CPSIA – What’s the Difference?

The current debate over the need for mandatory CPSIA testing of children’s products derives from consumer advocate assertions that American consumers “want” this testing to be “assured” that products are not laden with lead.  This assertion has never been backed up with real data (other than ” push poll ” data) but strikes a nice chord with certain politicians seeking to have something nice to say on the stump. Has this very notion, that mandatory testing “assures” anxious consumers, ever been tested?  More to the point, how does mandating testing achieve anything – given that the core issue preceding the CPSIA was compliance with the rules.  In other words, prior to the CPSIA, a small number of companies making children’s products (some of them large multinationals like Mattel) did a poor job of following the rules. Some quite  notoriously ignored the rules , too.  Despite the fact that the agency had the legal power to enforce against these companies and despite the fact that these companies were not following the rules, Congress decided what we really needed were more rules.  Apparently, when companies don’t follow one set of rules, there is a big need for more rules. More rules certainly solved the problem. . . . And out of that effort grew the myth that mandated testing was absolutely necessary to keep America safe.  Of course, mandated testing for real hazards isn’t controversial.  For instance, you will not find one peep from me about testing for lead-in-paint since 2008.  That’s a real hazard, actually linked to real, actual victims.  However, the CPSIA invented a couple new standards concerning “hazards” not previously documented to have caused any actual injuries, and instituted mandated testing.  This was Congress’ solution to a perceived lack of compliance by the market. How does that work logically?  There were standards or rules previously, and they were notoriously ignored by a small number companies. That made everyone “mad” and gave people like Dick Durbin something to spout off about.  But the fact is, the rules were well-known and were nevertheless ignored.  We can certainly conclude from this experience that the existence of a rule is not assurance that the rule will actually be followed.  Compliance is independent from posted restrictions.  [Have you ever been cited for speeding?  'Nuf said.] The new rules mandated third party testing for every product.  Why?  Purportedly to make SURE that every product complied with the standards that Congress felt were being ignored.  Since we “cannot trust” companies to obey these standards, they must test.  Apaparently, we trust these companies to test even though they previously ignored the mandated standards.  And this apparently helps the CFA sleep better at night. But if a small number of companies were ignoring the old rules, what makes Congress think a small number of companies won’t ignore the NEW rules and simply lie about their testing or cut a few corners . . . until they get caught?  Good question?  I have no answer to it.  The Dems don’t like to talk about this.  In their perfect world, while the old standards were rules that might be ignored, the replacement rules (mandated testing) will CERTAINLY be universally followed.  No reason for this conclusion has ever been provided.  The lack of rationale has not deterred the Dems from clinging to this idea like grim death . . . . Not all of the new CPSIA rules work to protect consumers, but disclosure of the facts is not forthcoming if it might reflect badly on the agency or Congress.  For instance, you may recall that companies can petition to certify firewalled in-house labs to conduct testing on a “trust me” basis - this rule effectively only benefits big companies like Mattel.  Yet when Mattel recalled 11 million units of its toys last September , nothing was disclosed about the involvement of its firewalled labs in the recalls.   Were any of these items tested in0house and passed?  Let’s not forget that Mattel is largely responsible for the CPSIA because of its bad acts.  Was the firewalled lab rule a bummer for American consumers?  This is not a question welcomed by Dems. And if a small number of companies will skirt the NEW rules on madndated testing, what happens to the rest of us?  Well, our costs will certainly go through the roof and put us at a disadvantage to the scofflaws.  In other words, the more compliant you are, the worse you fare competitively.  Many of us would rather eat sand than knowingly break the law.  So our costs skyrocket, and the basic problem that Congress wanted to solve (presumably, making consumers safer, not making consumer advocates sleep easier in their naivete) is not advanced at all. Is this economically-efficient? Stupid question - to this politicos, it only matters what the CPSIA sounds like on the stump.  Is anyone safer?  Well, first tell me whether a markedly lower percentage of cheaters are present in the market. Let’s get one thing straight:  there is no way to know if you are complying with lead content standards without testing.  Whether testing is mandated or not, testing will need to take place to assess compliance with mandated levels of lead in children’s products.  Mandating compliance with the standard and mandating testing is the SAME THING – but the big difference is that in the former case, we can run our businesses and succeed or fail based on our ability to run those businesses well and competitively.  In the latter case, the government becomes our partner and nothing we do is beyond their scrutiny and “advice” (needed or not). After all, they have nothing better to do.  Catch criminals?  Please – watching over our shoulders is all they have time for. We can only hope that some Dems will wake up and do the right thing for our economy and job creation.  This three-year disaster is a metaphor for everything that’s wrong with our current government and political leadership.  I wish it were otherwise, but there is no sign that the Dems care what we have to say.  Until this storm breaks, we are doomed to slowly asphyxiate through mandated testing under the supervision of the government.

Visit link:
CPSIA – What’s the Difference?

CPSIA – "Must Read" in PSL

In the March 9th edition of the Product Safety Letter, Eric Stone published an analysis entitled “Is There a Need to “Recall to Repair” the Relationship Between the CPSC Compliance Staff and Business Community?“

My response: Amen, brother!

For those of you who don’t know Eric, he is the former Director of the Legal Division of the CPSC and also former Acting Director of the Recalls and Compliance Division of the Office of Compliance at the CPSC. He is currently a partner at K&L Gates LLP. To say the least, he is an authoritative figure in all matters CPSC.

Please read Eric’s Op-Ed.

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Must Read" in PSL

CPSIA – NAM Letter Pounds the CPSIA Database

March 8, 2011

Mr. Todd A. Stevenson
Office of the Secretary
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

The National Association of Manufacturers respectfully requests the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) to 1) reconsider aspects of its final rule on the Publicly Accessible Database (“Database’),1 and 2) continue for at least three months the “Soft Launch” phase of the Database to allow the Commission and affected business users to address operational and administrative flaws identified in the “Soft Launch” to date.

On January 21, 2011 the Commission announced a “Soft Launch” to test procedures and processes to implement the database requirements, as interpreted by the Commission in its final rule. As the official Database launch date approached, companies have registered or attempted to register to participate in the Database. A total of 723 registrant companies were reported in testimony to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade on February 17, which is only a fraction of companies manufacturing or importing consumer products in the United States. In addition, due to reported technical problems only a few preliminary “reports of harm” (as defined in the CPSC’s Final Rule on the Database) have now been able to be subject to completed processing. NAM has similarly sought information from manufacturers, importers and private labelers on experiences and problems encountered during such soft launch.

Based upon surveys of manufacturer experience, the following have been discovered to be problems which must be addressed by the Commission prior to final launch of the database:

1. Manufacturers with different divisions and brands among different product lines have indicated an inability on the part of CPSC staff to timely register multiple parties within such corporations. It is important to both the CPSC and manufacturers that the system allow for the assignment of adequate identifiers to permit review and comment on the material inaccuracy of filed complaint data within the database in a timely fashion as required by the final rule, minimizing duplicative filings for multiple corporate entities within a broader organization and allowing for streamlined communications between businesses and the CPSC. The difficulty in registering by brand/product line/division and the slow or incomplete response by the CPSC to registration raises troubling questions about the promised flow of information between the CPSC and registered companies.

2. A number of manufacturers, importers and private labelers have reported that reports not directly involving “Harm” (an express precondition to processing and posting) have contaminated the Database. Some respondents report that as many as 30% of the complaints forwarded were not adequately scrubbed to assure that they involve “harm,” as defined by law, as an express precondition to processing and posting within the database. Other respondents indicate that some claims are simply conjecture based on a review of Internet postings or product listings on a website. Such unresolved errors can undermine the integrity and purpose of the Database.

3. Licensors have indicated that they have received reports that are materially inaccurate since they involve products for which they are not the manufacturer, importer or private labeler, but which have been identified as suitable for posting. This has occurred notwithstanding a response from licensors verifying that they have been falsely identified as the manufacturer, importer or private labeler of the product, when they are not. The challenge to accurately identify the responsible party is apparently not being met by the filers, and these inaccuracies are not currently being rectified by the CPSC staff.2

4. Manufacturers, importers or private labelers have indicated that they have received reports of harm identifying an incident as involving their product that did not in fact involve their product, so were materially inaccurate, and advised CPSC of this fact. They have not received return affirmative confirmation that CPSC staff will not post such false claims in the database. CPSC staffers have indicated they may not possess the resources to adequately scrub the database to avoid posting upon such notification. This is contrary to the express direction of Congress that materially inaccurate information with the potential for irreparable reputational harm be vetted prior to posting. This is essential to fundamental fairness. Although the Commission has sought to transfer the burden of proof to manufacturers, it cannot do so once a claim is made that such data is false or materially inaccurate. The Commission can assure the public during an extended soft launch that no such harm occurs.

5. Registrant businesses also report that the completed complaint forms they received often omitted necessary data such as the model, serial number, date of manufacture or date/tracking code information (required by law to be contained on many products, including specifically children’s products) so as to better identify the products alleged to be involved with the potential for harm. The absence of this critical data makes such reports unverifiable, which can result in unfair damage to the reputation of products, brands and manufacturers.

6. The Commission’s decision in the final rule to define the term “consumer” very broadly appears contrary to the intent of Congress, and will result in the potential for multiple reports of harm involving the identical incident. This will result in public confusion about the potential extent of any possible harm and will result in the inclusion of reports based on second-hand information without the possibility of verification. Experience with paper-based reporting demonstrates that often multiple products are erroneously cited as related to reported injuries without an actual causative connection. This results in misidentification and duplication of reports, which must be avoided in the Database.

While the NAM supports a product incident database serving consumers’ need for accurate product information, we do not believe a poorly-functioning database serves the public interest. Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully request and petition the Commission to reconsider the final rule and extend the “Soft Launch” for a period of three months, so as to enable its staff to implement the statutorily mandated Database in accordance with the conditions imposed under statute and the Commission’s own regulations.

To ensure the accuracy of information submitted to the database, we specifically ask that the Commission reconsider, under its final rule, the expansive definition of “consumer” and “public safety entities” that include attorneys, investigators, or other agents of a consumer and consumer advocates, individuals who work for NGO’s, consumer advocacy organizations and trade associations. Additionally, we ask the Commission to reconsider its provisions for review of claims of materially inaccuracy and its decision not to withhold potentially inaccurate information from publication until it makes a final determination of its accuracy. Last, we ask that the Commission reconsider any provisions or sections of its rule that prevent it from effectively implementing Congressional intent or its stated aims to ensure timely review and processing of database submissions and to ensure the accuracy of its contents.

Sincerely,

Rosario Palmieri
Vice President
Infrastructure, Legal and Regulatory Policy
The National Association of Manufacturers

1 75 Fed. Reg. 76832-76872 (December 9, 2010).

2 According to the CPSC, firms receiving notice of a report of harm that incorrectly identifies them as the responsible manufacturer or private labeler of a product that immediately informs the Commission of such misidentification can reasonably expect the CPSC to stop the 10 day clock for publication of the report in the Database. If the recipient of the report of harm is not the manufacturer or private labeler, the Commission can decide not to post the report either because it is materially inaccurate or because it has determined that the report of harm is missing one of the minimum requirements for publication. CPSC staff has noted that given its experience with the incident reporting system, it recognizes that consumers may misidentify the product manufacturer or private labeler. Such claims of material inaccuracy generally are resolved quickly and easily if the receiving firm provides sufficient information. Staff further notes that Firms have an incentive to immediately report errors to prevent reports of harm from being published in the Database that misidentify them as the manufacturer or private labeler. This underscores the importance of an accurate registration system that allows businesses to be identified and to quickly get reports of harm to relevant business contacts within the company so that a response can be provided. The CPSC has not yet defined what information will be deemed “sufficient” to block publication, leaving manufacturers, importers and private labelers to guess on how to deal with inaccurate identification of their products or brands in database filings.

Read more here:
CPSIA – NAM Letter Pounds the CPSIA Database

CPSIA – Save "Lost Souls", Vote for the Slanderbase!

The semi-religious mission of the safety zealots was on full display in today’s New York Times. In an article entitled “Deep Divisions as Vote Nears on Product Safety Database“, the Times profiled the controversy of the pending public database final rule approval (due on November 24th in a rubber stamp Commission session), highlighting on the idealist objectives of the database supporters. As per its typical leftist slant, the Times article gives scant credence to the legitimate concerns of manufacturers or the demonstrable consequences of the unrealistic Utopian vision underlying the CPSIA. After all, we manufacturers only care about money, right?

Every drama needs a hero, villain and victim. The public database controversy has all the right elements – manufacturers and Republicans as “villains”, consumer groups and Democrats as “heroes” and consumers as “victims”. Positioned this way, why would anyone ever support manufacturers? Who would want to even listen to the black hats? Hmmm. Good strategy, Naderites!

Consider the illustration used in the article – Michele Witte suffered the unspeakable horror of losing her child in a crib death. She asserts that the database might have saved her child. Perhaps that is true, perhaps it is not. Nothing can salve the wounds she has suffered . . . but that does not make the database a good idea. [I might feel differently about the database if, for instance, it was limited to deaths.]

The implication that the database is necessary to protect consumers is not a well-examined assertion. There is already a lot of data available to consumers. For instance, the CPSC maintains a massive national injury database called NEISS. A search of crib injuries on the NEISS database for 2009 (classes 1543-1545) reveals 572 reports which extrapolates into a national injury estimate (for 2009 ALONE) of 16,537 incidents.

Here are a few representative NEISS entries (the first five in the above sample):

- CHILD FELL 3 FEET OUT OF CRIB AND LANDED ON TILE FLOOR. CRIED IMMEDIATELY. D:CHI, FOREHEAD HEMATOMA.
- PT FELL WHILE TRYING TO CLIMB FROM HIS CRIB. LANDED ON L SHOULDER ON THE FLOOR. FELL 4 FT. CRIES WHEN PICKED UP UNDER ARM.
- PT FELL OUT OF HER CRIB AND STRUCK HER HEAD. NO LOC. CRIED IMMED. NOW ACTING NORMALLY.
- FELL OUT OF CRIB. DX HEAD INJURY
- PT STANDING UP IN CRIB, FELL BACKWARD AND HIT HEAD ON CRIB, NO LOC BUT MOM STATES PT HAD DAZED LOOK AND HAS BEEN LETHARGIC; HEAD INJURY

Did you learn a lot from this information? Can you verify that it’s true? Can you see ANY issues with attaching (unverified) product identities to this unverified and uninvestigated data? Are you a plaintiff’s attorney?

What are the zealots saying to justify their support of the database in the face of persistent and rational criticism of its design? Commissioner Bob Adler, former Henry Waxman staffer and longtime board member of Consumers Union, sums it up:

“Some folks are worried more about lost sales and not worried enough about lost souls.“

So, in other words, Adler condescendingly asserts that people like me are only concerned with MONEY. Instead, he claims that what’s really at stake here are “lost souls”. What is Adler talking about? Here’s what Wikipedia says about “souls”:

“A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing. Many philosophical and spiritual systems teach that humans are souls; some attribute souls to all living things and even to inanimate objects (such as rivers); this belief is commonly called animism. The soul is often believed to exit the body and live on after a person’s death, and some religions posit that God creates souls.” [Emphasis added]

Mr. Adler’s POV makes the question of having a federal database a moral imperative. Wow, now that’s a heavy decision – souls are at stake! Furthermore, Mr. Adler positions those who support the database as moral people and those who oppose it as immoral money-grubbers who prize financial well-being over the safety of consumers. Ugh. I would hate to be a Republican Commissioner voting against the final public database rule with Mr. Adler’s curse hanging over my head! Ouch.

Catching on to the theme, Ami Gadhia of Consumers Union, chimes in: “It’s a slow death . . . . [The] information never gets out in the public.” [Emphasis added] Death . . . souls . . . database! Do I hear a new slogan???

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, ever sensitive to criticism, archly defends the agency’s effort to dialogue with people like me. Please recall that part of their “outreach” was to ask me to spend our company’s money to fly to Washington, D.C. to give testimony on the public database. Matt Howsare, Tenenbaum’s then Counsel and now Chief of Staff, told me that they needed more perspective from manufacturers and kindly asked me to prepare testimony. As previously noted, NOTHING that I said in my testimony was adopted or used in any way apparent to me. The NYT notes:

“The commission chairwoman, Inez Tenenbaum, disputed the idea that manufacturers’ concerns had not been properly considered. She said the agency offered numerous forums for comment and some of those ideas were incorporated into the final proposal. ‘We have been abundantly fair,’ Ms. Tenenbaum said.” [Emphasis added]

Apparently, testimony at a CPSC hearing is meant as an outlet for venting, not for listening. That’s “abundantly fair”, we are assured. Makes you wonder what “unfair” might look like . . . .

[A Senate Commerce Committee CPSC oversight hearing is said to be in the offing for next week. One fantasizes that they may take an interest in this issue, but the Senate is still a Dem stronghold. Don't hold your breath. Expect self-congratulatory positioning by the self-serving and deaf Dems.]

Consumer groups are portraying manufacturers demands for Constitutionally-guaranteed due process and other appropriate procedural safeguards as a grab for “advantage”. In other words, procedural safeguards for manufacturers are not legitimate protectible interests in light of the POSSIBILITY that consumers may glean some useful information among the garbage that will accumulate in the “post-it-and-forget-it” slanderbase being put up by the agency. Again, the NYT provides the bully pulpit for the zealots:

“Consumer advocates suggested the opponents were trying to weaken the database to protect business interests. ‘They have a great deal now, and I think they are trying to maintain the status quo by levying these unfounded arguments,’ said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety for the Consumer Federation of America.” [Emphasis added]

If ever-disingenuous Rachel Weintraub is saying that we Americans have a “great deal” because we enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protecting groups and individuals against persecution and excessive governmental power, I agree. I agree heartily – and don’t want to lose those essential legal protections that form an important basis for our investments. Please REMEMBER, everyone loses something when ANYONE loses their legitimate legal protections. Btw, Bob Adler is a lawyer and a former Scholar in Ethics and Law at the business school at UNC Chapel Hill . . . .

Mr. Adler plays a little fast and loose with his database concepts. Apparently, it’s okay to put garbage into the database because the government “disclaims” its accuracy:

“Mr. Adler, the Democratic commissioner, said the database was not meant to be a legal forum like a court but more like a catalog of consumer experiences. He noted that a disclaimer on the database said the commission did not guarantee its accuracy. ‘”I put my baby in a diaper and my baby developed a rash.” That goes up. It’s an early warning system to alert other consumers,’ Mr. Adler said.”

Ahem: “But Ms. Nord said the proposal remained far too vague. She cited the recent case of Pampers Dry Max, made by Procter & Gamble, in which thousands of parents asserted that the diapers were causing their babies to get a rash. A commission investigation found no link between the diapers and the rashes. ‘We would have posted all these complaints about them even though they proved to be wrong,’ Ms. Nord said.”

Any idea why the CPSC “must” put up such a controversial database? The zealots know that there is legal risk in hosting a database that may include erroneous information or information that might slander manufacturers or tortiously interfere with commerce. They know this might violate manufacturers’ legal rights and could lead to lawsuits – and don’t want the legal liability or the hassle. How to get the data and avoid the legal problems? Get the government to host the legally-dubious information! Clever – but not necessarily in the interests of consumers or American markets.

Is the CPSC supposed to provide Mr. Adler’s catalog of “consumer experiences”? Is that part of its mission? [Readers of my blog know that] I realize we have a right of Freedom of Speech (check out the Bill of Rights), but is the federal government really supposed to foster that Freedom of Speech? I appreciate that Mr. Adler thinks a consumer “experiences” database is a really good idea (I disagree) but since when do our tax dollars need to be used to provide it? Is that the only option that makes sense? And that goes double for such a dangerous proposal that presents the realistic prospect of discouraging investment and other economic activity.

So many words wasted on people who won’t listen. Expect a “spirited” debate on the database as foreplay followed by the 3-2 partisan screwing that masquerades as safety administration these days. The song plays on . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Save "Lost Souls", Vote for the Slanderbase!

CPSIA – "Children’s Product" Means Whatever They Want

770 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 40 days left until Election Day.

As the Commission privately dithers, or squabbles, for weeks over passing the final interpretative rule on the meaning of “Children’s Product” under the CPSIA, a recent recall illustrates the uncertainty and capriciousness of the draft rule currently in use by the Compliance staff. Or, should I say, the uncertainty and capriciousness of the current administration running the CPSC shop?

On Tuesday of this week, the CPSC announced the recall of mood rings. No, they weren’t recalled because the CPSC inspector’s mood ring always turned black, but good guess! The agency cited “high levels of lead”. Oooo, scary lead!

Ahem, doesn’t the CPSIA only apply to “Children’s Products”, and if so, don’t the mood rings need to be “Children’s Products” to be subject to the new lead standards? Right and right, careful reader! You have been paying attention, unlike certain regulators. The CPSC says this is a product intended for children under 12, so they were just doing the Lord’s work to recall them, right? Save the Children! Who could oppose that?

Perhaps we should hear the company’s side of the story (courtesy of one of my readers, thank you, Anonymous!):

“September 21, 2010,

To Whom It May Concern:

From: D&D Distributing-Wholesale, Inc.

To Whom It May Concern:

We are writing in response to the Love Tester items that were found by CPSC staff to contain lead in excess of the current CPSIA limits. These items were originally purchased in 2005, and intended as a teenage to adult novelty, and not for children 12 and under. This is evidenced by the novelty of this item being to measure the sexual performance of the bearer with the results ranging from clammy to naughty, passionate and hot stuff. These words were specifically chosen to target a more mature market.

Nonetheless, due to our awareness potential future legislation, we instructed the factory to make these items using lead-free metal to avoid any problems. The factory confirmed that these goods would be made out of lead-free material and adjusted the prices to reflect this. In 2005, we felt that this effort was appropriate for the time. By the second half of 2007, D&D Distributing had started the process of testing new items as well as taking steps necessary to ensure that older items were lead safe. We had contacted the factory of the Love Testers again in 2007, and they responded that they had done their own testing to confirm that these items used lead-free metal.

We believed that this was enough evidence to make a reasonable assumption that the Love Tester items did not contain lead.

In early 2009, we were visited by CPSC Officer Marcus Morris. Officer Morris randomly selected items for x-ray testing, as well as several items offered by D&D staff, and a few items did have lead content in excess of the new limits. These items were ordered to stop sale. It was our intention to evaluate every questionable item imported previous to new federal law (CPSIA act of 2008), and test them using CPSC’s x-ray gun. Unfortunately, the Love Tester items were missed during this time. Since early 2009, we have had several other visits from Officer Morris, and many other items were offered by D&D to be tested.

CPSC has determined that the Love Tester items are for children 12 and under, and D&D agrees to comply with the CPSC’s decision to recall the items.

Best regards,

D&D Distributing-Wholesale, Inc.”

[Emphasis added.]

So the CPSC just decided that this sex toy was for kids 12 and under. Perhaps kids grow up faster in Bethesda, I don’t know, but the action of the CPSC seems to ignore the clear intent of the manufacturer, not to mention the rather obvious fact that this product is not suitable for Middle School children (or younger). Feeling “clammy” yet?

Okay, zealots of the world, you ask – how dare you defend icky LEAD? Don’t you Rick know how dangerous lead is for the CHILDREN? Let’s not forget the children . . . .

Lead’s capacity to harm has never been in doubt, but of course, I believe facts and circumstances are important in determining WHEN lead is a worry. In this case, however, I think the issue is different.

As a manufacturer subject to the awful CPSIA and the unrelenting pressure of the manic CPSC, I object to rules “on wheels”. If the CPSC can move the rule from here or there to justify whatever it wants to do today without restraint, how can I protect myself? How can I plan? Please TELL ME what a “Children’s Product” is. I have to figure out what my legal obligations are. Do I have to test, or not? Do I need to be lead-free, or not? What about phthalates? I also sell to thousands of distributors and stores. They are as confused as me, or more. What if they disagree with my judgment? Who decides what’s right? And what if the CPSC disagrees with both of us? What is our recourse? [You know the answer to that one.]

Will regulators at the CPSC ever understand how this kind of case absolutely SCREWS me and everyone else that stupidly remains in the children’s market? Will someone PLEASE tell me how to run my business? PLEASE!

We seek meaning in what we do. We produce educational products for a reason – we want to change the world for the better, we want to make a better future for children in dozens of countries. It is our privilege to do this for a living. The CPSC ruins the fun and meaning we find in our work. They poison the well by doing damage to a mood ring company. They have attacked me directly, too – but I am prohibited from telling you in this space what they are doing. I want to, but I cannot (yet). And you’re next.

This has to end. I am working on it, but you have to help, too. Do you want to be the next “mood ring” company? I don’t. Please HELP me. Please HELP yourself. We (you) cannot sit on our hands at a terrible time like this.

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Children’s Product" Means Whatever They Want

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?

Next Page »