CPSIA – Another Update on How VERY Safe We Are

I want to bring you up-to-date on the nuclear situation in Japan, but first a quick reminder – none of this matters BECAUSE there is no lead in plutonium or the other radioactive elements being discharged in tremendous mass into the air, water and soil by the disabled Fukushima reactors.

CPSIA – Answers to Supplemental House Questions (Hearing of Feb. 17th)

This is my Response for the Record to questions posed by Rep. Mike Pompeo after the February 17th hearing held by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade:

February 17, 2011
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee:
“A Review of CPSIA and CPSC Resources”

Congressman Mike Pompeo

1. Did your company have to buy a copy of the F-963 standard? Why? How much did that cost?

Our company has purchased several copies of ASTM F963 over the years. According to the ASTM International website (http://www.astm.org/Standards/F963.htm), the current cost of F963 is $62, or $74 (redline version). [This means that the ASTM literally charges companies EXTRA to figure out what changed in this legally-mandated standard.] To my knowledge, this standard is only available from the ASTM. Ironically, even the CPSC is unable to provide access to this document (as acknowledged in this CPSC Powerpoint presentation http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/intl/toyweb2_en.pdf) which casts doubt on its ability to guide companies attempting to comply with the law. The lack of access and cost of access to this standard certainly makes compliance burdensome for small businesses.

The F963 standard has been updated regularly over the years, and we need to have access to the current version of the standard at all times. Until the CPSIA was enacted, the F963 standard was the tacit equivalent of a mandatory standard because the toy industry adopted it as a “voluntary” standard with the encouragement of the CPSC. At one time, voluntary standards were the preferred way the agency regulated many industries, including our industry. We have always used the F963 standard as a reference in product development and safety administration and frequently tested for compliance with the standard.

2. You’ve been dealing with all of the agency’s rules for the last few years. By my reckoning, an entrepreneur with, say, a good idea for a board game would have to pay to buy a copy of F-963 from ASTM (not a small price to pay for some small or start-up toymakers). Then, because the standard is literally dozens of pages long of densely spaced text, he’d have to hire a lawyer to tell which parts of the standard apply to his product. Then, he’d have to find a third-party test lab to test and certify a random sample of his actual production line for compliance with all of the F-963 requirements. And, if any product fails, you are basically back to the drawing board. And, of course, he’d have to do all this before ever selling a single toy. Do you think the next board game entrepreneur (e.g., Trivial Pursuit) might have a hard time getting off the ground under this regime? Has this agency effectively killed entrepreneurship in the toy market? Does a start-up company stand any chance of being able to navigate the CPSC’s new rules and regulations on its own?

The CPSIA has had the effective of creating new barriers of entry in the children’s product market, once one of America’s most entrepreneurial industries. The burdens are heavy in the toy industry but even worse in related industries like juvenile products. Large companies with steady cash flow enjoy considerable and valuable advantages over entrepreneurs who must put large sums of money at risk in their initial investment in compliance costs before receiving their first dollar of revenue. The effect of the CPSIA is one of picking winners and losers in affected markets. I question whether this is the appropriate role of the federal government in our markets.

We believe that these heavy costs will discourage investment in new products, by new entrants, by existing players and especially by small businesses. Recently, at the CPSC’s hearing on the looming 100 ppm lead standard, representatives of the bicycle industry noted that in the wake of the 300 ppm lead standard, many small bicycle manufacturers have already left the market and large companies cut their product lines considerably. I have long predicted a reduction in product diversity as a necessary consequence of the CPSIA. Other evidence of market contraction exists, as well. At this year’s ICPHSO, CPSC Acting Director of the Office of Compliance and Field Operations Robert (“Jay”) Howell noted the CPSC’s challenge in identifying a test lab that has or will agree to equip itself as a certified test lab for ATVs. Why? So many ATV manufacturers have stopped producing youth model ATVs under the effective ban by the CPSIA’s lead standards that testing labs can’t justify the capital investment to provide CPSIA compliance testing. Product diversity is declining all over the children’s product market.

Toymakers will experience the same depressing effect and yes, that means that the next Trivial Pursuit inventor may be washed out. We may never know because the absence of a new toy or novel game will be hard to detect in the ad-driven, promotional toy market. It is clear, however, that entrepreneurs are free to deploy their capital wherever they want – they are seeking returns on their capital – so the combination of high CPSIA compliance costs, high regulatory risk, high legal costs and a generally hostile regulatory environment seems unlikely to attract new entrants to the toy market. War stories will also discourage new entrants – the well-known experience of toymakers who have suffered under this regulatory regime.

As a practical matter, the rules and regulations put out by the CPSC to implement the CPSIA for toys are incomprehensible, not to mention incomplete. We are now 31 months into the CPSIA era, yet the CPSC has yet to promulgate a final phthalate standard or certify even one phthalates testing lab. EACH and EVERY toy must be “phthalate-free” but the CPSC has yet to tell us how to know it has achieved this goal. This means we are subject to the risk that they will invalidate all the work we have done since 2008. While this regulatory delay is simply outrageous, it is more likely proof of the defects in the CPSIA than a sign of failure by the CPSC. Even the largest companies have complained to the CPSC about the blizzard of rules and interpretations. One of great frustrations in attempting to comply with the new rules is that many CPSC legal interpretations have been given in private letters, orally in speeches or even in the form of voicemails. Access to such information may be critical but is obviously inaccessible to anyone not obsessively watching every minute of every video, reading every letter, attending every meeting or hearing and talking to every stakeholder in an attempt to master the breadth of this ever-morphing regulatory scheme.

3. Does the existence of a small business ombudsman at the agency solve the compliance problem?

The office of the Small Business Ombudsman serves a useful purpose as a friendly point of contact and possible advocate for small business within the agency. That said, there is no evidence that the office has power to make decisions, change policy or offer its own definitive interpretation of rules. For small businesses totally at a loss, the ombudsman is a good place to turn to for plain English answers to basic questions about rules. Notably, the office is not permitted to make decisions on behalf of the agency. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make problems “go away”. For this reason, the ombudsman function appears to be the regulatory equivalent of a shoulder to cry on. The current ombudsman, Neil Cohen, has been a good friend to the small business community, but unfortunately, he doesn’t write the rules.

4. What problems do you anticipate occurring as a result of the public database?

We know that the public database will be administered on a post-it-and-forget-it basis. Based on our dealings with the agency, I believe that the agency will post all incidents unless a mistaken identity can be proven. As a consequence, we anticipate that the database will be allowed to be filled up with “incidents” that are conjectural, misleading or even proven WRONG. In the first and only filing against our company, an anonymous complaint accused one of our products of posing a small parts hazard. That accusation was based on an image viewed on a website – there is no indication that the filer had ever handled our product. Consequently, the filer had no reasonable basis for the small parts claim. As a matter of fact, we routinely test for small parts and have done so for years, and when we presented a valid CPSIA test report under F963 (and EN71, the European standard), we were told by the General Counsel of the CPSC that the claim would nevertheless be eligible to be published under current rules. Thus, we KNOW that the false and misleading filings will KNOWINGLY be published by the CPSC even if PROVEN false. We believe this flagrantly violates our basic right to due process and creates the potential for damaging “feeding frenzies” that can consume our products and brands.

Other claims may relate to “hazards” which affect a wide swath of products already well-known by regulators and industry. This presents many risks to industry and to brands. What will a consumer make of a “report of harm” relating to a general hazard and only one particular product? Is this a minor incident or a harbinger of a real risk? Should they stop using the product? Should they stop using the particular model or brand which is subject of the complaint? Given that many products may present the same hazard (for instance, that an electrical cord could pose a strangulation hazard), how does this information help consumers? Will consumers actually understand the issue and be able to put it into some sort of perspective? And when incidents accumulate, as they are likely to do, presumably the brands and models with the largest numbers in distribution will have more incidents even though, ironically, they may be better constructed and “safer” than the alternatives. Will consumers falsely conclude that the models with more incidents are less safe and turn to something that really is?

Responding to this type of complaint obviously creates a new and terrible dilemma for manufacturers. Should they expend resources to respond? Do they need to lay out “a brief” about the nature of the failure and why their product is named? Will people just view whatever they say as unreliable, self-serving information or will they really be able to internalize the data? As noted above, most people will not be able to put these incidents in any kind of perspective. The only thing we know for certain is that brands and companies will be the losers.

The public portrayal of the database belies the unverified nature of the filings. Notwithstanding the disclaimers made by the agency, even esteemed media outlets like The New York Times refer to the database as a “database of unsafe products”. Unsafe? That label presumes some kind of judgment or filter prior to filing, which even The New York Times must assume is being provided by the CPSC. Ironically, the CPSC is doing everything possible to avoid providing that service. The result may be disastrous for American manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers of children’s products. It will be yet another self-inflicted economic injury.

5. What can Congress do to return the agency to one that regulates on the basis of risk?

Congress should mandate that the CPSC use principles of risk assessment to make all decisions relating to regulation of children’s products. The legislatively-mandated use of judgment and proportionality will likely lead to better rulemaking and more regulatory common sense. It is the legislative banishing of the exercise of judgment that led to the devastation of the bicycle industry, the elimination of youth model ATVs from the market (even though those products owe their very existence to a concerted effort by the CPSC to protect children from injury on adult-sized ATVs), the banning of all products made of brass, the senseless and almost neurotic banning of rhinestones as embellishments on children’s clothing, shoes and jewelry, and so on. NONE of these changes in rules have been tied to even ONE avoided injury.

Congress should also mandate the use of principles of cost-benefit analysis by the agency in its rulemaking processes. Under the CPSIA, all considerations of economics have flown out the window with predictably disastrous results. We can operate our government better according to basic common sense notions of cost-benefit analysis.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Answers to Supplemental House Questions (Hearing of Feb. 17th)

CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

August 3, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 820
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0038 Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification.

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0038) published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (the “Proposed Rule”).

The End of (Business) Life As We Know It:

As I sit down to record my comments on this rule, I take comfort in knowing that the CPSC admits what it is doing here. In a section entitled “Caveats and Possible Market Reactions to Third Party Testing Requirements”, the agency acknowledges the severe impact of its new rule on manufacturers:

a. Significantly increased costs,
b. Incentive to redesign (presumably successful) products,
c. Incentive to reduce features on products,
d. Incentive to eliminate (presumably useful) components in finished goods,
e. Incentive to reduce product lines,
f. Exit the market altogether,
g. Go out of business,
h. Create barriers to entry for future business expansion, especially in specialty markets (non-mass market),
i. Devastate niche markets (noting particularly the “special needs” educational market – sorry, blind kids!), and
j. Incentive to delay or forgo product or manufacturing process improvements (to avoid testing costs).

Quite a stimulus program! Of course, the CPSC knows we can’t meet this challenge alone. In “The Potential Effects of the Proposed Rule”, the agency advises us to hire a few helpers:

a. Lawyers to review CPSC regulations,
b. Engineers and chemists to develop product specifications, conduct tests and design a program for production testing,
c. Statisticians or consultants to determine the frequency, sample size and collection method for production testing, and
d. Technicians, “perhaps working under the supervision of an engineer, chemist or similar professional”, to perform production tests.

This certainly is a Brave New World for us. Luckily we have the CPSC to tell us what to do. Unfortunately, we can’t afford an in-house legal department or teams of engineers, chemists or statisticians. We don’t even have technicians. Incredibly, somehow we bumble on in our blissful, almost charming ignorance, having had only one recall of 130 pieces (we recovered every unit) out of perhaps 1,000,000,000 units sold in the last 26 years. No doubt all the pain the CPSC is promising us will be worth it . . . gotta keep everyone so safe.

Seriously, Is Anyone Listening?

On page 28338 of the Federal Register, the Proposed Rule reproduces the “reasonable testing program” as it stood before the December 10-11, 2009 workshop at the CPSC. The workshop (which we attended with three people who were each asked to appear as a panelist) was ostensibly for the purpose of giving “stakeholder feedback” on the so-called “15 Month Rule” (the Proposed Rule) and the component testing rule (also up for comment today, posted under separate cover). We gave detailed feedback on these rules – none positive – yet the Proposed Rule seems to have preserved the original, deeply-flawed concepts intact.

It is difficult not to conclude that the process of providing feedback to this CPSC is a sham. While Chairman Tenenbaum has long touted her “policy” of seeking feedback from all stakeholders including industry, judging from this rule, the commitment to seeking feedback does not involve maintaining an open mind. It appears that the most likely feedback to be well-received is feedback that ratifies what the agency already plans to do. Other feedback is “wrong”, I guess. I doubt you will find this letter useful.

As time ebbs on and as the drumbeat of a CPSC bent on our destruction becomes more and more clear, the incentive to waste a few days preparing detailed comments also ebbs. Nevertheless, owing to the importance of this Proposed Rule, I am hereby submitting comments. I have no reason to be optimistic that you will consider my point of view with an open mind. This rule has all the earmarks of a fait accompli.

Deeply Flawed Economic Analysis.

The Proposed Rule devotes pages and pages to a tortured analysis of its purported compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). This section of the Proposed Rule is a virtual admission of how unworkable the rule is (and the CPSIA testing scheme in general). As a starting point, the rule states: “The objective of the rule is to reduce the risk of injury from consumer products, especially from products intended for children aged 12 years and younger.” In my recent study of CPSC recall data posted on its website, I have found exactly ONE DEATH and THREE ASSERTED INJURIES from lead or lead-in-paint from 1999-2010. Please keep this statistic in mind as I review the economics of your “injury reduction” effort.

The flaws in the RFA analysis are clear in its discussion of testing costs for toys. The analysis acknowledges that it only accounts for out-of-pocket testing costs, nothing else. Significant additional (and ignored) costs include samples destroyed or damaged in testing, transportation of samples, administrative costs for managing testing, administration costs for managing the testing data, administrative costs for managing recordkeeping, an allocation of general management time, legal expenses relating to testing and so on. Depending on the scale of the business, I estimate that these costs (and distractions) will add 15%-50% to the out-of-pocket testing costs.

The RFA analysis concludes that testing a typical toy will cost $1,262 per product. As an average, this might be a good number for our business. I would note, however, that the Proposed Rule posits that we will test multiple samples, sending in perhaps four separate samples per item to satisfy the bizarre “required high degree of assurance” standard. [The rule states clearly that testing one sample is never enough. Interestingly, we have never had the experience in the last 20 years that multiple safety tests of the same product reveals anything useful other than rapidly approaching poverty.] The rule’s four-sample regime takes the testing cost per toy up to $4,848 (by the calculation in the document) plus another $2,500 for mechanical tests (because the rule posits that we will submit FIFTY samples for mechanical tests). That brings us up to $7,348 per item, plus 54 destroyed samples. This implies a rough “all-in” cost of $10,000 per item. We have 1,500 catalog items in our product line. Without a “reasonable testing program” in place (see below), we will have to test each item annually. This is a cost of $15 million for our company EVERY YEAR. [We also sell custom items, a business that would presumably be terminated by this testing rule. That’s several jobs down the drain.]

Does it surprise you to know that $15 million in testing costs exceeds our annual profit? By far?

The RFA analysis is deeply flawed in other ways, too. The rule duly reports that “[a]ccording to a representative of a trade association, there are an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 individual toys on the market.” Oh, really? Perhaps the CPSC shouldn’t have consulted the International Hubcap Manufacturers Association for this information. A quick visit to the Amazon.com website reveals listings of 808,465 toys and games on August 3rd (http://amzn.to/djtTVX). Amazon is a customer of ours – I estimate that they list about one-third of all toys and games sold in the consumer market. Call it 2.5 million toys and games available to consumers in the U.S. But that’s not all – the category also includes specialty items not present on consumer sites. For instance, our industry, the education industry, is largely invisible on consumer sites. I estimate that about one million SKUs are available to purchase at the annual convention of the International Reading Association. Millions of other SKUs are displayed at the national math show, the national science show and the national early childhood show. Add in special needs and other sub-markets – and you get well in excess of 4-5 million toys and games. So the RFA analysis might be off by 100x in its assessment of the toy market ALONE. That’s not close. . . .

The RFA analysis goes on to conclude that the ENTIRE MARKET of products affected by the rule is 100,000–150,000 products. This includes “wearing apparel, accessories, jewelry, juvenile products, children’s furniture, etc.”, plus non-children’s products and other children’s products like ATVs, bikes, bunk beds and so on. It is hard to dignify this ridiculous data with a retort, except to note that it is absurd on its face. The apparel industry ALONE offers as many as 8,000,000 different children’s SKUs for sale. The RFA analysis is fatally flawed.

At $10,000 per SKU, the projected children’s product testing costs will easily exceed $50 billion per year. Remember the 11-year CPSC statistic on lead deaths and injuries – one death and three ASSERTED injuries? [There are no recorded injuries from phthalates or cadmium, by the way.] The 11-year compliance cost will exceed $550 billion (in 2010 dollars), expended by U.S. companies to “reduce” this risk of injury. It would cost a lot less to wrap every American child in bubble wrap.

Small Businesses CANNOT SURVIVE THIS RULE.

Assuming we are supposed to take this rule seriously, the Proposed Rule is perhaps the best friend of the mass market yet invented by an agency seemingly bent on the destruction of the small business community. This letter documents again and again the unrealistic expectations and assumptions made by the authors of this rule with respect to businesses in general and small businesses in particular. Thousands of small businesses of every stripe and color will be affected by this rule. Are you seriously thinking that they will all hire statisticians, chemists and engineers to prepare the reams of data, plans and reports the CPSC expects? Once this massive, herculean effort is completed, who will be safer anyhow? I can think of someone – mass market companies who have been handed a game-ending cost advantage on a silver platter by the CPSC. This, combined with mass market companies’ ability to create certified firewalled in-house labs, favors the big guy dramatically. No wonder the rule states again and again how prejudicial this rule is to small business. The CPSC knows what it’s doing.

Small businesses will strain to even understand what is expected of them. The rule is obtuse, long-winded and full of arcania. Small business people may not have the time or skills to master this complex rule. When the CPSC turns to its attention to enforcement (as promised for 2011) and selects a few small businesses to whip into shape, the market will take note of the pain and a mass exit will result. I realize, however, that Cassandra-like predictions haven’t influenced the CPSC in recent times. One of the Commissioners has even been quoted as saying that “anecdotes aren’t evidence”. It feels like we have to die to prove we were right. A few small businesses might just do that, if the agency waits long enough.

The Commission has asked for feedback on how to address these issues. The complexity of the CPSIA safety rules proves that they are unworkable. To repair this damage, the Commission must ask Congress to restore its ability to assess risk. I am assuming that the Commission would exercise this discretion with more common sense than is embodied in this rule. CPSC rules should be trimmed back to things that MATTER, only. Second, the agency should build its rules and its enforcement activity around DATA. Injury statistics tell the agency what is important. If a particular hazard generates ONE DEATH AND THREE ASSERTED INJURIES OVER 11 YEARS, you can safely relax your rules quite a bit (there are worse problems out there). Education might make a difference, however.

Finally, the Commission should NOT take ANY step if there is EVEN A SHRED OF DOUBT about the impact on small business. Small business is the major jobs creator in America. When you promulgate rules that choke the life out of small business or sharply reduce their incentive to invest, you are killing our economy. You have a heavy responsibility to keep this place running, even if it’s an imperfect world. While it’s sad that a child ever dies, the pain and suffering imposed on countless families from lost jobs, lost capital, lost access to needed products, and so on likely far exceeds it.

Reasonable Testing Program – Busy Work to Keep Us From Running Our Businesses.

The “Reasonable Testing Program” (“RTP”) represents a choice presented to manufacturers of children’s products under this rule. If we endure the expense and disruption of a RTP, we can cut our testing frequency (read, testing costs) in half. A very tempting prospect but the cost of a RTP seems too high, leaving us with a Hobson’s Choice. We can’t afford annual testing and we cannot afford a RTP. What should we do? What will anyone do?

Owing to the burden and complexity of RTPs, I predict EVERY REGULATED COMPANY will violate these rules. Since Ms. Tenenbaum has promised to turn to enforcement in 2011, the CPSC regulators should have a pretty easy time finding juicy targets. Every company will provide wonderful enforcement opportunities.

Although our testing program has been highly-effective over the last 26 years, our program would never meet these standards. We do not maintain the volume of paperwork that the new CPSC rule now requires. We know what we’re doing, but we have not organized our files into a how-to manual. Perhaps the agency thinks every company in the country is an ISO 9001 company. They’re not, and this kind of documentation is rare and breathtakingly expensive to prepare.

Having endured the CPSIA spectacle for two years now, I do not trust the seemingly flexible definition of necessary documentation. The pattern is that these seemingly open-ended terms (which may or may not describe our current recordkeeping) will mature into something rigid down the line. Even if they don’t, we still face the risk that we will not measure up to the expectations of the CPSC enforcement officer at the time of reckoning. The feeling that we are being set up is inescapable. As noted above, given our record of performance, the agency should have NO concerns about how we go about our business. Nonetheless, I feel certain that these rules will bite me in the future.

Sample selection under the rule should not be based on any statistical formula (per the baffling presentation of Dr. Michael Greene at the December 2009 workshop). If the overall safety results of the company are strong, the choice of samples by the company or factories should be presumed compliant without further inquiry. Random selection (taking one off the shelf . . . without the assistance of a statistician) works just fine in our experience, and there is no evidence that testing multiple samples will accomplish anything but will certainly raise costs. Better sampling won’t lower injury rates that already approach zero.

We currently do not use production testing and have zero production testing plans in place. With one recall in 26 years, I would assert this kind of testing is superfluous in our business and basically useless from a safety standpoint. It will significantly raise costs, however. The tedious exercise of preparing a pallet load of production testing plans to meet the new requirements is just plain busy work. One must ask what the CPSC was thinking when it penned this description of a production testing plan: “A production testing plan may include recurring testing or the use of process management techniques such as control charts, statistical process control programs, or failure modes and effects analysis (FMEAs) designed to control potential variations in product manufacturing that could affect the product’s ability to comply with the applicable rules, bans, standards or regulations.” Fancy words but . . . what planet are they from?

The requirement to list all the tests applicable to our items, again and again, to satisfy the RTP requirements is typical of mindless busy work asked of us. Does the CPSC think this will make ANY difference? Most businesses confirm safety tests with their testing lab partners anyhow. More bureaucracy, taken to new heights.

We don’t have any remedial plans in place either. We are quite familiar with how to appropriately resolve compliance and quality issues, and have never had a problem with regulators in the exercise of our business judgment. The requirement to prepare a detailed written plan, just in case we have another recall in the next 26 years, is pure officiousness. This is yet another waste of our time, our money, our resources and our intellect.

The recordkeeping requirements of a RTP is well beyond our ability or interest to preserve for 1500 products produced in thousands of lots over the course of a year. Taking a “Dear Diary” approach to how we source, test, move, remediate, repair, investigate and otherwise manage children’s products is completely unreasonable. This is especially ridiculous given our track record.

The Commission has asked what a RTP might cost us. I have a hard time estimating it because all the fun in our business would be gone. If we had to endure the bureaucratic nightmare this rule envisions, if anyone actually expects us to do all this to make simple plastic toys for schools, I would have to seriously consider our alternatives. So it might cost us our entire company. That’s the whole enchilada, guys.

Remember, we don’t have to make children’s products, nor do we have to stick around for the next act of this tragedy. If the CPSC persists in ruining what was once a rather safe industry with a strong track record, the cost will be the entire market for children’s products.

Is that a high enough price to give you pause? I know, I know, more anecdotes . . . .

The Requirement to Document Procedures against Undue Influence is Unreasonable.

The “Undue Influence Procedures” requirement (“UIP”) is essentially a requirement to document efforts to avoid fraud. If you’re not inclined to commit fraud, there’s little reason to set out your plan to not commit fraud. Here’s our current policy – “Don’t break the law or commit fraud”. This has worked well for us, as we have never exerted undue influence in the last 26 years and have no plans to start now.

I am really sorry that there are bad people in the world, some small number of which may have at one time attempted to exert undue influence over one or more test labs. Perhaps the CPSC should concern themselves with the bad guys and leave the rest of us alone.

Material Change Rules Place Too Much Risk on Manufacturers.

The CPSC’s rule on when to test after a “material change” is sufficiently open-ended to render the judgment on when to test fairly obvious – ALWAYS TEST. Deep within the Proposed Rule, Section 1107.10(b)(2)(ii) instructs “A material change is any change in the product’s design, manufacturing process, or sourcing of component parts that a manufacturer exercising due care knows, or should know, could affect the product’s ability to comply with the rules . . . .” “Due care” is defined as “the degree of care that a prudent and competent person engaged in the same line of business or endeavor would exercise under similar circumstances.”

In other words, the agency’s 20-20 hindsight can construct a case for testing for a material change for just about anything that “might” or “could” affect results or that a hypothetical “prudent person” might think of investigating. Of course, this issue only comes up in the context of an injury or a recall, so what are the odds that any judgment to NOT test would withstand inquiry by an angry CPSC? Zilch. So either you always test or you take a big risk. This is completely unfair and unreasonable.

Testing Frequency Must Be Left to the Manufacturer and to the Market.

A rule requiring manufacturers to test according to these standards every year is going to kill us and many other businesses. No one can afford the testing scheme outlined above, we least of all. If we must test according to these standards, we will be out of business quickly. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that testing cost savings from maintaining a RTP will hold much appeal since that project is so wasteful and gargantuan. Of course, a firewalled in-house lab would be nice for all of us small businesses, but that’s unrealistic, too (not to mention undesirable). We have no realistic way to moderate these costs. Please see my other August 3 comment letter for an explanation of why I believe component and composite testing will likewise provide no relief.

Testing is supposed to assure product quality and compliance. If we have a good, long term record of safety, why can’t we just carry on as we have, and deal with issues as they arise? That worked for 26 years. The new way is just unaffordable.

The “High Degree of Assurance” Standard is Unreasonable and Not Derived from the CPSIA.

The rule seems to conclude that a “high degree of assurance” is a necessary element of any “reasonable testing program”. The importance of the “reasonable testing program” which was incorporated into the CPSIA as an alternative to third party testing for non-children’s products, has been imputed to the children’s product area as a way to reduce testing frequency, and with it, the “high degree of assurance” standard (“HDA”) was likewise imputed. Thus, sliding down this slippery slope, the HDA standard has become part and parcel of the “15 Month Rule”. Abracadabra.

The Commission has requested feedback on the meaning of the definition of HDA in Section 1107.2. Happily, the agency has rejected a strict statistical interpretation requiring “95% probability” of compliance. What should the definition be interpreted to mean? The “high degree of assurance” should be based on an overall assessment of the safety record of the company. It should NOT be based on the results of an individual product, even if recalled or deemed dangerous. In our case, we have done business for 26 years, had one recall of 130 pieces of out of about 1,000,000,000 pieces sold. All of these units were recovered. Thus, we believe there is zero probability that a recalled product is in the market. Our historical recall rate is approximately 130/1,000,000,000 or 0.00001% over a 26-year period.

With this record over so many years, our company should be deemed to have satisfied this HDA requirement and be endorsed as having a reasonable testing program without further inquiry. And if we DON’T deserve the HDA designation, then the CPSC should articulate what level of safety achievement would earn the designation.

Notably, the entire children’s product industry also meets this requirement. Of the 899 recalls of children’s products from 1999-2010, only one death and three asserted injuries from lead were recorded by the CPSC. Thus, the probability of being injured from lead by a children’s product is nearly zero, given that literally billions of children’s products are sold every year. [The apparel and footwear industry claims annual sales of about 4 billion units ALONE.] Industry recall rates are likewise well under 1% per annum. With injury statistics and recall rates in hand, the CPSC should GREATLY loosen the strictures of the “high degree of assurance” standard to focus its resources on activities that might actually injure someone.

One-to-One Product Testing Will Punish the Smallest Companies.

The prophylactic approach to testing adopted by the CPSC will inevitably put many small or micro businesses into bankruptcy, or drive them into unregulated markets to avoid the CPSIA’s wasteful bureaucratic costs. If the law does not permit the agency to adopt sensible rules that allow businesses to manage their compliance risk as best they can (where the standards remain in place, but the government stops trying to tell businesses HOW to comply), then the Commission must finally tell Mr. Waxman what he doesn’t want to hear – that his law is broken and can’t be fixed. [Notably, these mini businesses most at risk have an exemplary record of safety and very low recall rates. NOTHING is gained by rules that crush the little guy.]

We in the small business community have suffered for two solid years while regulators have sought any possible way to avoid delivering this “unpleasant” message. I get the impression that the demise of our businesses would not be too great a cost for the agency to incur to avoid telling Congress what it doesn’t want to hear. If the Commission is genuinely interested in a fix, it must take action with Congress. I do not believe the agency can devise sensible regulations to fix this problem short of a legislative change.

Ban on Retesting Will Unnecessarily Create Crises at Small Businesses.

In our experience, test labs are neither infallible nor definitive in their understanding of U.S. safety laws and regulations. It is not unusual to experience failed test reports for reasons besides safety problems. In addition, children’s products are not so pure and perfect in their composition that every test produces the same result. The CPSC itself instructed manufacturers to audit their test labs in the ironically-dated April 1, 2010 version of the Proposed Rule in response to industry complaints that test results varied from test lab to test lab. By forbidding retesting, the Proposed Rule removes discretion and appropriate problem resolution techniques from a commonplace quality event. You don’t need to manage a very large portfolio of products before the probability of an ordinary course testing problem rises exponentially. This is a matter of mathematics. If retesting is banned, the CPSC is legislating a crisis of the week.

Again, CPSC injury data informs us that the nature of the problem is extremely modest. Historical injury rates are VERY low. This retesting rule is completely unnecessary and penal to all companies except perhaps mass market companies with greater resources. Small businesses won’t have teams of engineers or statisticians around to save the day. Many small businesses will naively call the CPSC for “help”, only to find out that they have created a worse crisis. Some small businesses may miss this point in the Proposed Rule and continue to retest, only to be punished later when the CPSC finds evidence of retesting at the time of a recall. Is this really how you want to regulate?

I would note that the justification for all this is bad acts: “[Retesting] may tempt unscrupulous parties to attempt to ‘test the product into compliance’. . . .” To my knowledge, this behavior has little precedence and even so, it is an abuse that can be dealt with other ways. If honorable and law-abiding companies use retesting to resolve honest problems, no harm is being done. Punishing good guys because you are afraid that otherwise bad guys might benefit is excessive and inappropriately harsh.

The 10,000 Piece Limit for One-Time Testing is Arbitrary and Unfair.

The CPSC has failed to persuade that the 10,000 limit is an appropriate break point for testing. First of all, the limit is cumulative, not related to sales in a period or per annum. Second, the threshold bears no relationship to risk of injury. In other words, it’s completely arbitrary. Why 10,000? Why not? In my view, that’s not enough to justify this rule. Many of the micro businesses that might benefit from this rule have NEVER had a recall. These are the people this rule will restrict. And the logic of this is . . . what, exactly?

Even more remarkable is the rule’s insistence that these low volume items be tested annually after passing the 10,000 piece threshold. Small companies will never have a RTP so annual testing (or more frequently, if for instance the item is hand-assembled) will be mandated. Consider a product selling 2,000 piece per year. Under these rules, the incentive to drop it once it crosses the 10,000 threshold will be powerful. This reminds me of the incentive on small businesses to not hire a 26th employee to avoid an onslaught of Obamacare obligations. A tacit cap on sales will be imposed by this rule. Nice!

The solution to this problem is to require one-time testing before sale, and thereafter according to the business judgment of the manufacturer. Remember, the retailers that buy from the manufacturer will also have something to say about testing frequency, too. Not all solutions are better if imposed by the government.

Alternative Testing Technologies.

The ability to test at low cost with XRF is attractive. For our business, it is tempting to use an XRF gun but for two reasons: (a) cost, and (b) health risk. XRF guns cost $30,000 each and have high annual maintenance costs (several thousand dollars a year). We might need several guns to manage our inventory volumes, a very costly prospect. XRF guns are portable x-ray machines. Notwithstanding the assurance of XRF gun manufacturers, I am quite reluctant to place an x-ray machine in the hands of a warehouse worker in our facility. This is an invitation to disaster. We likewise have no interest in hiring a highly-paid technician to wield the gun, or technicians to wield the guns. In any event, we cannot expose our employees to a possible risk of x-ray genetic damage. I am surprised that the CPSC doesn’t take this risk more seriously. Is lead a worse problem than x-rays?

In any event, I fail to understand what would be accomplished by a XRF solution for small businesses. The process of XRF testing may be inexpensive, but would be disruptive. In any event, I don’t see a connection to safety so I prefer a solution that restores sanity to our safety practices. Burning in a wasteful and disruptive process will only bog down our economy and our competitiveness. Until the CPSC can point to a risk factor relating to the little guys, one cannot rationally conclude that XRF makes this regulation better, just somewhat less worse.

In sum, the Proposed Rule is a dangerous rule with the acknowledged prospect of doing severe market damage. The CPSC knows this, having admitted it in writing in the text of the rule. There is no excuse to push forward with a defective rule on this scale. The Commission must talk honestly with Congress . . . before it’s too late.

Thank you for considering my views on this important subject.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
380 North Fairway Drive
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

Read more here:
CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

CPSIA – A Quick and Incomplete Analysis of New Draft Waxman Amendment 2.0

With only a few hours to look over the new draft of the Waxman Amendment 2.0 before tomorrow’s meeting, I guess the idea is that we are supposed to drop what we are doing to complete an analysis fire drill. Power trip for the Waxman staffers? Possibly. Still, what choice do we have? I thought I would outline my preliminary comments to contribute to the debate.

It goes without saying that this is entirely my own work without the benefit of discussing it with others similarly situated and without the opportunity to compare notes. It is therefore likely that I have missed something important or made other mistakes. Sorry . . . . This post is also painfully long. Again, given that Mr. Waxman hardly cares about your problems or mine, I have little choice but to post this as one essay. Again, sorry . . . .

a. Modifications to Section 101(b)(2) Exemption Process:

• The idiotic post-exemption warnings provision has been deleted.
• The three-pronged exemption test remains in place, as does the ambiguous and troubling term “practicable”. “Practicable” is a sneaky Waxman approach to providing an escape hatch for big industries with narrow product definitions like ATVs and books. You’re not supposed to know this. Our laws aren’t for the little people anymore.
• The third prong of the exemption test has been clarified from no effect on “public health or safety” to no effect on “the user’s health or safety, taking into account normal and foreseeable use and abuse by all foreseeable users.” This change seems like new belts and suspenders to make it easy to deny an exemption. The Dem zealots want to be sure no one gets an exemption but ATVs and books, wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
• Poor applicants for exemptions are still obliged to wait hungrily by the door of the CPSC for the leavings of rich supplicants. Yes, small business owners who want exemptions like the big guys but can’t afford to pay the big bucks can reuse the big guys’ consultant’s reports provided the evidence is considered non-proprietary. [Whatever that might be.] Nice . . . if someone else has already paid for it and submitted it in an exemption process, and if you have access to it (and have found it), you can use it. Noblesse oblige, I guess. Thank You, Kind Sir. I speak for all the little people . . . . Oddly, this concept reappears in a confusing provision called “Previously Denied Petitions” that only refers to previously denied petitions in its title (I don’t get it).
• In another “how closely are you watching me?” change, the grounds for decision provision now permits the Commission to consider “only” evidence presented by “interested parties”, rather than the evidence presented by the party seeking such exceptions. So if you ever get as far as an exemption hearing, this provision turns it into a town meeting. How would you like it if anyone could enter and participate in your litigation without your consent . . . like your competitors or your business enemies? I have a good idea – why not just write into the law that Rachel Weintraub will be considered a party in interest to every action at the CPSC?
• The Narrowest Scope provision has been modified to clarify that you must not only address each component but also each material. The paranoia you sense in this legislation is just the precautionary principle at work. The staffer-gnomes who have been crafting this legislation are not thinking about how our markets work or should work – they are simply obsessing over how we business people might find loopholes. Of course, it is in the nature of business people to try to avoid laws, we are all so evil. Oh yeah, I forgot . . . .
• The Limitation of Exception provision now is framed in terms of “all foreseeable users” which I can only assume is meant to make the burden of proof higher for supplicants. After all, if you can foresee a so-and-so using the product (I won’t supply the colorful example), then the Commission must limit the exception. No possibility of risk can be tolerated by the precautionary principle folks.

As the provision for exclusions has not changed much, here is my analysis of the original language for your reference.

b. Treatment of Resale Shops by the Waxman Amendment:

• The provision defining a “used children’s product” seems to now mean (a) an actual used children’s product, and (b) new goods donated for a charitable purpose. This would seem to protect resale shops from liability for sale of items violating the lead provisions (but not the phthalates ban, notably) unless the seller or the person who supplied it to the seller knew it was in violation of the lead provisions. If that seems somewhat circular, it is. In this case, the law as drafted encourages resale shops to remain as ignorant as possible. This is Waxman’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Nice.
• There has been no clarification about the application of this provision to consignment shops. Do they “obtain” goods for resale if they never take title? Something fun to speculate about!
• In a little-noticed provision, the definition of “seller” includes lenders or donators of used children’s products. Thus, for lending libraries, they will be in the clear if they lend used goods, but will be on the hook if they lend new product. Does it become “used” after one loan, and if so, what does this mean? The legal department in your local children’s library will figure this out. Sure. As to people who donate, the provision is circular again. As best I can figure out, you are not subject to the lead rules (only) if you are donating something used for charitable purposes, but if you give away something new, you are on the hook. At least, that’s how I read it. So the bottom line is – don’t give anything new to a charity, just give them junk. This is what Mr. Waxman wants. And that means this is what Congress wants.

While these changes may be an improvement, they are sadly improvements without much impact. This provision remains convoluted and hard to understand. The definition has numerous exceptions and also avoids giving the same shelter to resale shops for all the other picayune provisions of the law, like the phthalates ban. Frankly, without a clean exemption for this industry, resale stores are all going to avoid this class of goods. The complexity alone will kill this exemption except for the most sophisticated participants in an industry not known for its legal skills or resources. These stores won’t hire lawyers to check their work. They can’t afford it.

This is my original criticism of this provision, which is still applicable.

c. Prospective Application of 100 ppm Lead Limits – this provision was not changed in the new draft.

d. Low Volume Manufacturer “Exceptions”:

• Thank heavens, they changed the term of art for these small fry to Small Batch Manufacturers. This was done at the insistence of the HTA. What a victory! Someone please explain this to me.
• The “In General” provision is basically unchanged, other than the fancy new name for the supposed beneficiaries of this largess. Notably, the last sentence was clarified to make sure no one could contend that Waxman inadvertently gave the Commission the power to grant “alternative testing methodologies” for ANYONE but the small batch guys. There’s so much trust and love flowing here . . . .
• The truly non-existent “relief” of this provision remains EXACTLY the same. Here it is, bask in its wonderfulness: “The Commission . . . may, by regulation, provide alternative testing requirements for covered products manufactured by small batch manufacturers in lieu of those required under subsection (a) or (b). Any such alternative requirements shall provide for reasonable testing methodologies to assure certification based on compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards. [Emphasis added] Standing ovation? These lucky micro-businesses must meet alternative TESTING methodologies that ASSURE compliance with the standards. In other words, they gotta test. They even added a “savings clause” to forbid any relief here (such as it is) if any foreseeable user might be foreseeably at risk. Some relief.

Notably, the reach of this section has now been limited to “covered products”. This new term, which incorporates a three-prong test (this is the second three-pronger of this amendment so far, but not the last). [See below.] Please NOTE that this new term means that the ONLY relief the CPSC can grant is to these small fry products. A product that exceeds the limits of a “covered product” will NOT enjoy any theoretical testing relief, even if made by a business qualifying for relief overall. Should you care? Well, in my view, if you have to endure the burden of full compliance with one product, you have to build the full infrastructure and bear the related liabilities. Thus, these micro-businesses supposedly being saved here are actually at substantial risk of suffocation if even ONE product sells well. Too bad for them.

The absurd and utterly inappropriate definition of a “low volume manufacturer” has been completely jumbled and incorporates the new concept of “covered products”, too. Let me try to sort out this for you.

- As noted above, only “covered product” enjoy any potential relief under this section. The “covered products” test is a three-prong test: (i) manufactured not more than 5,000 “units” of the product in the prior fiscal year, (ii) had not more than $30,000 in sales of the product in the prior fiscal year, AND (iii) had no more than $500,000 in total sales in the prior fiscal year. [Do you feel vines growing over your brain yet?] Dollars are indexed for inflation. Notably, the definition ONLY applies to the manufacture of these items, NOT importation. Too bad, importers. GOTCHA!

The implication of this definition is that if you grow to over $500,000 in total sales, all exemptions applicable to any of your low volume items goes up in smoke instantly. That last dollar is gonna HURT. You also cannot get relief for any individual product if your sales of THAT item are greater than 5,000 “units” per year or $30,000 in sales. Here’s another compliance tip: don’t grow your business! Too hard? Don’t worry, the other policies of this government should help you meet this goal . . . .

- The definition of a “small batch manufacturer” defines who should be treated with special charity by the CPSC under this marvelous section of the amendment. It’s not going be a long list. Who wants to see another three-prong test?! Okay, break out your calculator so you can figure out if they are referring to you: (a) AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS of “the manufacturer’s products” (I love that term) meets this two-part test: (i) the manufacturer manufactured or imported not more than 5,000 units of the product in the prior CALENDAR year, AND (ii) the manufacturer had not more than $30,000 in sales of the product in the prior CALENDAR year, AND (b) the manufacturer had not more than $500,000 in sales in the prior CALENDAR year.

This is getting fun! Okay, first we need to decide – is it a two-prong test with one prong having two sub-prongs, or is it a three-prong test? This is a rather metaphysical question . . . but I say it’s our third three-prong test of this short amendment. [Imagine how many three-prong tests are in the health care bill.] I welcome your insights on this question.

There are some interesting quirks in the Small Batch Manufacturer definition. First, this provision applies to imported products, but the “covered products” definition does not. Gotcha! What does this mean? Who knows. The head spins . . . . Even better, the definition of “Small Batch Manufacturer” is based on calendar year calculations and the definition of “covered products” is based on fiscal year calculations. Love it. I learn so much from Mr. Congress. Apparently, Congress wants it to work this way because there must be some sort of dangerous loophole for people who have fiscal years which are not the calendar year. Mr. Waxman is onto your game, you desperadoes! There’s no escape!

At least the Waxmanis kept it simple. Good job, guys, it’s artful!

Btw, they added a little provision to make sure that the Commission investigates the structure of your business’ “affiliations”. Clearly, the Commission needs to make SURE they correctly tote up your revenues for this ornate determination. [Little known fact: the CPSC uses clacker balls for this work.] The reach of the Obamist/Waxman government into your private affairs, in ways completely and utterly unrelated to public interest or safety, apparently knows no bounds. Get your files ready, little businesses – the CPSC wants to take a peek. Perhaps check out your tax returns and . . . oops, it appears you took a few deductions that you weren’t entitled to. We can just let our sister agency know, you don’t have to do ANYTHING, we’re just here to help.

Small business people, you should be flipping mad over this pathetic attempt to “help” you. My original criticism of this provision is still largely applicable.

e. Phthalates Ban Exception for Internal Components: This is largely intact from the prior draft although they did add a provision modifying the Commission’s right to adopt the definition of an internal component from the lead accessibility standard. The Commission must now, “as appropriate”, consider whether the component can be placed in the mouth. We are talking about internal components here.

I wish I had a laugh track for my blog . . . .

f. Removal of CPSA Section 6(b) Due Process Rights of Manufacturers: has been eliminated from the draft.

g. Voluntary Recall Standards to be Matched to Mandatory Recalls: has been eliminated from this draft.

h. Imminent Hazard Panic Attacks by the Commission: has been eliminated from this draft.

i. Subpoena Power for Underlings at the CPSC: This provision was trimmed back partially to apply only to physical and documentary evidence. This modest restructuring of this new right does not in any way address the issues I have pointed out in the past (here and here). This new subpoena power is not essential to the operation of the CPSC, regardless of their assertions, and represents a significant degradation of procedural protections that encourage business people to invest. When all trust is destroyed among the regulated community and its safety regulator, who will want to invest? Hello, Congress?

CONCLUSIONS:

The Waxman Amendment has been improved mainly by deletions of several truly awful and duplicitous provisions. Many defective provisions in the original draft survived the revisions. What’s left provides little substantive relief to the unwashed masses, but promises some sub rosa relief to the book industry and ATV’rs without giving the appearance of favoritism. There is little to cheer here for resale shops, small businesses (even micro-businesses, hello HTA, are you there?), education companies, apparel companies, you-name-it.

And many important issues are left completely unaddressed. I have previously provided my most discrete list of CRITICAL missing elements that must be part of any meaningful amendment of the CPSIA:

• Risk Assessment by the CPSC and/or the Commission.
• Changes in age limits for the lead standards and phthalates ban.
• Narrowing of the scope of “Children’s Product” to eliminate many categories of products unthinkingly pulled into this law by its overly broad language.
• True reform to protect small businesses.
• Tracking labels relief.

My full list of needed changes is found here.

More fun to follow tomorrow, I am sure.

Read more here:
CPSIA – A Quick and Incomplete Analysis of New Draft Waxman Amendment 2.0

CPSIA – "Low Volume Manufacturers" under Waxman Amendment

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

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

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

To clarify, the definition intones:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s your small business relief. Enjoy!

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

Sorry, Henry! Let the sun shine in.

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

CPSIA – A Challenge to Inez Tenenbaum

In today’s House hearing featuring CSPC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, the subject of rhinestones (crystal beads) came up. At about the 1:42 point in her testimony , Rep. George Radanovich asked her about the real health risk posed by crystal beads in the context of his concern over the agency’s need for the flexibility to use risk-based analysis. Ms. Tenenbaum contended that “interpretation” of her comments on crystals have “muddied the waters”. She defended the banning of rhinestones on the basis that although crystal beads might not violate the previous “substantial injury or illness” standard of the FHSA, some beads have higher concentrations of lead that violate the new CPSIA standard. [For instance, leaded crystal, hence the name.] Rep. Radanovich questioned whether this matters as a practical safety matter since swallowing a bead is exceedingly unlikely to cause injury from lead. Ms. Tenenbaum stated that while leaching of lead from one bead poses no problem, “what if the child swallowed 50 small beads?” She goes on to note that the agency “could not determine” whether 50 beads would raise the blood levels of lead. [She apparently concedes that the only potential risk with beads (from lead) is from ingestion, not handling or airborne lead.] I was blown away by this statement from the Chairman of the CPSC. She didn’t sound concerned with safety; instead, she seemed to think that her job was to defend the law she was given to enforce. Her reasoning appears to be made solely in the context of this goofy law. Common sense is only relevant if the law says so, apparently. This leaves us high and dry. Who will stand up for rational safety policy if not her? Her analysis of the risks of swallowing stones is also mindboggling. First of all, and most importantly, in her testimony before Congress today, Ms. Tenenbaum defended setting national safety policy based on our society’s lowest common denominator, a child who would swallow FIFTY BEADS. Yes, she justifies the devastation of several industries and uncountable companies dependent on these decorative stones on the grounds that if a child swallows 50 beads, he/she might get lead poisoning. Remember, we are talking about eating ROCKS here. Who might these children be that swallow 50 beads? Completely unsupervised children at a minimum, for one thing. So Ms. Tenenbaum apparently believes that she must enforce the law in a way that protects children against the total abdication of basic care by parents, teachers and caretakers. [If that is really a sound basis for national policy, Big Brother is going to look good by comparison pretty soon.] Second, only children with real problems (unrelated to product safety) would eat 50 beads (rocks). I personally have never eaten a rock or a bead, have you? These are kids that have serious deficits. So we are trashing all these companies because children of this nature MIGHT be in danger. What percentage of society will benefit from this approach, and at the expense of how many other people? Interesting question? And let’s not forget . . . that if you swallow 50 beads (rocks), you have bigger problems ahead of you than lead poisoning. Amazingly, the Chairman of the CPSC is apparently so absorbed in enforcing this defective law that this important common sense point is seemingly lost on her. Check out her Congressional testimony. She was actually arguing with a member of Congress to defend the decision to ban these stones on this basis. If this isn’t proof of an upside down world, I don’t know what is. How is your confidence in the CPSC now? BUT what if Ms. Tenenbaum is RIGHT? Holy cow, what if you can get lead poisoning from crystal beads? She must have a basis for her assertions, right? Well, I have little kids that pass through my house all the time. As we know, rhinestones are not illegal to OWN, just illegal to sell. I happen to own some rhinestones and now I am WORRIED. So I want to know how Ms. Tenenbaum derived her conclusion that 50 rhinestones poses a health risk. Clearly, a sophisticated agency like the CPSC wouldn’t make such a direct statement in front of Congress without a firm basis for it. So, my challenge to Ms. Tenenbaum is to PROVE that 50 crystal beads are dangerous (as a source of lead poisoning). She told Rep. Radanovich they might be dangerous – now, let’s see the DATA and the MATHEMATICS. I think the U.S. public deserves to see it. But I don’t want to make things too tough on the CPSC. I will help out a bit here. The Fashion Jewelry industry submitted a lot of DATA to the CPSC back in February. I have absolutely nothing else to do with my time and gave up sleeping longggg ago, so I re-read the industry’s data with a calculator in hand. Here’s what I think is the right answer. Ms. Tenenbaum can correct my math if I am mistaken. 1. The industry says that a popular size of rhinestone is 10PP for children six years old and younger (the target market for CPSC enforcement). It takes 333 of this size stone to equal one gram (remember this number). There are typically 10-15 such stones in jewelry for this age group, so to swallow one gram of stones would require eating 20-30 bracelets. Yummy, munch munch. It takes fewer stones to equal one gram for larger stones, but then again, fewer such stones are used in each piece of jewelry, too. You can find the chart in the industry letter on page 8 and look it over yourself. Eating a gram of stones will take a lot of milk, plus access to piles of jewelry. I think it’s an ambitious project for a determined, hungry, totally unsupervised child with access to tools. 2. There’s lead in your food, your water and your air. I have previously gone over some of these numbers (actually more than once ). The industry notes that the FDA has standards for lead in the food supply and sets a provisional tolerable daily consumption limit of 6 micro-grams of lead for children seven years old and younger. This level of consumption of lead theoretically corresponds to a change of one micro-gram of lead per deciliter of blood. The corresponding tolerable consumption levels for kids older than seven is 15 micro-grams of lead per day in food and water. [The FDA doesn't set standards for the lead we breathe all day long, apparently, so let's just ignore that significant source of daily lead intake.] Studies show that daily dietary intakes of lead for children range as high as 1.17 micro-grams of lead on average, well below the standards established by the FDA. If every food was at the maximum lead content, children’s diets might contain as much as 3.5 micro-grams of lead, still okay. 3. The industry submitted studies that showed that, based on ONE GRAM of stones, saline tests leach out 0.15 micro-grams of lead. Acid-extractions tests on ONE GRAM of stones produces leaching of 0.52 micro-grams of lead. To equal the daily intake in an average diet, you would have to swallow (acid extraction test) at least two grams of stones. That’s 666 of the 10PP stones, or the equivalent of up to 70 pieces of jewelry. in an absolute worst case, most unforeseen case, a child would have to swallow 54 30PP stones (11 pieces of jewelry), 210 2-mm stones (about 20 pieces of jewelry) or 22 4-mm stones (4-6 pieces of jewelry). This is to produce ONE MICRO-GRAM of lead intake. [If you are worried about mouthing, multiple the stone count by 3.5.] To raise blood levels by one micro-gram per deciliter of blood, the basic measurable change in lead levels, a child would have to ingest SIX TIMES AS MUCH on a daily basis. For those of you who don’t have access to a calculator or can’t do mental math, this means that to raise blood levels by the minimum amount, you would need to ingest about 130 of the largest reported stones or about 4,000 of the most common ones every day. Based on mouthing only, the number rises to 450+ large stones or 14,000 of the common stones. That’s quite a mouthful. Ms. Tenenbaum, the answer please?

Original post:
CPSIA – A Challenge to Inez Tenenbaum