CPSIA – ECADA Manager’s Amendment

Here is the Manager’s amendment to the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA).  [Essentially changes offered by Mary Bono Mack.] The changes apparently include changes in lead in jewelry (age limits), removal of testing requirement for inaccessible components for phthalates, removing toys from outdoor recreational products and adding “class of products” to functional purpose exclusion process.

Read More:
CPSIA – ECADA Manager’s Amendment

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 – Why Does The Press Push Bad Ideas?

Last week, Justin Pritchard of the Associated Press again pressed the point that glassware with lead in the enamel should be recalled. He expressed shock at the “stunning” news that the CPSC reconsidered its view that the glasses are subject to the noxious lead regulations of the CPSIA.

Why did Mr. Pritchard find this outcome “stunning”? After all, in response to a question about the risks involved in the glasses, Pritchard had this to say in a TV interview: “The [lead and cadmium] levels are low in the sense of . . . no one is going to touch this glass, put their hand to their mouth and fall ill. This is a low level over time concern.” If the glasses are a low risk, why would he expect a federal regulator to waste time or resources on them?

Even more remarkably, Pritchard knows that the McDonalds Shrek glasses were found to be non-toxic by the CPSC. He broke the McDonalds story. The Shrek glasses present precisely the same “issue”. He also knows lead is only restricted in children’s products and that enamel coatings containing lead are permitted explicitly in the law (16 CFR 1303.2(b)(1)). There is no evidence that the presence of lead in the enamel has ever injured anyone. Ever.

So why is Pritchard continuing to push a story that he knows is defective? This puts it kindly. Let’s rule out that he is seeking a Pulitzer or has an ill-motive. Why would he do this?

Of course, we know there is a bias in reporting and in investigating that favors reporting “bad news”. Good news is not really considered news at all (except on the sports page). The media’s incentive is to publish terrifying stories – it sells papers and banner ads, and it’s natural for Congress to push legislation to save us from poorly understood threats as an extension of this trend. But something else is at play, it turns out.

This subject is analyzed in an interesting article by Jonah Lehrer in this week’s New Yorker magazine entitled “The Truth Wears Off”. Lehrer tries to explain why replication of scientific studies tends to show declining results over time. This is quite unexpected given that scientific studies are subject to peer reviews and are often published by periodicals with their own high standards of review. Lehrer notes that in small studies, weird results can show up (such as a 1930′s study which claimed that one Duke University student had ESP but later retesting revealed the student’s rapidly diminishing extrasensory powers . . .). In larger pools of data, results revert to a mean (this is called “funneling”). However even statistical significance doesn’t explain the phenomenon. Lehrer shows that we only get to see certain slices of data. Most data won’t be published because it’s not interesting or doesn’t confirm prejudices.

Put into a CPSIA context, Lehrer implicitly argues that media won’t write a story announcing that lead-in-enamel on your glassware is safe. Nor that you were always fine and your children weren’t in danger. Nor that there have been few injuries from lead in any children’s products. Nor that the few known injuries in the context of the large volume of products in use is actually a GOOD result. Nor that there are no identified victims of “phthalate poisoning” or that incidents of cadmium poisoning in American children are virtually unknown. The excuse – it’s not “newsworthy”. What’s the reality?

The reality is that we are exposed to a very imbalanced set of data. Quoting Michael Jennions, a biologist at the Australian National University, Lehrer argues that “the tendency of scientists and scientific journals [is] to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found.” If the null set (the “everything’s fine” news) doesn’t get reported, what does? Says Richard Palmer, a biologist at the University of Alberta, “We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some – perhaps many – cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

The same mantra over and over? The words “Rachel Weintraub” suddenly pop into my mind.

Lehrer continues: “[T]he problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. Stephen Jay Gould referred to this as the ‘shoehorning’ process.” Referring to studies in Asia that consistently confirm that acupuncture is effective, and studies in the West that show much poorer results, “Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness.”

Or to quote Robert Adler, anecdotes aren’t evidence.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University who once published a study entitled “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”, calls the phenomenon “significance chasing” where scientists play with numbers trying to find “anything that seems worthy”. In a news context, this is the same as Pritchard fingering the Super Hero glasses on the grounds that there is lead in the enamel even though he knows the Shrek glasses were safe. Maybe these other glasses are a problem?! Jeff Plungis of Bloomberg published an article on lead in Christmas light wires on December 8th because he apparently thought it was “interesting” and not well-known. Same thing.

Ioannidis says “It feels good to validate a hypothesis. It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends on it. And that’s why even after a claim has been systematically disproved . . .you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.” [Emphasis added]

Lehrer’s article is a great read, I recommend it to you.

So you can stop scratching your head. Pritchard and Plungis, Adler and Tenenbaum, Waxman and Schakowsky, Weintraub and Green, will all continue to beat the same drum. They know they’re right . . . they just can’t prove it. And they will continue to repeat themselves in spite of the facts of this case:

• There are (virtually) no known victims.
• The impact of the law cannot be measured.
• The nexus between lead in children’s products and purported injury to children is not proven. This means that the inclusion in the law of so many formerly unregulated categories of goods is absolutely unjustified.
• The benefits of prophylactic testing has been disproved by the passage of time – the last 29 months.
• The law targets small business and lets big business off the hook. Even since passage of the CPSIA, it is clear from data that big business are responsible for headline recalls.

I guess the media keeps on publishing these stories because it’s human nature. Unfortunately, many jobs and many futures have been damaged in the service of a human weakness. I like to think we can rise about such limitations. It is in the hands of the CPSC and Congress to solve this problem.

Let’s hope they do their job . . . sometime really soon.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Why Does The Press Push Bad Ideas?

CPSIA – Why Does The Press Push Bad Ideas?

Last week, Justin Pritchard of the Associated Press again pressed the point that glassware with lead in the enamel should be recalled. He expressed shock at the “stunning” news that the CPSC reconsidered its view that the glasses are subject to the noxious lead regulations of the CPSIA.

Why did Mr. Pritchard find this outcome “stunning”? After all, in response to a question about the risks involved in the glasses, Pritchard had this to say in a TV interview: “The [lead and cadmium] levels are low in the sense of . . . no one is going to touch this glass, put their hand to their mouth and fall ill. This is a low level over time concern.” If the glasses are a low risk, why would he expect a federal regulator to waste time or resources on them?

Even more remarkably, Pritchard knows that the McDonalds Shrek glasses were found to be non-toxic by the CPSC. He broke the McDonalds story. The Shrek glasses present precisely the same “issue”. He also knows lead is only restricted in children’s products and that enamel coatings containing lead are permitted explicitly in the law (16 CFR 1303.2(b)(1)). There is no evidence that the presence of lead in the enamel has ever injured anyone. Ever.

So why is Pritchard continuing to push a story that he knows is defective? This puts it kindly. Let’s rule out that he is seeking a Pulitzer or has an ill-motive. Why would he do this?

Of course, we know there is a bias in reporting and in investigating that favors reporting “bad news”. Good news is not really considered news at all (except on the sports page). The media’s incentive is to publish terrifying stories – it sells papers and banner ads, and it’s natural for Congress to push legislation to save us from poorly understood threats as an extension of this trend. But something else is at play, it turns out.

This subject is analyzed in an interesting article by Jonah Lehrer in this week’s New Yorker magazine entitled “The Truth Wears Off”. Lehrer tries to explain why replication of scientific studies tends to show declining results over time. This is quite unexpected given that scientific studies are subject to peer reviews and are often published by periodicals with their own high standards of review. Lehrer notes that in small studies, weird results can show up (such as a 1930′s study which claimed that one Duke University student had ESP but later retesting revealed the student’s rapidly diminishing extrasensory powers . . .). In larger pools of data, results revert to a mean (this is called “funneling”). However even statistical significance doesn’t explain the phenomenon. Lehrer shows that we only get to see certain slices of data. Most data won’t be published because it’s not interesting or doesn’t confirm prejudices.

Put into a CPSIA context, Lehrer implicitly argues that media won’t write a story announcing that lead-in-enamel on your glassware is safe. Nor that you were always fine and your children weren’t in danger. Nor that there have been few injuries from lead in any children’s products. Nor that the few known injuries in the context of the large volume of products in use is actually a GOOD result. Nor that there are no identified victims of “phthalate poisoning” or that incidents of cadmium poisoning in American children are virtually unknown. The excuse – it’s not “newsworthy”. What’s the reality?

The reality is that we are exposed to a very imbalanced set of data. Quoting Michael Jennions, a biologist at the Australian National University, Lehrer argues that “the tendency of scientists and scientific journals [is] to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found.” If the null set (the “everything’s fine” news) doesn’t get reported, what does? Says Richard Palmer, a biologist at the University of Alberta, “We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some – perhaps many – cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

The same mantra over and over? The words “Rachel Weintraub” suddenly pop into my mind.

Lehrer continues: “[T]he problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. Stephen Jay Gould referred to this as the ‘shoehorning’ process.” Referring to studies in Asia that consistently confirm that acupuncture is effective, and studies in the West that show much poorer results, “Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness.”

Or to quote Robert Adler, anecdotes aren’t evidence.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University who once published a study entitled “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”, calls the phenomenon “significance chasing” where scientists play with numbers trying to find “anything that seems worthy”. In a news context, this is the same as Pritchard fingering the Super Hero glasses on the grounds that there is lead in the enamel even though he knows the Shrek glasses were safe. Maybe these other glasses are a problem?! Jeff Plungis of Bloomberg published an article on lead in Christmas light wires on December 8th because he apparently thought it was “interesting” and not well-known. Same thing.

Ioannidis says “It feels good to validate a hypothesis. It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends on it. And that’s why even after a claim has been systematically disproved . . .you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.” [Emphasis added]

Lehrer’s article is a great read, I recommend it to you.

So you can stop scratching your head. Pritchard and Plungis, Adler and Tenenbaum, Waxman and Schakowsky, Weintraub and Green, will all continue to beat the same drum. They know they’re right . . . they just can’t prove it. And they will continue to repeat themselves in spite of the facts of this case:

• There are (virtually) no known victims.
• The impact of the law cannot be measured.
• The nexus between lead in children’s products and purported injury to children is not proven. This means that the inclusion in the law of so many formerly unregulated categories of goods is absolutely unjustified.
• The benefits of prophylactic testing has been disproved by the passage of time – the last 29 months.
• The law targets small business and lets big business off the hook. Even since passage of the CPSIA, it is clear from data that big business are responsible for headline recalls.

I guess the media keeps on publishing these stories because it’s human nature. Unfortunately, many jobs and many futures have been damaged in the service of a human weakness. I like to think we can rise about such limitations. It is in the hands of the CPSC and Congress to solve this problem.

Let’s hope they do their job . . . sometime really soon.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Why Does The Press Push Bad Ideas?

CPSIA – Thank You Sir, Please Give Me Another . . . .

Today I was assaulted with the news that our company had just received a bill for more than $4,000 to test one of our older items as required by one of our major retail clients. This particular retailers requires that we test every shipment to them using their lab, their prescribed assortment of tests and their pricing – at our expense. There are no exceptions to this rule and no negotiations are tolerated. It’s said to be “a cost of doing business”, and we are supposed to take this cost into account when we price our products to them.

This item has been tested I don’t know how many times. Many times in many forms. Every test was a pass. This latest $4,000 test told us NOTHING we didn’t already know. Had we done the tests ourselves using our primary test lab, we would have spent a fraction of the $4,000 we were required to pay by our retailer client. The product is no safer with this latest test. Most of the money (60%) went to phthalates testing.

Although there is nothing about this test that does NOT irritate me, proving the absence of the six banned phthalates is BY FAR the most offensive. We use materials that do not contain the banned phthalates. This is something that our supply chain management is supposed to address. Even more to the point, since these chemicals have been banned for almost two years for use in toys (for better or worse), they are largely absent from the supply chain without our doing anything at all. Yet, the geniuses who wrote the CPSIA require that we test each product, over and over, to prove they’re not there. Phthalates cannot spontaneously generate themselves – they are an ADDITIVE. Having jacked up penalties to the sky and hit several retailers with highly-publicized irrational and vindictive penalties, the CPSC has created a caustic environment in which testing is not negotiable with large retailers. Hence, we must prove again and again that the phthalates that weren’t there, aren’t there. This costs BIG MONEY. It accomplished absolutely nothing.

And the $4,000? We were theoretically supposed to charge the customer for the testing in our product pricing, but in fact, in most cases, we must absorb the cost. That’s the real world. So we make $4,000 less in profit. We have $4,000 less to invest in our business, $4,000 less to pay health care costs, $4,000 less to pay for innovative product development, $4,000 less to pay bonuses. No one is safer, either. And this is good for all of us? A good way to run a country?

And where did the $4,000 go? To China. The lab which our client requires we use is a public company, and the chosen lab is located in China. Notwithstanding the lab’s low operating costs, the prices we pay for this testing are full boat, un-discounted, nosebleed pricing. They simply vacuum up as much of our money as they are allowed, and your wonderful Democrat Congress shrieks with delight.

We’re so safe now . . . .

I can only hope that the jobs of the Democrats who are keeping us in this CPSIA hell aren’t as safe come November. That seems to be the only recourse we have left.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Thank You Sir, Please Give Me Another . . . .

CPSIA – Request to Post 60 Minutes Videos

There is something you can do to help raise awareness of the ills of the CPSIA – post the 60 Minutes segment “Phthalates: Are They Safe?” in your blog or on your Facebook page or other social media pages. You can also tweet links to this content. You can lift the “embedding” links needed to place the videos from my blog. Alternatively, you can always go to the 60 Minutes website and take links from there.

We need to ring bells loudly about this segment. A nationally-prominent news outlet has finally decided to look at the issues of the CPSIA unemotionally and objectively. The more people that see this segment, the better!

Thanks.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Request to Post 60 Minutes Videos

CPSIA – 60 Minutes Transcript of "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

The transcript of yesterday’s segment on phthalates may be found at this link.

Read more here:
CPSIA – 60 Minutes Transcript of "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

CPSIA – Extra 60 Minutes Video Content on Phthalates

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Read more here:
CPSIA – Extra 60 Minutes Video Content on Phthalates

CPSIA – 60 Minutes 5-23-10 Segment Video "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Read more here:
CPSIA – 60 Minutes 5-23-10 Segment Video "Phthalates: Are They Safe?"

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

Next Page »