law is too broad. Let’s not forget that the prior law had standards for products, not for companies by size. Why do we need size exceptions now?

Think about it – if your child is harmed by a product, will it matter how much revenue the manufacturer earned in the previous year? Do you think the CPSC wants to modify “safety rules” for little businesses only to find out that one of these businesses hurt your kid? Uh, no. So why take this legislative approach? It’s simple -the Dems have constrained the way we can fix the law. They have fixed, absolutely FIXED, the definition of “safety”. The original standards and the original age limits MAY NOT BE REVISITED. These rules are too broad and invite many negative consequences – but since the Dems will not agree to modify them, we must apparently devise ever more complex rules to circumvent (or apparently circumvent) the problems they cause. In this case, the Dems offer relief for tiny companies. Those of us who have enjoyed enough success to hire a few employees and stop working out of our bedrooms are ineligible for this “relief” although our problems are just as troubling.

I do not accept that there is no solution here, however any durable solution requires that the definition of safety be modified to something sensible. The Dems won’t allow it. This is their “legacy” and they are bound and determined to ensure that it survives, ridiculous or not.

That’s your small business relief. Enjoy!

I intend to publish one more post analyzing the rest of the Waxman Amendment. It will cover an exception to the phthalates ban for inaccessible components. It will also document the sneakiness of the remaining language in the amendment. You aren’t meant to understand it – but I will do my best to shed some light.

Sorry, Henry! Let the sun shine in.

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Low Volume Manufacturers" under Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – An Open Letter on the Testing Stay

To all of my loyal readers:

You may not realize it, but we face a serious crisis right now. Last week, the CPSC held a hearing that discussed the possible extension of the testing and certification stay. The Commission is under pressure to ramp up implementation of the awful CPSIA and this therefore puts the testing stay in peril. Chairman Tenenbaum has heard the concerns of regulated businesses that some advance warning is needed, so Rumorville in forecasting a quick consideration of the question – possibly as early as next week. Commissioner Nancy Nord commented on the implications of the stay in her blog last week. At least one Commissioner, Bob Adler, is openly hostile to continuation of the stay. This is a big deal to companies regulated by the CPSIA.

What kind of disaster would the termination of the Stay in February mean to you? Let me count the problems:

• The “15 Month Rule” was never issued when due on November 14th. The “15 Month Rule” was supposed to address testing frequency, sampling regimes, the need for additional testing, component testing rules, etc. [Component testing rules were cited as critical by Nancy Nord when the original stay was issued on January 30, 2009. How time flies . . . .] There is a workshop to be held on Thursday and Friday this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders. More than 200 people will attend and many more will watch and participate online in the web simulcast. Presumably this feedback needs to be fully digested before the Commission acts on the stay.
• Comments on the “15 Month Rule” issues are due on January 11. For perspective, the original comments on the penalty factors were due in late December 2008, and a second round of comments were due on October 1. The revised penalty factors have not been released, and we are now within days of a full year since the first comment letters were received. With this as precedent, we are clearly MANY months from a completed “15 Month Rule”. Arguably, without a fully articulated “15 Month Rule”, an active testing requirement will be incomplete and utterly confusing.
• The CPSC has not issued its phthalate testing standard.
• The CPSC has not certified ONE phthalates lab yet.
• The CPSC admits that it has not certified enough labs to handle a full burden of testing for many product classes or safety tests. They have not provided any quantification of this deficit besides acknowledging that for bikes, based on current accredited labs, it would take a full year to complete testing on all bikes on the U.S. market. That’s one round of testing only, btw.
• The CPSC has not certified labs for ASTM F963 testing yet.
• The CPSC has not defined “children’s product”, “toy”, “play” or “childcare article” yet, making the application of the rules completely opaque.
• The CPSC has not leveled the playing field, acknowledging that fixed test costs place a disproportionately high burden on small businesses. This competitive disadvantage has no ready solution under current rules.
• The CPSC has acknowledged that many companies have not acted to fill market gaps like component testing because the rules are not final (or even drafted in this case).
• The CPSC is on its third enforcement policy on lead and lead-in-paint. With the enforcement-policy-of-the-week, the agency ensures that companies will have devote considerable resources to relearning the rules that they had previously mastered, leading to confusion and exhaustion. Imposing a further layer of incomplete, vague and unarticulated testing policies and plans will only reinforce chaos as the working standard for the children’s product industry.
• The rules that the CPSC has implemented are so ornate, confusingly worded, scattered among multiple documents, letters, and even video testimony, that only the most obsessive observers can claim an accurate understanding of every nuance. This group would not even include me, even though I have given up sleeping in favor of the CPSIA.

The Commission’s sense of urgency to get this irritant off their plate is creating rumors that they intend to act as soon as the next business day after the workshop. As outrageous as this might seem, it’s really worse – the workshop is not about the stay. The workshop is about component testing, frequency of testing, sampling schemes, when to require additional testing, etc. The CPSC has not asked for comments about the lifting of the stay but at least one Commissioner has reasoned that if it was a “big deal”, the CPSC might have heard from more than the Handmade Toy Alliance. [Apparently, both Bob Adler and Jay Howell believe that the CPSC has had not heard from anyone other than the HTA on the stay, which is certainly not true.] This kind of thinking is worrisome in the extreme.

If the stay is lifted on two months notice with all these rules open, undrafted or in process, utter chaos will break out, not only between CPSC regulators and their regulated companies and industries, but also between (a) consumer groups, regulators and regulated companies, (b) State AGs and regulated companies, and (c) regulated companies and their dealers/retailers. By lifting the stay under these uncertain conditions, the Commission is risking complete market chaos. While this would rain down misery across all regulated companies and industries, there is cold comfort in knowing that the Commission would eat its own cooking, suffering a devastating drop in reputation for taking such an economically insensitive and irresponsible act. It would also create whole new class of crises for the agency to deal with, rendering the agency crippled with overwork, inefficiencies and wear-and-tear. Not exactly a magic pill for good agency morale. If the Commission chooses to take this step, it will be shooting at the agency’s feet as well as ours.

We need your help to stop this terrible step. First, it is ESSENTIAL that everyone attending the workshop SCREAM BLOODY MURDER on the issue of the stay. If the stay is lifted, you will be held responsible for complying with unwritten rules by your customers, your local newspaper, your State AG and the like. Your arguments with that cast of characters will get even more intense and distracting (if that’s even possible). The upcoming workshop is your unique opportunity to make your voices heard.

Second, you need to let the Commission know directly how you feel. Here are the email addresses of the five Commissioners – send them an email THIS WEEK expressing your deep concern over the possible lifting of the stay. Please feel free to cc. me at rwoldenberg@learningresources.com.

Chairman Inez Tenenbaum itenenbaum@cpsc.gov

Commissioner Bob Adler radler@cpsc.gov

Commissioner Thomas Moore tmoore@cpsc.gov

Commissioner Nancy Nord nnord@cpsc.gov

Commissioner Anne Northup anorthup@cpsc.gov

Make your voices heard – don’t let this issue catch you napping. We all have the power to help ourselves. It’s time to take action on behalf of your company, your customers, your suppliers, your teammates. Please help us by contributing your voice to this critical issue THIS WEEK.

Read more here:
CPSIA – An Open Letter on the Testing Stay

CPSIA – Hearing on Testing Stay and Interim Enforcement Policy

There was an important hearing yesterday at the CPSC on the testing stay as well as on the announcement of another interim enforcement policy on component and lead-in-paint testing (their third). I was able to watch about 1:40:00 of the hearing before I lost the signal. I think I got the gist of it, and wanted to give some highlights here.

First and foremost, the tone was relaxed, friendly and open. I want to compliment the Commission and CPSC Staff for making an effort to change the “feel” of their communications. I have not lost sight of the fact that substance matters . . . but so does choice of words, actions and tone. In this space, I have criticized Gib Mullan for this in the past. I would now like to publicly acknowledge Gib for taking pains to communicate his new enforcement policy in a reasonable and business-like tone. There were no threats; quite to the contrary, Gib portrayed the interim policy as flexible, reasonable and measured. I appreciate that.

The Commission and the CPSC Staff are also asking better and more sensitive questions, like whether there is enough lab capacity to do all the tests when required (for instance, there is apparently ONE lab approved to test bikes), how much lead time industry needs to adjust to the component testing rules, whether people are testing components now, and so on. Jay Howell even advised the Commission to weigh the impact on regulated industries when considering how or to what extent to lift the stay. This line of reasoning is another sign that we are being heard, and the issues confronting regulated businesses are on the radar . . . finally.

The content of the hearing was essentially technical. This lengthy discussion was all about compliance with the new requirements. The rules implementing the blessed CPSIA are ornately complex. Mullan in fact informed the Commission that his new interim enforcement policy is replete with footnotes – in other words, the micro-print is now getting smaller. NONE of the discussion involved SAFETY or any discussion of risk.

Let’s consider what that might mean. The CPSC seems obsessed with paperwork now. The two hours I watched were all about how companies might comply, whether they could comply, what forms they had to fill out, who had to perform tests and when, and so on. Of course, that is a critical subject to discuss . . . but it struck me as odd when these details droned on and on without a single mention of the purpose of the discussion – making kids safer.

It is hard to see how this byzantine structure will achieve better safety. To me, the new scheme is all about bureaucracy divorced entirely from purpose. This is the CPSC that the Commission apparently thinks Congress legislated – a bureaucratic agency, one no longer empowered to allocate its resources to prioritized safety threats, instead relegated to paper pushing. Congress has redesigned the agency to be administrative in nature as it relates to children’s products. By defining “safety” precisely in the CPSIA for the CPSC to administer, it forbade the agency from exercising judgment. Likewise, we in the business community are no longer trusted to exercise judgment or operate without governmental supervision. The Nanny State knows best, better than the business community or even the CPSC, and insists now that the CPSC stop thinking and just administrate.

With this new focus, the conversation about safety has taken a bizarre turn, in my opinion. The discussion is principally about how companies can comply. That is the standard against which the new CPSC policies seem to be evaluated. Is there enough testing capacity? Can companies afford it? Can a “home crafter” find paint that was tested by the manufacturer? [By the way, this is a so-called voluntary test - Congress in its INFINITE wisdom decided that makers of children's toys must test paint, not people who actually produce the paint, thus the CPSC has to hope and pray that paint companies will test their paint. Nice!] Which components need to be tested on a little dress? Only the buttons, yippee! No mention of safety or the purpose of this exercise. The high point occurred when both Chairman Tenenbaum and Gib Mullan volunteered that most paint is already certified to be lead-free. This was stated without irony, despite the 20 minutes tortured lecture on how to test paints to ensure compliance. Safety, what’s safety?

So are things now as simple and easy as portrayed? Robert Adler asked if any groups besides the Handmade Toy Alliance had contacted the CPSC with concerns about the lifting of the stay. Jay Howell said no. [My ego survived this minor bruising!] Putting aside the massive failure of business people and trade associations to effectively lobby on this issue, this seems to portray business people as accepting of the lifting of the stay, or at least highly unmotivated on the subject. Ergo, it’s fine to let it go.

What might a lifting of the stay mean? We’ll all have to test. Test what? Ah, that’s the rub. It’s so complicated that I can’t begin to attempt to explain it here. It took them Powerpoint slides upon slides to lay it out, and it is full of asterisks and exceptions. A taste: there still is no phthalates standard or any approved phthalate testing labs or any approved ASTM F963 testing labs. [Makes me wonder what I have been paying for all these years in our tests against F963. . . .] So testing will only be required against some rules, not all, and as new rules come into effect, you will have to figure out what additional tests are required over time. Good luck getting it right.

Sadly, the agency avoids the issue of complexity by focusing on whether it’s POSSIBLE to comply. They put up a photo of a little dress, announce with satisfaction that only the buttons need to be tested, and then assert that button companies will test those buttons to preserve their market. Okay, let’s concede that point – it’s probably true. Does that solve the problem? Not if the rules are so complicated that no one understands them. Even if you understand them, will the people you deal with understand them the same way (your customers, your consumers, consumer groups, the CPSC, Customs, 50 State AGs, the Chicago Tribune, and so on)? THIS ISSUE I have raised again and again (so when the Commission asks about complexity, I want a plug!] Very few people understand these rules so is it realistic to assume they will follow them (even if they are able to comply)?

A typical problem for people who are immersed in something complex and highly-specialized si forgetting that everyone else is not as immersed in the details as they are. It’s a big wide world out there, but the CPSC may only be dealing with people who have invested the time and energy in understanding the complex rules as they have. This may make it look like EVERYONE gets it but in fact, they don’t. The 800 lb. gorilla here is the silence of the majority. What do they know and understand? Not much. This is where the expression Keep It Simple, Stupid (The K.I.S.S. Principle) comes from. The new rules are anything but understandable AND the CPSC tries to solve each identified problem by adding more and more complexity (more rules and exceptions).

So what have we here now? We have a much more congenial and seemingly well-intentioned CPSC that finally grasps the nature of the mess with the regulated community and is trying hard to change course and create a workable solution . . . but all within the context of a law that makes no sense. So to do that, they are building an entirely unworkable sets of rules, unworkable because no one could possibly understand them. Each rule violation is the possible subject of a lawsuit by an eager plaintiff’s attorney, a newspaper investigation spurred on by a consumer group or the subject of a fine or possible jail time, or all of the above. Fear of these externalities will scare people out of the market, simply because they know they can’t control their business environment. This is real. I personally fight these fears every day – and I am someone obsessed with these rules and know them well. But not perfectly. Of course, we could do something else with our time, our resources and our people – but we don’t want to. We are very devoted to the education business and are trying to defend our right to engage in that endeavor without undue risk.

The sad fact is that the CPSC cannot create a workable solution, even with a smile on their faces and good intentions in their hearts, without addressing the deficiencies of the law. A nonsensical law cannot be fixed with implementing rules. At some point, the CPSC is going to figure this out when they see that compliance is very low, and they are overflowing with violations. The rabid and compromised consumer groups have demonstrated their utter lack of character in hunting down technical violations, like sandal insoles, and then mobilizing self-interested local politicians to enforce without even talking to the CPSC. We can certainly expect them to continue to hound innocent makers out of this market.

The details of this hearing are also interesting. The CPSC will be releasing a definition of a “children’s product”, “toy” and “childcare item”. This is a possible hint that some items or product categories may be excised from the law, perhaps including certain educational items used in schools, some kinds of apparel, ATVs and so on. The CPSC Staff has crafted some interesting solutions to testing of lead-in-paint and components, that will help lower costs significantly. They also are aware of the heavy load carried by small volume manufacturers with fixed testing costs and are trying to find an economic solution. They even acknowledge that larger companies also make low volume products, meaning that solutions need to take EVERYONE’S situation into account. All of this is good, it’s progress . . . but it’s not enough. The Commission needs to attack this law and push Congress to get it fixed. If this Commission does not want to leave behind a neutered and impotent CPSC, crippled by a hornet’s nest of ineffective rules, it needs to take on this ultimate battle.

I certainly hope they won’t duck this very important pitch.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Hearing on Testing Stay and Interim Enforcement Policy

CPSIA – Consumer Group LIES

The propaganda machine of the consumer groups grinds on, even as the screams of dying businesses echo in the media and in the blogosphere. In a recent email to a Handmade Toy Alliance member, a WashPIRG Consumer Advocate (Seattle, Washington) made the following remarks: “Thank you for your e-mail! While my primary concern is keeping toxics substances out of toys and other consumer products, I share your concern about how this new law impacts the viability of small businesses. As with most laws written by Congress, the CPSIA allows the agency enforcing new regulations to flesh out how the law will be implemented. In this case, the Consumer Product Safety Commission can, and indeed has, written reasonable exemptions for certain products. Clothes, wood products, and books have been exempted and non-toxic pre-approved dyes for children’s products will be on the market soon, which should preempt the need for testing. To be blunt, I’m not impressed with some of the statements made by the Handmade Toy Alliance over the past year. Just as an example, they’ve grossly overestimated the average cost of toy testing on several occasions. The $300 – $4,000 fee per toy figure is, quite frankly, exaggerated. The average cost per toy test is often as low as $75. Moreover, toy manufacturers won’t be required to purchase testing guns, but can instead contract out to existing testing services who, in most cases, charge much lower rates than those quoted by the Alliance.” I see. Again, we are being victimized by business prognosticating by people who have never worked for a business and have never made a product. Let’s count the lies and misinformation: a. “. . . the CPSIA allows the agency enforcing new regulations to flesh out how the law will be implemented. In this case, the Consumer Product Safety Commission can, and indeed has, written reasonable exemptions for certain products.” This baloney has been hashed over endlessly in this space and is a well-documented lie. Chairman Tenenbaum and Commissioners Nord and Moore, among others, have repeatedly bemoaned their utter lack of flexibility in making decisions under the CPSIA. The absurd rules of the CPSIA has forced the CPSC to confirm the illegality of ATVs, bicycles, ballpoint pens and rhinestones and has caused companies selling rocks and fossils to test them for sharp point and the presence of lead. The fact that they have exempted cotton cloth from lead testing is not the same as liberating the apparel industry, nor does it exempt those products from the burdensome tracking labels requirement or any of the other extreme provisions of this law. b. “Clothes, wood products, and books have been exempted and non-toxic pre-approved dyes for children’s products will be on the market soon, which should preempt the need for testing.” As previously noted , the phthalates testing standard requires testing on anything that “conceivably” could have phthalates in them, including natural wood and cloth, among other things. In addition, clothing will only avoid testing for lead if they have NO components which are subject to testing. This means no appliques, grommets, buttons and so on. The only wood products that will avoid lead testing are products made of pure, untreated natural wood. Not exactly a truck-sized hole to drive through. Finally, the component testing rule, which is more than a year in preparation, is unlikely to solve all the testing problems in the market. The ones that will be solved are easy ones, like button testing. In any event, I have never been convinced that a jumbled mass of product testing reports will satisfy the market in a post-CPSIA environment. You would be BLOWN AWAY by the testing and certification requests we get on a daily basis. The testing mania is a boat that left the harbor on August 14, 2008, and unless Congress gets this back under control, it seems utterly hopeless to me. c. THE BIG LIE : “To be blunt, I’m not impressed with some of the statements made by the Handmade Toy Alliance over the past year. Just as an example, they’ve grossly overestimated the average cost of toy testing on several occasions. The $300 – $4,000 fee per toy figure is, quite frankly, exaggerated. The average cost per toy test is often as low as $75. Moreover, toy manufacturers won’t be required to purchase testing guns, but can instead contract out to existing testing services who, in most cases, charge much lower rates than those quoted by the Alliance.” Okay, Mr. PIRG, here are a few representative testing reports . Please show me the test report that costs $75. This lie is laughably ridiculous. We have been aggressively testing our products for 20 years and to my knowledge, have NEVER paid $75 for a safety test. Perhaps one line on an invoice is $75, but clearly that won’t do it. Unfortunately, the PIRGs of the world have a very gullible Congress in the palm of their hand. Congress seems quite susceptible to the Big Lie. As long as Congress will accept nonsense as fact, and as long as the CPSC continues to willingly implement the toxic CPSIA as though nothing were wrong, we are doomed. It won’t matter if the PIRGs are telling the Big Lie. We won’t be here to argue about it anymore.

Read more from the original source:
CPSIA – Consumer Group LIES

Next Page »