GUEST BLOG – Jolie Fay’s Story

I was not sure what all to tell. Narrowing down the story to a blog, or even a short conversation has been a challenge.

Do I mention that we are not “unintended consequences” but rather, “collateral damage”?

Do I bring up the seniors I help who are so old they do chair Tia-chi, who can afford lunch only when they can make it to the senior center, but have made wooden trucks for 40 years?

Do I bring up the fact that with NO notice to this cottage industry we are forced in the middle of the supply chain to test our products because large toy companies were breaking an already existing law?

Too much…too much to tell, so this is what I wrote. Just my story.

In November 2008 I learned about the CPSIA.

I thought that was the beginning of my journey with this law, but I realize now that my journey began when I was seven years old and participating in my first craft show with my mom. I was selling anything I could make, mostly small animals I had made from pom-poms, felt, glue and little googley eyes. Before age 12, I added to my “line” a small army of “pet rocks,” cats cradle kits, quilt patches, purses, and many, many other kids’ crafts.

When planning my family, I decided to start a business that would allow me to stay at home with my children. I started with what I knew, crafty-ness, sewing skills and some of my favorite memories of my childhood, reinvented. One thing lead to another, and before my daughter was a year old I had a business that would eventually help us buy a house in San Francisco.

Time passed, my business grew and so did my family. It was amazing being there to watch both of my daughters take their VERY first steps on their own, to be the one they turned to when they got hurt, to be their mother. I loved being there, and I knew I would not be in that situation without the money from my little on-line business.

We sold our house in San Francisco and moved to Portland, Oregon in March 2008. At the time, my business was strong. My line was growing and investing in my business seemed like the right move. My husband agreed and we invested a large portion of the profits from selling our house into my business.

I bought supplies and began production. When I bought the supplies, what I was making was legal to sell, but in August 2008, unbeknownst to me at the time, my life was taking a U-turn.

By November 2008 we felt the effects of the sluggish economy, but my business was still surviving and I felt optimistic about our future

Then I got the email: “if you make ANY products for kids, this law [CPSIA] affects you!”

I have to admit I ignored the first 20 or so emails, because I could not believe that my little sew-in-my-basement business was being forced into the same regulations as Mattel without any warning. As the days went on, and the number of emails I received grew, I realized my dream was crashing around me.

I called the lab, got the quote and did the math. CPSIA-mandated testing costs for my little product line was over $27,000 for just over $30,000 worth of product. I cannot express the horrible feeling I had when I realized that I had made a mistake that was going to cost my family all of our money. In the business world, companies recover. In my case, I WAS the company and what family can recover from a loss that huge? I was not only losing my investment, but I was also losing my source of income.

With the February 10, 2009 deadline to comply with the new lead standard only weeks away, the panic took over and I was fighting with everything I had to reach someone who would help make this nightmare go away.

I found a group of people nearby who were renting an XRF scanner, and I rented it for 24 hours. I tested every single item, every color way, every button style, every fabric piece, every color and style of trim…I tested in my tiny basement, next to my washer and dryer, for 15 hours. I was driven by a fear that I cannot describe. I needed to know that when I called every person in DC that I could think of, I could be certain that I had a product that was safe in March 2008 and continued to be safe, even though I did not have $27,000 to test my products to prove it.

I would wake up at 5am Portland time, to begin calling everyone imaginable in Washington, DC — any number I could find. I had never been politically active before and had NO IDEA how things worked. I genuinely believed that some Congressman would take my call and realize that a mistake had been made. I would start to tell my story, pacing between my washing machine and computer, crying to these aids who would reply “Thank you for your call. I will pass your message on.” I could just feel the rolling of their eyes and bored posture as I was begging them to let me talk to someone who could help me.

By 8 am, when my girls were up, I would be so emotionally drained and my spirit was crushed. I did this for weeks and it was truly one of the most painful times of my life.

The days passed, the fight went on. I would ask these aides and CPSC staffers “what do I do? Should I just throw it all away?” and their response would be “I cannot tell you what to do.” I was begging for help and they would only give me “I cannot tell you what to do.”.

Eventually the CPSC did issue some rulings that prevented my having to throw all my products in the garbage. However, these rulings were to few and too infrequent. CPSIA is going to doom my business. The testing costs, the paperwork, the liability and for what? Will my products be
any safer? No, instead there will be no products.

I have invested thousands of hours in trying to get the CPSIA changed to allow crafters – young and old – to continue their craft. The time I spent trying to bring common sense to the CPSIA was time I was not investing in my business. I was afraid to let up the fight because I was not seeing anyone else fighting for ME.

Where was my Senator, who told the crowd “folks, we did this for safety”?

Where was the ombudsman to help guide the way at the CPSC? (Surprise! There STILL is not a position at the CPSC to help the crafters, the stay-at-home moms who use skill and time to help feed their kids).

Where were the Congressmen who represent me and the seniors who have made SAFE children’s products for 50 years, and who can barely afford lunch and would NEVER be able to afford testing?

Who is looking out for the children who will learn from their mothers how to nurture their entrepreneurial spirit?

Last July I hit bottom. I had to turn my children over to daycare workers and join the work force just to keep us in our tiny rented house. My little business that helped us buy a home, that kept me at home with my kids to help them learn and grow, was no longer a safe investment of my time.

This is happening all across the county; women just like me, who are making safe kids’ products, are being forced to end their stay-at-home businesses. Mothers who want to obey the law, who are afraid of the consequences of NOT obeying the law, are making the choice to give up their dream to keep their children warm and fed.

We need a law that does not make us criminals. We MUST have a law that does not criminalize the old, young, and poor because they make safe products that they cannot afford to test.

On the second day of after-school care, I went to pick up my 5 year old daughter from school and the “teacher” pulled us aside as we were leaving. She said, “Jane had a tough day today, she did not want to be here. She wanted to be with her mom.” The “teacher” continued, “I am a grandmother and I know how to deal with this, so I took her by the hand and walked her to the mirror and said, ‘Jane, look at your face. Look at how UGLY you look when you cry.’”

I blame every one of the Energy and Commerce legislative staffers for the emotional injury to my daughter that day. She should be home with me, being raised by a mother who believes in the American spirit of hard work, integrity, and honesty.

She should be home with me while I continue my business of making safe children’s products.

She should be home with me, making pet rocks (illegal to sell today) and having fun making pom-pom animals with her mother – like the ones we used to sell at the local Saturday market.

My daughter is the CPSIA casualty of the week.

Blog post written by Jolie Fay, founder of Skipping Hippos clothing (www.skippinghippos.com) in Portland, OR and a
Board Member of the Handmade Toy Alliance

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG – Jolie Fay’s Story

CPSIA – Foreign Mfr Legal Acccountability Act Passes

Congress was listening. Your House Energy and Commerce Committee passed by voice vote today the Foreign Manufacturer Legal Liability Act of 2010 by voice vote. Now it proceeds to full committee or possibly to Ways and Means or possibly to the floor for a vote. I don’t have the bill language yet.

Golly, I really appreciate all the hard work to protect me against . . . I’m not sure what. Protecting me against being able to earn a living?

Thanks, House Leaders!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Foreign Mfr Legal Acccountability Act Passes

CPSIA – McDonalds Recall Urged by CPSC – WHY?

The CPSC has put in writing that the Shrek glasses recalled by McDonald’s last week are “non-toxic”. Nonetheless, the CPSC (perhaps the commission itself, as noted in certain press reports) “urged” the company to make the recall.

So now it appears that the CPSC thinks it’s okay to ask a company to recall a product for reasons that it acknowledges pose no safety issue. Why?

Let’s not forget all the expense that this move imposes on the company coerced into making the recall. The law restrict the power of the agency to take this step, in part to preserve the incentive to make “at risk” investments in new products. There’s also that small detail called “due process”. My previous post noted that the CPSC does not have the authority to make recalls of products absent a “substantial product hazard”. This suggests that the CPSC was exceeding its authority in the McDonald’s case. By almost any measure, the CPSC’s actions were inexplicable. Why demand a recall of a safe product?

I cannot answer this question for the CPSC or its Chairman, Inez Tenenbaum. However, here’s a few salient facts to chew on:

1. The Member of Congress (Jackie Speier) that “tipped off” the CPSC about this matter is a Democrat.
2. Jackie Speier represents a California Congressional district (12th) that abuts Nancy Pelosi’s district (8th).
3. Shortly after first being elected to Congress in a 2008 by-election, Speier was appointed by Pelosi to serve as a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, then chaired by none other than Henry Waxman. Waxman resigned this chairmanship to take over as Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4. Ms. Speier has publicly endorsed the “black box” requirement for cars that Mr. Waxman supports. She also wants to create a federal law restricting cadmium in jewelry. Her concept of Congressional activism is very closely aligned with Mr. Waxman, another California Democrat and patron of the Democratic majority on the Commission.
5. Today, Speier is a member of three committees. Besides Oversight, the other two committees are chaired by Edward Markey and Barney Frank, two close allies of Waxman and Pelosi.
6. Jackie Speier is running for reelection in one of the most phobic of states, California. The Democrats need every seat they can get in this Mid-Term election.
7. One of the three Democrat Commissioners appointed by Obama was a member of Henry Waxman’s staff for several years (Adler).

And can anyone imagine a Democrat-controlled CPSC telling a Democratic Member of Congress from the San Francisco area that her highly-publicized call for investigation of Shrek glasses because of cadmium was, in fact, unmerited, that the product was perfectly safe and the large corporation responsible for the glasses had protected consumers very well? In an election year with Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House and Henry Waxman directly overseeing the agency?

Nope, can’t think of a single reason why the leadership of the CPSC would urge McDonald’s to recall the safe glasses.

At least the CPSC won’t have to pay the costs of the recall. That’s McDonald’s problem.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonalds Recall Urged by CPSC – WHY?

CPSIA – Fear of Zippers

I have been tossing and turning about zippers ever since the April 29 House hearing. Perhaps you recall Steve Levy’s demonstration of why thousands of pairs of pants and jeans were thrown away under the CPSIA to make you so much safer. As you know, you can’t place a price tag on safety. Burn, baby, burn.

In response to questions by Ranking Member Whitfield, Steve Levy discussed lead in zippers at about the 47 minute mark in the testimony video. He noted that zippers are made of five to seven components, one of which has been found to have trace lead amounts in excess of current limits. The component in question is not accessible (it’s sewn into the crotch of the pant) but since the CPSC can reach the component with a probe, it is considered violative. Fabric is not considered a “barrier” to access under CPSC rules. Bummer, that’s thousands of pairs of pants into the garbage.

Self-appointed “Safety Czarina” Rachel Weintraub was quick to object to the horrors of Mr. Levy’s jeans: “The problem is, unfortunately, that children mouth zippers all the time. You know I have three young children. My oldest child who is almost six, he mouths zippers as well. . . . The problem is that children interact with clothing in dynamic ways.” This Rachel-speak is the version of “common sense” that imbues the CPSIA. Perhaps you recognized the valuable insights.

Whoa! Children are so “dynamic” with their clothes, this little zipper could be zapping IQ points every day. Wow. I am quite a worrier as you know, so I have been fretting about zippers almost non-stop for a month. After all, we clothed our children in pants with zippers since they were born (many years ago). I can’t detect any missing IQ points in my kids, but of course, I am not nearly as smart as Rachel Weintraub or the other safety zealots perhaps as a result of my wearing jeans to this very day. Still, I could not ignore Rachel’s serious warning but needed to better understand the danger.

So we asked a four-year-old volunteer to suck on his jeans zipper. Here’s what happened. Don’t worry, no IQ points were killed or harmed in the making of this video.

WARNING: The following video contains dramatic footage of a four-year-old attempting to suck on his jeans zipper. Such graphic footage may not be appropriate for everyone. Please think carefully about watching the video if you are a member of a consumer group.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Fear of Zippers

CPSIA – The CPSC Sweats Out A Stay

The CPSC is on the hot seat over its testing and certification stay . . . again. As you may recall, the CPSC first postponed mandatory testing just ahead of its scheduled implementation in February 2009. On January 30, 2009, the Commission acted to push out the effectiveness of the CPSIA testing and certification requirement by one year, to February 10, 2010. Then-Acting Chairman Nancy Nord noted that the stay “provides breathing space to get in place some of the rules needed for implementation”.

Well, that didn’t work, so on December 17, 2009, the Commission again pushed out the testing and certification effectiveness date to February 10, 2011. This early action was done in recognition of industry’s need for to plan for changes in requirements. Nonetheless, Dems on the Commission bemoaned the need to extend the stay:

Robert Adler: “While I had originally hoped the Commission and the marketplace would both be prepared for the lifting of this stay of enforcement, after thorough consultation with CPSC staff and stakeholders in both industry and the public health community, I believe an extension of another six months is necessary to permit market adjustments, especially with respect to the testing and certification by the suppliers of components. I respectfully disagree, however, with my colleagues who have chosen to extend the stay beyond August 10, 2010. 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. I recognize that others feel differently.”

Perhaps Mr. Adler has uncovered some “hard evidence” by now. Scroll forward six months and things aren’t going the CPSC’s way. While the Commission may have thought it reserved enough time for everyone to “adjust” to the testing requirements, in fact things are getting worse. Rules are piling higher and higher, and are still being issued and changed. Many people don’t feel the rules are survivable. Dan Marshall of the HTA testified at the April 29th hearing that his organization sees the CPSEA (the Waxman Amendment) as their only chance to survive the lifting of the testing stay. [My opinion - the Waxman Amendment won't help the HTA at all.]

More recently, the HTA sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee stating: “Finally, we hope to settle any confusion regarding our intent in endorsing the CPSEA. We endorsed it as our only available alternative. We truly believe that many of our members will be forced out of business after February 10, 2011 without meaningful, clear reform provided by your committee. . . . You hold the livelihoods of hundreds of small businesses in your hands.“

Ouch.

Not surprisingly, there is mounting background pressure on the CPSC to push out the testing stay for another year. Nevertheless, I surmise that Dems on the Commission would rather eat dirt (40 ppm lead) than take this step. They invested a lot of political capital in the last stay extension, and despite the promulgation of (literally) reams of regulations, still haven’t put in place a workable regulatory scheme yet. Retailers are telling the CPSC privately that without prompt relief from the CPSC or Congress, they are going to have to start turning the screws on their suppliers as though the stay won’t be lifted. Hmmm.

The pressure is building, building. It doesn’t help that Waxman and his supporters won’t budge an inch on their proposed CPSIA amendment. By moving in a pack led by Waxman, the Dems are collectively taking full ownership of the awful consequences of the law.

And what if the Commission capitulates and extends the stay? That’s good for the industry and the HTA, certainly, but it’s political suicide for the Dems. They face a real Hobson’s Choice. If the stay is extended, it will be taken as an admission that the CPSIA simply cannot be implemented. That would really stick it to Mr. Waxman, patron of the Dems on the Commission. After all, if the law isn’t “ready” for full implementation for FOUR YEARS, it’s logical to conclude the CPSIA won’t ever work, that it was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. [Where have I heard that before???] If the Commission declines to extend the stay, manufacturers and retailers will light the world afire over the pain and losses being foisted needlessly on them. HTA members and other small businesses will start to close down. Ugly. The choice is lose-lose.

The stakes are even higher for the Dems, if you take into account Mr. Waxman’s REAL baby, TSCA reform. The Dems have a big target in mind, the “reform” of chemical regulation in this country. Put simply, they want to roll out CPSIA-style regulation to all things chemical, including plastics and all mixtures of chemicals. This scares a lot of people, given the permi-chaos dogging CPSIA precautionary regulation of only two substances (lead and phthalates). Arguably, the CPSIA was just a trial balloon for TSCA reform. Ramp up the CPSIA by 30,000 times and you have TSCA reform. If the Dems give an inch on the CPSIA, they fear their hopes for TSCA reform will go down the drain. The children’s product industry is caught in the middle of a historic fight over how we Americans regulate ourselves.

If you are frustrated by the stalemate over the Waxman Amendment, I think you need to keep an eye on the testing stay. Every day that passes, the pressure mounts on the Waxmanis and the Commission. What’s the right thing to do? They sweat and they sweat . . . while we roast.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The CPSC Sweats Out A Stay

CPSIA – Freedom of Information Act Request – Follow-up

As sent today:

Dear Sir,

It has now been almost two months since I submitted the below request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. Your office acknowledged receipt of this request on April 1 and stated the following:

“Due to certain procedural steps we are required to take under our statute, there may be delays in providing the records. Please be assured that every effort is being made to process each request as equitably as possible, and that the records or information that you have requested will be made available to you at the earliest possible date.”

My request relates to pending legislation currently under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. As such, the request is both relevant to the development of this legislation and rather time-sensitive. The public has a right to know about these documents. Disclosure of these documents is in the public’s interest – transparency in how we are governed is a paramount interest of U.S. citizens. The disclosure of these documents are very relevant to the development of the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act, the subject of a recent hearing by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I testified at that hearing.

Notwithstanding the assertion in the April 1 letter above, the requested documents have not been disclosed yet. This is especially disappointing as the documents involved in this request are few, easily-located and in the possession of very few, easily-identified people at the CPSC. The effort to gather, review, redact (if necessary, which seems unlikely), duplicate and transmit these documents is almost certainly inconsequential. I find the delay inexplicable and inexcusable under your statute.

I urge you to rapidly comply with this request for disclosure. As I noted in my original request, your agency’s rules demand it – “disclosure is the rule and withholding is the exception.”

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

——————————————————————————–
From: Rick Woldenberg
Sent: Tue 3/23/2010 3:44 PM
To: ‘cpsc-foia@cpsc.gov’
Subject: Fast Track FOIA Request Relating to Draft House Legislation Know as “Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act of 2010”

I am making this document request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and 16 CFR §1015. I would like to receive copies of all documents (written or electronic, including notes and staff briefing packages) relating to (a) interactions between Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and/or Commissioner Robert Adler and/or their staff and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (and/or staff associated with that committee or its members) relating to the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act (CPSEA), and (b) any CPSC legal analyses or legal opinions relating to the CPSEA. Since the CPSEA is presently being circulated in draft form on Capitol Hill and since the committee’s staff is seeking feedback from various stakeholders at this time, time is of the essence for this information request. Please accord this request “fast track” status.

In making this request, I note the following statement in 16 CFR §1015(b): “The Commission’s policy with respect to requests for records is that disclosure is the rule and withholding is the exception. All records not exempt from disclosure will be made available. Moreover, records which may be exempted from disclosure will be made available as a matter of discretion when disclosure is not prohibited by law or is not against the public interest.”

My contact information is found below. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Freedom of Information Act Request – Follow-up

CPSIA – The Incoherent Theory of the "Common Toy Box"

Rachel Weintraub, fear monger extraordinaire, gave a vigorous defense of certain popular urban myths about lead in this week’s CPSIA hearing. Among her most cherished distortions is that old standard, the “common toy box”. I have discussed this in the past (here and here) and with your indulgence, will again take on Ms. Weintraub and her assertion of this idea.

To remind you, the “common toy box” is the principal justification for the age limit in the definition of “Children’s Product”, namely 12 years old and younger. This definition means that the lead limits apply to ALL products intended for children up to 12 years of age. The justification for this super conservative posture? We hear it all the time from the Waxmanis – the common toy box, of course.

Ms. Weintraub asserts that a common toy box is present in every house, and therefore a young child might gain unfortunate access to an older child’s toys. Given her assertion (that she says “everyone” would agree with) that there is “no safe level for lead”, the possible exposure of young children to the toys of their older brethren is an intolerable risk. Or as she puts it, “could be deadly”.

Rachel explains her method of solving this problem in her house, which she seems to think is reasonable:

“Children play with products that are in the household. As I mentioned, I have three children. I have [an] almost six, almost four and one year old. My children are very aware of what choking hazards are. They have toys that stay in their room. But there’s an important difference between a choking hazard and lead, and that is not only can I not identify whether the product has lead, they certainly can’t either. So we need to have laws that protect children in concrete reasonable ways that reflect how children actually interact with toys.”

Case closed?

I must defer here. Ms. Weintraub’s argument is incoherent and particularly inapplicable here.

First, the risk from lead stems from ingestion. Rachel’s focus here is on mouthing, and for simplicity, I will ignore ingestion by breathing (relevant only to lead-in-paint). Ms. Weintraub correctly notes that young children will mouth toys and other children’s products inappropriately. Children under 36 months of age are so prone to inappropriate mouthing that small parts are illegal in products suitable for them. The CPSC has long had guidelines for manufacturers to help them objectively determine which toys are suitable for children under three years of age.

By carefully controlling access to these possibly dangerous toys, Rachel is being a good parent. She is to be commended. Interestingly, Rachel’s argument also concedes that parenting has a role in safety with children’s products. It would not be responsible parenting for anyone, including Rachel, to rely on the government for making these judgments. She still has to monitor and supervise her children.

Interestingly, Congress is also on record on this topic. Small parts are a known hazard, and as noted, have long been illegal for kids under three years of age. That is not in dispute and in fact, became law (rather than simply the voluntary F963 standard) under the CPSIA. The Child Safety Protection Act of 1994 instituted mandatory safety labels for products suitable for kids aged four to six years of age (they were previously voluntary) for (among other things) small parts. Why? Congress recognized that items most likely to be in the “common toy box” and most attractive to children under 36 months of age are those toys intended for kids in the 4-6 age range. The mandatory safety labels were intended to put parents on notice to handle these products with special care. Congress did not make these products illegal notwithstanding the slight risk of inappropriate mouthing.

Congress took another swipe at this issue in the CPSIA itself. In adopting the “primarily intended for” standard in the definition of :Children’s Product”, Congress acknowledged that while other items in the household might contain lead and might be used by children, those products did not pose the same risk as products that would be attractive to young kids possibly prone to inappropriate mouthing. Put another way, Congress recognized that the level of risk did not justify regulating these other items. [This is the source of the tortured reasoning of the pen exemption decision.]

Human factors experts at the CPSC have never developed evidence that items for older children (six and over) are any more attractive than adult products to the younger children who because of their mouthing behavior and developmental state are most at risk. Hence, there has never previously been a perceived need for such restrictive rules to protect against mouthing.

Either mouthing is a big issue, or it is not. Rachel’s good parenting on small parts is simply an anti-mouthing strategy. There is no other reason to restrict small parts in her household. Having recognized the risk of inappropriate mouthing, Rachel and parents like her can fully be expected to closely monitor the mouthing behavior of their kids. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. When their kids suck on zippers, moms like Rachel will take it out of their mouths before “poisoning” can occur. [You would have to suck on a brass zipper for years before your blood lead levels would change measurably.] Likewise, if the kids start eating out of the dog’s bowl or licking doorknobs or whatever absurd childhood activity is posited, moms with Rachel’s philosophy of parenting will swoop down. Either they are attentive or they are not. Thus, Rachel’s kids are just as secure against lead as against small parts.

Even more interesting to me is the notion that Rachel is holding up her behavior as the “standard”. I think this is an interesting (but rational) concession on her part. Rachel is apparently a thoughtful parent and interested in her kids’ welfare. She acknowledges her personal responsibility to maintain a safe household for the kids’ benefit. So apparently in Rachel’s model, parents can think and can be held to a standard of exercising good judgment and individual responsibility. The government is not responsible for everything, it appears.

If we are to be sent down the river because of Rachel and the fantastic “common toy box”, I think the incoherence of her argument deserves careful exploration. Either common toy boxes causes tinjuries, or they don’t. Her parenting model does not leave much room for risk. Where’s the actual injury data to support her assertion of this dreaded risk? I think her words alone should NOT suffice. After all, of the 14 common toy box recalls in the history of the CPSC, none related to the CONTENTS of a common toy box.

Urban myths should not be the basis of law.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Incoherent Theory of the "Common Toy Box"

CPSIA – More Written Testimony from CPSIA Hearing

Oddly and embarrassingly, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s webpage for last week’s CPSIA hearing does not include all written testimony submitted in association with the hearing, nor does it provide a link on the hearing video. [I will get you the video soon, I promise.] The Dem Majority, which loudly touts its “commitment” to “open government”, should rapidly address this poor performance.

Here are the other document submitted thus far. I have already provided you links to the written testimony of the seven witnesses and my oral testimony.

• Opening Statement of Chairman Waxman
• The Honorable Inez Tenenbaum, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
  Statement for the Record
• The Honorable Nancy Nord, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
  Statement for the Record
• The Honorable Anne Northup, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Statement for the Record
• The Honorable Denny Rehberg, Representative, Montana At Large, Statement for the Record
• Ms. Devra Singer, Product Development Assistant, Funtastic, Houston, Texas, Statement for the Record Entitled “Call for Testimony: A Personal Account of the CPSIA’s Crippling Effects on Our Small Business”
• Mr. Sean Hilbert, President, Cobra Moto, LLC, Statement for the Record
• Mr. Ed Moreland, Vice President, Government Relations, American Motorcyclist Association, Statement for the Record
• Mr. Michael Gale, Executive Director, Fashion Jewelry Trade Association, Statement for the Record
• Economic Analysis – Handmade Toy Alliance

This is provocative reading. I hope you aren’t the only ones who read it . . . .

I really like the common sense in the Nord and Northup letters. In particular, I want to draw your attention to one statement by Commissioner Northup: “Forcing a component-by-component petition for exceptions does nothing to enhance safety, and it converts the Commission from a safety oversight agency (like the FAA) into a product approval agency (like the FDA). Rather than spend most of its time and resources removing unsafe products from the market, the agency would devote its efforts to approving perfectly safe products before they go on the market. That switch would also slow the pace of consumer product innovation by increasing the cost and lead time for companies to bring new products to market—which effect itself carries negative safety ramifications.” [Emphasis added]

Ms. Northup’s got it totally right and you should be worried that this style of regulation makes sense to ANYONE. This is at the heart of the precautionary principle, that the government becomes your partner in making your business decisions. Frankly, I trust companies more than I trust the government, especially these days. I will take Toyota over NHTSA and David Strickland any day. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is not done with this “great” idea, either. Next up is their “reform” of the Toxic Substance Control Act. This is the new scheme of regulation of chemicals that takes all the really great and highly successful notions from our beloved CPSIA (which applies to only TWO substances, lead and phthalates) and rolls it out to more than 30,000 chemicals and all mixtures containing those chemicals. I will need to sharply increase my blood pressure medicine to even read that draft legislation. You will read more about this toxic legislation in coming weeks.

Another interesting nugget is from the HTA economic analysis:

“Total number of manufacturers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 52,544***
Total number of wholesalers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 125,624***
Total number of retailers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 511,240***
Total number of businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA according to the NAICS 689,408***”

The analysis goes on to surmise than 5 million individual products are affected by the CPSIA. I believe that this estimate is low by a factor of ten, but that’s just one man’s opinion. The author then concludes that the (presumably annual) cost of traditional testing is $5.6 billion. That’s a nice way to honor the memory of the child who died in Minnesota after swallowing a lead jewelry bangle, isn’t it? I can’t think of a better way to spend $5.6 billion annually. . . .

Can any rational person doubt the severity and breadth of the economic damage in light of these data?

Keep your eyes on this space for more testimony. More will filter in over the next couple weeks.

Read more here:
CPSIA – More Written Testimony from CPSIA Hearing

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 – I Will Appear as a Witness in Thursday’s House Hearing on CPSIA

I have been invited to appear as a witness at Thursday’s hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. The hearing on the “Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act of 2010″ (the Waxman Amendment 2.0 in its latest form) will take place at 10 AM EST on Thursday, April 29 at 2322 Rayburn House Office Building.

The hearing will be streamed live, but I don’t have the link to give you yet. You may be able to find it at this link on Thursday or on the home page of the committee. I will try to get the link posted in my blog before showtime.

I intend to tell my story and your story to the committee and look forward to exploring the bedeviling issues of the CPSIA in the open air. If you have any ideas or suggestions for my testimony, please feel free to share them here, or send me an email. Thanks.

Read more here:
CPSIA – I Will Appear as a Witness in Thursday’s House Hearing on CPSIA

Next Page »