CPSIA – EU Warns on Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act

738 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are 73 days left until Election Day.

The EU has served notice of its objections to Henry Waxman’s latest brainstorm, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2010. This profoundly misconceived bill, championed by leftist consumer groups for its supposed benefits to consumers while ignoring the real problems likely to cripple commerce, has garnered increasing corporate interest in recent weeks. With more and more attention being given to persistent job losses and anemic (if any) economic growth, this bill seems suicidal. That apparently is no deterrent to our saviors, the Democratic majority in Congress. Reliable sources tell me that this bill will resume its relentless march toward law upon the return of Congress to Washington later this Fall (before Election Day).

Don’t mistake this bill for good policy. We have gone over the many unforgivable flaws of this legislation in this space in the past. It is starkly anti-small business and is an economic depressant. The likely impact would be akin to a trade barrier tariff and could be this generation’s version of Smoot-Hawley. It is also almost certainly a flagrant violation of the WTO and would trigger retaliatory regulations in our principal export markets. Trade war – just what we need . . . since export sales is about all that’s working here now. Small business owners, please consider the impact on your export business if you need to set up registered agents in 50, 60, 70 countries. Think of the legal fees, think of the potential litigation that would be invited. How many such markets would you close?

There’s more cooking in Congress to “help” us this election season. These guys are going to keep trying to “save” you until you save yourself on Election Day. Stay tuned.

Read more here:
CPSIA – EU Warns on Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act

CPSIA – Did Anyone Think to Test the Lemonade for Lead???

Am I the last person in America to hear about the seven-year-old girl in Oregon whose lemonade stand was shut down by County health officials for not obtaining her $120 food handler’s license?

After I got done laughing at the contemptible stupidity of the national trend of obsessive rule following (I’m not done laughing, actually), this certainly brought to mind the awful CPSIA and its potential to inflict this kind of mindless regulatory “enforcement” . . . AGAINST YOU AND ME.

That subject is no joke, I am afraid. As I have been repeating endlessly, the current testing frequency rule that the CPSC recently published without a blush will force our company to spend $15 million a year on testing, including the destruction of 81,000 units of our products (54 units per test times 1500 products). That’s not over my lifetime but in the course of ONE YEAR. And our fearless CPSC leader seemingly can’t WAIT to enforce these rules against bad people like me. Chairman Tenenbaum has tirelessly promised to refocus her agency on enforcement in the coming year. She wants to shut somebody down to prove how tough she is.

If you think this lemonade example is something that would “never” happen at the hands of our responsible federal government, well, you and I disagree. Let’s consider the legal basis for lead-in-paint recalls. Heaven knows the CPSC has imposed many of those during Ms. Tenenbaum’s tenure. As you may remember from prior posts, the derivation of recall authority comes from the FHSA which restricts the authority to “imminent hazards”. Section 12(a) of the FHSA provides this definition: “As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term ‘imminently hazardous consumer product’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.”

Strangely, today’s CPSC policy on lead-in-paint is one of strict liability. This means that EITHER the agency has reached the legal conclusion that any amount of lead-in-paint constitutes an imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness or severe personal injury, which is tacitly impossible, or the agency has decided to just IGNORE THE LAW. No one’s asking these questions publicly, but that’s the nub of it. This interpretation allows them to demand a recall for a dot of paint in the center of the pupil of the eye of a doll, something they have certainly done, and assert that they have protected you from something dangerous.

Nice but it’s not within their legal authority to make up fairy tales to sell to the press.

So the CPSC is already dinging other companies in the children’s product industry for inconsequential “offenses” that are arugably OUTSIDE its authority. The exercise of judgment, at least on lead-in-paint, is now against agency policy.

Who will be the next lemonade stand shut down? Don’t assume it will just employ seven-year-olds. The proprietor might look a lot like you . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Did Anyone Think to Test the Lemonade for Lead???

CPSIA – What is a "Substantial Product Hazard"?

Read more here:
CPSIA – What is a "Substantial Product Hazard"?

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 – New Definition of "Children’s Product" Published – Did You Catch It?

The CPSC apparently published a new definition of “Children’s Products” last Tuesday in the Federal Register to no fanfare whatsoever. This little morsel clocks in at only nine pages but it goes in the heap with the other 579 unread pages of miscellania spewed out by the CPSC in the last month. Everyone – quit your jobs so you can keep reading this stuff!

Ah, but the fun doesn’t end there. Try to find this document on the vaunted CPSC website. It’s not under “What’s Hot?” and it wasn’t mentioned in a press release. Until last week, even finding the definition of “Children’s Product” on the site involved quite a bit of hunting and pecking. They remedied that by creating a new category under “CPSIA by Topic” but who would know it’s there? You have to sense its presence and then go find it. This is “Where’s Waldo?”, CPSC-style.

And the final “kicker” – the definition changed from the last publication of this rule on March 19. Since that time, there has been a Commission hearing and much industry chit-chat over the original definition approved by the CPSC Legal Department. Supposedly, this (unread) new definition reflects changes that I am told I will like. The CPSC Legal Department approved this new and revised definition, too. And the conformed or redlined copy for me to read? Nowhere to be found.

What a lovely way to spend my time. Reading rules, digesting rules, commenting on rules, rereading rules, trying to figure out what’s changed, reviewing my last analysis, connecting all the dots, reworking our internal processes again and again and again . . . .

This is the CPSC’s full employment plan. They may be able to solve the unemployment problem all by themselves! Thanks for everything, guys.

Read more here:
CPSIA – New Definition of "Children’s Product" Published – Did You Catch It?

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 – Recommended Non-Legislative Changes

As promised, I wanted to provide my list of non-legislative changes to accompany my list of CPSIA changes. I have repeatedly called for effective process and resource allocation to bring about results. I do not share the view that draconian penalties and super-low standards are the answer – something else, something more “human” is needed to get better outcomes. So I conclude that changes to the law alone won’t work. The agency needs to rethink its priorities and its way of interacting with the market to reduce injuries in the long term.

As a preface, it’s important to note the following:

a. My suggestions for legislative and non-legislative changes will have NO material negative impact on safety. It is my fervent hope and intention that these changes will improve results for the agency.

b. It is critical that the agency be well-functioning after amendment of the law. In my legislative changes, I have placed a priority on cleaning up purposeless complexity and tasks that are not critical to the mission of supervising safety. It is essential the CPSC have a set of ordered priorities – because if everything is important, nothing is important. In my non-legislative changes, I propose prioritized resource allocations to improve focus on real drivers of behavior.

c. I believe the agency must reestablish a basic sense of what is safe and what is not safe. Judging from recent decisions of the Commission and recent recalls, I think the line between “safe” and “unsafe” has become blurred. Being careful about safety does NOT imply a fear of “everything”. I have tailored my legislative recommendations to focus in on REAL safety risks – only. In my non-legislative recommendations, I have focused on resource allocation, outreach/education and better communication with the regulated community, striving for constructive dialogue rather than behind-the-curve reactivity.

My list of non-legislative changes:

• Liaison office to manage Q&A with regulated companies. “No name” inquiries should be permitted. This office should be staffed adequately to ensure timely replies.
• Amnesty program – if a regulated entity turns itself in before it is notified that it is being investigated, the regulated party may NOT be penalized.
• Industry Outreach/Education – as a TOP priority, the CPSC must create an educational outreach program to sensitize industry to safety issues and to educate regulated companies on their legal obligations and on good safety practices. This office should operate independently of enforcement staff or activities. On-site training should be offered for free.
• The CPSC website should be reworked to meet best standards for access to information. The current website is quirky and difficult to navigate.
• The agency should reexamine its allocation of resources according to severity of threat, and then reorganize its assets in line with threat priorities. Threat level teams should be separately staffed and tasked, with timeliness of processing a top priority. If resources are allocated properly, the concept of a “queue” can be abandoned in favor of objective expectations on how threats are processed by the agency. The teams should be resourced independently, as though they were separate agencies (e.g., the “high threat” team would have different lab resources than the “medium threat” team).
• Industry self-regulation should again become the principal strategy of the agency to manage markets.

I recommend that all of my legislative and non-legislative changes be implemented to reduce the administrative burden of regulating the affected markets and to improve the effectiveness of the agency’s activities. The overly broad and unrealistic demands of the CPSIA made inevitable the observed diminishing impact of the CPSC. By eliminating many unnecessary standards, bureaucracy and supervisory activities (totally eliminating vast amount of work for both agency and regulated community), focus may be restored to the task of keeping kids safe. This will result in GREATER safety, certainly not increased injuries.

The task of properly allocating resources within the agency to bring about good results in the marketplace is far more important than having draconian rules on the books. With the scheme I recommend above, the CPSC would be in the optimal position to focus on real threats and to buttress safety against evolving threats. A revitalized agency focusing on high impact activities and structured to respond quickly and insightfully against emerging threats will make the CPSC a model agency within the Federal government.

It can be done . . . with some courage, some vision and a sense of conviction. The time is NOW.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Recommended Non-Legislative Changes

CPSIA – CPSC Isn’t Interested in These Ways to Poison Children

In a clarification of the rules implementing the CPSIA, the CPSC today documented which ways to poison children with lead are legally permissible.

First, it is okay to incorporate as much lead as you want in your product, provided that it is not “intended primarily” for children: “The Commission is often asked what products must comply with the lead content limit, i.e., what is a ‘children’s product’ under the law. The answer is anything that is designed or intended primarily for a child 12 years of age or younger. ‘Primarily’ is the key word used in the law. Not everything a child uses or touches must meet the lead content limit, only those things designed or intended primarily for a child 12 years old or younger.” So, this means that the lead limits only apply to products intended “primarily” for children, and does NOT apply to products that children might use but aren’t aimed at the children’s market. [This is the dilemma in the brass bushings case.] Regulation of children’s products exists in its own little world, and hazards that exist within that market don’t exist outside it – is that it?

The CPSC will make a determination about this intent based on what you say or what you and others think about your product: “We consider how the product is marketed as well as what the manufacturer has said about the product (if reasonable) and whether consumers commonly recognize the product is being intended for a child 12 or younger.” Given that the CPSC is supposed to protect consumers from untoward product hazards (hence the agency’s name), I think it is fair to conclude that the CPSC has decided use of lead is only dangerous if the leaded product is intended for children. Intent apparently affects the physiological impact of lead. Interestingly, this is also the case with phthalates. Perhaps these materials were banned from children’s products because they can be activated by mind control, which is clearly dangerous.

I find the CPSC’s position compelling, as it suggests that perhaps the rules for small business under the CPSIA should be different. Many people have suggested to me that we should demand different rules for small business. After all, small businesses are severely and unfairly penalized under the new law – perhaps small business should get a pass? I have always said “no” on the grounds that parents are unlikely to forgive injury based on who caused it. Injuries are bad, whether caused by a big business product or a small business product. Therefore, it seems imperative to me that one (rational) set of rules needs to apply to everyone.

If, however, lead is okay if delivered by pen (”. . . most consumers would not consider an ordinary ball point pen as being intended primarily for use by a child 12 years of age or younger”) but not by way of an electrical cable in a potato clock, then perhaps we can rethink the other rules by analogy. Thus, this new CPSC position paper suggests that it might also be okay for certain kinds of businesses to poison kids. Pen companies, for instance, are apparently unrestricted – your Bic can be made of pure lead, that’s fine with the CPSC. By this same pretzel logic, I think it is reasonable to hold that small businesses are exempt from the law. Why not?!

In the same document, the CPSC also reiterated their excellent advice on materials that can be included in children’s products without testing for lead. They chose to remind us that our old friends palladium, rhodium, osmium, iridium and ruthenium are okey-dokey in children’s products. The fact that these materials are well-known to be poisonous, explosive and made from spent nuclear fuel rods did not apparently deter the CPSC. I know I am not a “safety professional” but I would think that at least some of these materials are hazardous substances under the FHSA, presumably making them poor candidates for exemption from the CPSIA. Given that these materials continue to appear on the CPSC’s exempt list suggests that I must not fully appreciate their safety benefits . . . .

Of course, the CPSC’s permission to use these materials on the grounds that they are lead-free seems remarkably out of touch with reality. Each of these materials, like other permitted materials like surgical steel, certain stainless steels, gold, silver, platinum and titanium, as well as diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds and natural or cultured pearls, is absurdly expensive and in many cases, quite rare. It may sound good to say that the market is full of available alternatives, but if they are ridiculously expensive or hard to obtain, how is that any different than giving us permission to use pixie dust or krytonite? As a practical matter, not at all.

Someday, I wish the CPSC would issue practical advice that made sense to me. Once upon a time, I actually thought our nation’s safety laws were rational, understandable and predictable. Nowadays, they are riddled with traps for the unwary and require teams of people to interpret and administer them. The implementing rules are detached from any semblance of the reality of the marketplace: “The products on this list are all things the Commission has determined do not contain lead over 100 ppm, which is within the allowable 300 ppm limit. Thus, they will comply with the law (and must always comply) and, therefore, do not need testing and certification. They do not need to be tested by a third party laboratory to prove they are, in fact, made of something on the list, and they do not need to be tested to prove that they meet the lead content limits . . . . Some retailers may want manufacturers and importers to test and certify their products, but those tests and certificates are not required by the Commission for the materials or products on the list.” That makes it fine, I guess – the CPSC has had nothing to do with this “mysterious” phenomena.

As long as the CPSC thinks it is okay to wear blinders while doing its job, we will continue to get rules describing the legal and illegal ways to poison children and other safety conundrums. I am tired of it, what about you?

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Isn’t Interested in These Ways to Poison Children

CPSIA – Crain’s Says We’re About to Get Sued

In this week’s Crain’s Chicago Business, the news periodical speculate on which mass tort action could succeed asbestos as the next gravy train for plaintiff’s attorneys. And guess who makes a guest appearance??? Asbestos and the legal black hole By: Steven R. Strahler September 28, 2009 Asbestos has lived up to its Greek origin — “inextinguishable” — on legal and medical landscapes alike: Mass tort actions involving asbestos have bankrupted more than 60 makers and users of the once-widespread insulating material, starting with Johns-Manville Corp. in 1982 and claiming Chicago’s USG Corp. in 2001. Odds are, corporate defendants won’t see another mass tort topic like it: more than 700,000 claims pending against 8,000-plus defendants and estimated costs exceeding $250 billion. Because asbestos-related symptoms can take 30 years or more to manifest, the litigation is expected to last until mid-century. . . . . “No, there is no asbestos-like gravy train pulling up in front of the American Bar Assn.,” says Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute. Still, he says, “there are great unknowns, like climate change and latent manifestation of occupational disease.” Among the most likely post-asbestos targets for plaintiffs’ attorneys: . . . . Product liability The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires independent testing of children’s products, including cribs and metal jewelry, empowers state attorneys general to file federal actions and increases penalties, all of which will boost opportunities for mass-tort suits.

See the rest here:
CPSIA – Crain’s Says We’re About to Get Sued

CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!

The CPSC’s notorious Resale Roundup was greeted with more “acclaim” by Fox News this week. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Be sure to check out the article (”New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide”), the slideshow (”Ridiculous Recalls?”) and the video . Each is worth your time. For those who are not familiar with this novel new program, the CPSC is fanning out to save you from “evil” resellers who might be foisting off recalled items on you. This includes spying on local garage sales, visiting your local resale shop and poking around on eBay and Craigslist.com. The CPSC has apparently given up on education and individual responsibility as a way to protect against harm – instead, they are redoubling their effort to be the Cop On The Beat, like it or not. In this case, they have chosen to make up a fake crisis, the resale of recalled items, to justify becoming an active protector of the public safety. To get the flavor of this article and the basic problem, here are a few quotes: 1. “The [strict CPSIA] standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well. ‘Those who resell recalled children’s products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children’s lives at risk,’ said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. ‘Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children.’” RW – Note that Ms. Tenenbaum justifies this massive incursion into people’s lives by the claim that recalled items “[put] children’s lives at risk”. While I concede SOME recalled items might in fact endanger children’s lives, please check out the slideshow for perspective on the mortal danger posed by many recalled items. Hmmm. A little hyperbole, perhaps? There are ways to deal with the limited problem of certain dangerous items circulating without resorting to the claim that there’s a Five Alarm Fire burning. 2. “CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson says the fines are intended for large companies with serious infractions. ‘CPSC is an agency that has used its penalty powers over its 30-year history against companies,’ Wolfson told FOXNews.com. ‘CPSC is not seeking to pursue penalties against individuals hosting a garage sale or yard sale, we are encouraging them to take the right steps to not resell recalled products.’ But FOX News Legal Analyst Bob Massi says the law makes no distinction for families and small resellers. . . . Don Mays, senior director of product safety planning at the publisher of Consumer Reports, says the hefty penalties are necessary to have an impact. ‘The former civil penalty limit of $1.87 million was too small to be an effective deterrent to large companies who flagrantly violated the law,’ Mays told FOXNews.com. ‘Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price, for example, recently paid a $2.3 million penalty for importing about 2 million toys that violated the CPSC 30-year-old lead paint ban — that amounts to just over one dollar per toy.’” RW – CPSC says they won’t hit you with big penalties, but the law permits it. The Fox video shows that people are afraid. It’s hard to trust a regulatory agency out looking for “bad guys” in your garage with a BIG stick and no checks, balances or controls on how it will use it. Yes, they claim to be all sweetness and light – but what happens if they change their minds? The consumer groups are all for hefty fines, as Mr. Mays confirms, and nowadays, they seem to be passing notes to Congress and to the CPSC. So, is it any surprise that many people are quite alarmed? Side note: Don’t worry, the CPSC says they won’t be coming into your home (yet): “Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the agency, said it wouldn’t be dispatching bureaucratic storm troopers into private homes to see whether people were selling recalled products from their garages, yards or churches. ‘We’re not looking to come across as being heavy-handed,’ he said. ‘We want to make sure that everybody knows what the rules of engagement are to help spur greater compliance, so that enforcement becomes less of an issue. But we’re still going to enforce.’” Aha. Personally, I feel SO much better now. 3. “‘It is scary to think that there could be such hefty fines imposed on unsuspecting households,’ another garage sale organizer, Patti Lombardi, told FOXNews.com. ‘I think I speak for many people when I say that the government spends too much time interfering in the individual citizen’s personal life and this is almost bordering on the ridiculous … what if it opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation brought by the purchasers of items at garage sales?’” RW – Ms. Lombardi hits the nail on the head for the business community. We all KNOW that litigation will follow in the wake of this law. There is a reason why the trial bar-supported consumer groups are all so gung-ho on this law. Everything’s illegal now (check out your reporting requirements under Section 15(b) of the CPSIA – you have a generous 24 hours to report ANY violation of ANY term of ANY law, regulation or rule enforced by the CPSC (they don’t even publish a list, btw) – super!). Litigation by public attorney generals, State attorney generals and the Feds is expected by everyone. Given that it is inevitable that everyone will have violated something, and with the imputed knowledge standard of the CPSIA, probably deemed to have done so “intentionally”, the choice of when and who to sue will favor the government rather substantially. The law was written to terrorize – and mission accomplished, it has. 4. “‘If I’ve got a wirebound notebook, the lead content in that wire binding is now under scrutiny, even though the chance of ingesting lead in any amount from something like that is virtually non-existent, [TimetoPlayMag.com content director Chris Byrne] said. ‘It’s a level of political grandstanding to say ‘we’re taking care of everything,’ but the science clearly demonstrates that the transference is not really possible — I mean, a child who eats the wire binding from a notebook is going to have significantly worse health problems than lead.’” Perhaps you get the idea. I wonder if the CPSC and Congress will EVER get the idea.

More:
CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!

Next Page »