CPSIA – Witness List for April 7th CPSIA Amendment Hearing

Memo to Members of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade: When you listen to Dr. Dana Best fling around numbers tomorrow, please remember that “bazillions” is not a real number. When she asserts that there are possibly “millions” of injured children from lead-in-substrate, please demand real, auditable data! The Witnesses: Panel 1 Mr. Robert Jay Howell Assistant Executive Director Hazard Identification and Reduction U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission  Dr. Barbara D. Beck, Ph.D., DABT, FATS Principal Gradient Dr. Dana Best, MD, MPH, FAAP American Academy of Pediatrics  Panel 2 Ms. Erika Z. Jones Partner Mayer Brown On Behalf of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association   Mr. Paul C. Vitrano General Counsel Motorcycle Industry Council Principal Ms. Sheila A. Millar Partner Keller and Heckman LLP Caroline Cox Research Director Center for Environmental Health Panel 3 Mr. Frederick Locker Locker Greenberg & Brainin PC Mr. Charles A. Samuels Member Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Mr. Dan Marshall Vice President, Handmade Toy Alliance Co-Owner, Peapods Natural Toys & Baby Care   Ms. Rachel Weintraub Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel Consumer Federation of America

See the original post:
CPSIA – Witness List for April 7th CPSIA Amendment Hearing

CPSIA – Can You Trust Me on the CPSIA Database?

I have received a fair bit of feedback on my recent posts relating to the CPSIA Database. You may recall that I highlighted the CPSC policy decision to knowingly post untrue and misleading complaints about consumer products on the grounds that they state the opinion of consumers of a “risk of harm”. Apparently, the ignorance of those opinions or outright, blatant error matters not to our CPSC market administrators. Our submission of a valid CPSIA test report and photographic evidence was not persuasive of our common sense position in the instant case.

[The rejection of a CPSIA test report in refutation of an invalid "product incident" complaint is fascinating, given the vigorous and oft-repeated consumer group assertion that consumers DEMAND test reports to feel "secure" that children's products are safe. Supposedly, consumers assume "somebody" is testing everything, or at least that's the poppycock the consumer groups flog. This is a bedrock "assumption" underlying the CPSIA. Isn't it interesting then that the CSPC apparently places so little stock in these critically important test reports???]

Par for the course, my comments in this space never get an official response. The substance of my complaints go unanswered – but in this case, the rumor mill is churning. That’s my answer, I guess. I am told that little birds (from the CPSC) are chirping that I am taking the CPSC’s response “out of context”.

This is a great tactic because the argument makes it unnecessary to respond to my points. It also changes the debate, from the substance of my database objections to the subject of my character. Lending credence to the vague and unproven accusations is the official stature of the CPSC and its staff. CPSC job titles convey credibility, and my lowly status as a “blogger” and a “Small Business” makes everything I write subject to doubt. Who knows more about safety and the law? Who is more trustworthy? Who speaks with greater authority? My character is an easy target, much easier to attack than my points about the database.

And how am I to defend myself? I don’t have the option to hide in the shadows and say they are twisting facts. You get to read what I say . . . .

I have long adhered to principles of truthfulness and full disclosure in this space. I defy you to find a better documented space devoted to analysis of the CPSIA and its wide-ranging impact. I use real data and link to actual source materials. In this case, I quoted from a letter from a senior CPSC official. I have not revealed who wrote it – for two reasons. First, this person speaks for the agency, and as such, it is the agency that is responsible. I think the institution should be accountable, even if individuals are its mouthpiece(s). Second, this is not personal and as a consequence, the identity of the email’s author is a secondary consideration. The law is the problem. The authorship of the email is off point.

Well, why don’t you decide for yourself? Can you trust me?

Email no. 1 (March 4, from our company):

“The LER 7273 that the initial complaint was issued for is a discontinued product and is no longer available for sale in our catalogs. I have attached a test report for this item showing its compliance to both ASTM F-963 and EN-71. I have also provided you pictures which clearly shows the hearts are much larger than the choke tube requirements.

Can you please confirm that the providing of this detail, which clearly shows that the product was tested to be in compliance and the additional photos clearly showing the product complies with the stated issue, would not appear in the database after March 11th?

This type of complaint is exactly what we find to be very troubling with the database to our industry. This is an example where someone saw a photo of a product and without even touching it or seeing it in person filed a claim that they feel it ‘might’ be a hazard. There is no indication of potential harm or actual harm caused, just a feeling that it might be dangerous. We were able to quickly provide testing documents and photographic evidence that the product is compliant to all applicable standards and product requirements with no potential choking hazard with the hearts provided with the product. The concern is that this unjustified complaint will be placed on the database with a reply from us that proves it is not an issue, but the damage has been done and the perception to the end consumer is that this product is not safe.

Thanks again for your help in understanding the application of the database and it’s intended applicability going forward.”

Email no. 2 (March 8, from our company):

“Our ten day response window is coming up fast on the complaint that we had issued against us. Have you had a chance to discuss the information I sent to you on Friday? Thanks.”

Email no. 3 (March 9, from CPSC):

“As we discussed last Friday , since we are in soft launch, the report will not be posted in the public database. When I called you last Friday, I told you the staff consensus was that but for soft launch the report of harm would be posted in the database, and you would have to decide whether to post a comment or a claim for material inaccuracy. When we discussed the issue further and I asked you to send me the information you sent last Friday, I did not understand that you were still attempting to resolve the issue in the ten day time frame.

I should make it clear from the outset that I am not the person within the agency with the delegated authority to handle material inaccuracy claims. This email reflects my opinions and not those of the Commission and has not been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you first approached me about this at ICPHSO, I told you that my gut reaction was that despite the concerns you raised, the Commission staff handling these issues would take the consumer’s report at face value as a claim raising a concern of a risk of harm. I explained then that your Firm could provide a comment with your objections to the report or object to the report as materially inaccurate. Given your concerns about the report, I raised the issue with the database team handling the issues and confirmed to you in our call last Friday that the response was the same. I also indicated that the claim of material inaccuracy would likely be denied. I explained that the personnel handling these matters were not making decisions as to whether the product was harmful but rather they would take a quick look at whether the report of harm articulates a risk of harm. I write to follow up further on this issue.

On its face, the report indicates a concern about a choking hazard which suggests that the consumer believes there is a risk of harm. On Friday, you sent photos and test results that you believe are sufficient to make out a claim of material inaccuracy, i.e., that the product cannot be said to present a risk of harm because it passed the small parts test. The sweet toy heart is larger than the small parts cylinder, and you have provided test reports indicating that the product passed the small parts test. However, in assessing whether a report of harm articulates a risk of harm, the staff is not adjudicating whether the product actually presents such a risk of harm. We have other processes for making that determination which require an assessment of the risk by Commission staff, including a subject matter expert – in this case, a physiologist on the issues relating to the likelihood of a choking hazard to children. Indeed, the Commission has recalled products as a substantial product hazard where the toy was slightly larger than the small parts cylinder but, because of the shape, when swallowed, the toy presented a choking risk to children. The ultimate adjudication of whether a product presents a hazard is covered by different regulations entirely and would require an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge. As I explained on Friday, the database process is set up to allow the manufacturer to state its reasons why the report does not present a risk of harm and have that appear next to the consumer’s report. The staff handling claims of material inaccuracy will not be determining the ultimate question of whether the product does, in fact, present a risk of harm. That would only occur after a full assessment of the risk of harm by the subject matters experts and ample opportunity for the firm to address the issues with our compliance staff. The disclaimer is intended to notify users that the information has not been evaluated and specifically states: The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the contents of the Consumer Product Safety Information Database, particularly with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of information submitted by persons outside of the CPSC.

When I raised this information with the team that has been delegated the authority for making these decisions, staff concluded that the report would be posted in the database but for soft launch, and it would be up to the Firm to decide whether it wants its test reports and photos posted as comments in response to the report. The conclusion was that this is the type of report that has been included in our databases in the past and would be included in the public database along with the manufacturer’s comments and the mandatory disclaimer as to the accuracy of the information in the public database.“

For the ease of your review, I have highlighted in blue the words which I quoted in my March 9th blogpost.

Can you trust me? I have nothing to say, please judge from the facts. For those that prefer to lurk in the shadows and bash my character without being in any way accountable, please remember that the truth will out. Eventually, it may not be my character that will be the big issue of the day.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Can You Trust Me on the CPSIA Database?

CPSIA – How We Were Forced to Deal with A Misleading Database Entry

As you may recall from yesterday, we were confronted with a false, misleading and inaccurate complaint submitted to the CPSIA database in its “soft launch”. We submitted definitive information to the CPSC attesting to the error (or whatever) by the filer and were REJECTED. We were told by a senior staff person at the agency (who should know better) that the complaint needed to be posted based on the facts (the filer THOUGHT she spotted a safety issue). Our evidence that the anonymous filer’s musings were flat-out WRONG were not persuasive because this is a “consumer database” and as such, our evidence did not reflect on how the anonymous filer felt. As far as I can tell, that’s all that matters, unless they misidentify our product. That seems to be the only “out” (although I can’t find that sentence in the law).

Get it? I wish I did.

In some respects, this controversy didn’t add up to much because the complaint won’t go into the database. No filings made during the “soft launch” will go into the database. It’s all practice (until tomorrow morning). However, the CPSC made a policy decision in our case. Don’t say you weren’t warned. NEXT TIME THIS COMPLAINT WILL GO INTO THE DATABASE.

Because everyone’s “practicing” now, we decided to practice by filing a “comment” to this complaint even though it won’t be published either. This will no doubt become a standard approach for most people. There’s little point and maybe even some downside to pushing back on a complaint. [What if the CPSC takes a look and makes a call that THERE IS A RISK OF HARM? It all seems so innocuous until they lower that boom on you . . . .] The soundest practice is probably to not protest these filings at all (feel the shaft yet?) and simply publish your own comments to be juxtaposed with the complaint.

To craft this “comment”, we consulted our lawyer. Cha-ching! Don’t worry, we’re used to legal fees at this point. I would note that this took two person’s time at our office and we had to drop everything to process this baloney complaint as if it were the most pressing matter in our little universe. Consider the cumulative waste of resources and the cost of distraction and disruption across the entire economy all owing to this database. Sounds grrrrrreat!

Our comment is reproduced here for your interest:

“The Smart Snacks Sweet Heart Sayings product has been tested for compliance with ASTM F963, the federally mandated safety standard for small parts and has passed all applicable tests with an independent test lab. The company believes this product incident report is materially inaccurate because the product does not present a small parts hazard and the complainant has provided no evidence to the contrary. As such this allegation is completely unsubstantiated.”

I wonder if Congress and the CPSC can come up with even more effective ways to piss me off. Chances are they are working on it right now! I can’t wait to raise more money for Republicans in the next election cycle . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – How We Were Forced to Deal with A Misleading Database Entry

CPSIA – NAM Letter Pounds the CPSIA Database

March 8, 2011

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

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

CPSIA – Come On, Sean, Get Real!

Sean Oberle took issue with my analysis of the Summer Infant recall of baby monitors tonight in an essay in the Product Safety Letter. In my recent blogposts, I noted that sale of the Summer Infant baby monitors can’t be resold without their kit of the label, the new instructions and the clips. True fact. As a practical matter, this is essentially a ban of resale of this item because in the REAL WORLD, resale shops do not have the time to lavish on researching this kind of nonsense.

Does ANYONE think a resale shop is going to verify that a baby monitor has the right sticker on it? What planet are you from? They WILL, however, note that this item has been recalled. In the mist of time, the reason WHY it was recalled will be long forgotten. Again, who has the time to figure all this out? Maybe Sean Oberle and Scott Wolfson, but the rest of us won’t do it.

That the items can somehow be resold legally is simply a technicality. Ask any resale shop.

As for my “confusion” between the “reason” for the recall and the “remedy”, I believe I was not confused at all. For one thing, the supposed “remedy” is no remedy at all. A warning label about the cord is superfluous by any definition and absurdly ineffective to prevent further harm. The “reason” for the recall has nothing to do with a hazard related to this item. It may relate to a proactive step recommended by the company’s lawyers, given the likelihood that they have been sued over the two unfortunate accidents. I stand by my position that this hazard falls into the category of parental supervision, not a product “defect”. I may not be alone in this view, to judge by the hundreds of comments on this MSNBC article.

More fantastic is Mr. Oberle’s characterization of the recall and how “voluntary” it was. I have no person knowledge of this situation, so perhaps he is right. Then again . . . rumors of CPSC coercion on this kind of thing are rampant. Threats of penalties, preemptive press releases and possible litigation have been rumored in many cases. Ms. Tenenbaum is not above sabor rattling in speeches, either. Think of last year’s ICPHSO keynote speech, for example. We have received at least one threat from the CPSC which I have thusfar restrained myself from discussing in this space. It’s very real. “Voluntary” is in the eyes of the beholder.

I must also say that I don’t see the benefit that the CPSC brings to this party IF the recall was “voluntary”. If this was REALLY the company’s idea, why does the CPSC have to sign off on it? Why is the CPSC in a better position to figure out how to best resolve this informational issue? After all, Summer Infant had 1.7 million reasons to get this right (plus an unknown number of lawsuits). I don’t buy the idea promoted by Mr. Wolfson in the Chicago Tribune’s hyperbolic article on pool drains: “CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson declined to comment on AquaStar’s actions. In general, though, he said: ‘A company is not allowed to take unilateral action that is intended to fix a safety problem with their product without reporting and coordinating that action with the CPSC.’” Scott, where does it say that, precisely?

Even more to the point, why is this a “recall” anyhow? The CPSC could have avoided the entire issue by labeling this event an “alert”. There would be no implications for resale shops had they chosen that path. Was it REALLY the company’s idea to RECALL these items? Were they offered an “alert” but refused? Oh, sure.

At some point, I hope the CPSC will take more responsibility for its actions, rather than justify whatever they choose to do. Mr. Wolfson may have an answer for everything but that doesn’t make the agency’s actions right, fair or appropriate. The many comments on the MSNBC article indicate that no one is being fooled. Recall upon recall upon recall is alienating the public, NOT making them feel safer.

Come on, Sean, get real. The CPSC can raise its game, and as a member of the Fourth Estate, you can push them in that direction. I am not the enemy here.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Come On, Sean, Get Real!

CPSIA – Appropriate Recall Points Out The Real Problem

795 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 15 days left until Election Day.

The CPSC today announced a recall of a product called “Bathtub Subs”. The battery-operated bathtub submarine toy is “yellow, has a smiling face, turquoise windows, an orange propeller and an orange periscope that turns the toy on and off. The intake valve has a water pump that sucks in water to propel the submarine.” The cringe-worthy problem: “The intake valve on the bottom of the submarine toy can suck up loose skin, posing laceration hazard to children. . . . CPSC and the company are aware of 19 incidents of lacerations to boys’ genital area. One of the incidents required medical attention.”

This product has a real safety issue, and it has nothing to do with lead. We can understand the problem because the issues can be described accurately and the injuries can be measured. This is how we can measure the right response. The product was aimed at very young children (toddlers) in bath-time play. It seems foreseeable that the toy might rest against “sensitive” areas. The product was not apparently designed with this risk in mind. Please contrast your ability to assess the issue here with, say, rocks, fossils, pens, ATVs, bicycles, musical instruments, children’s underwear, shoes, books and other products that have famously run afoul of the CPSIA’s restrictions on lead without demonstrating any apparent safety issues.

As a toy maker, I hate when this kind of problem happens. It makes all of us look bad, even we had nothing to do with the issue. We all get blamed for problems caused by other companies. This is how CPSIA’s are born.

There were 19 incidents in the last year with this product. Makes you wonder what it takes to get someone to do something about the issue. Do you think this was a “mystery”? Here’s what you find on the Amazon.com review page today (before it gets taken down):

“Dangerous toy, May 25, 2010
By Tyler Warren

I bought this toy for my 12 month old son. He was playing with it in the bath one evening and put it down in his lap. It sucked up some skin on his penis and cut it. I called and put in a complaint to Munchkin and I am very disappointed that this toy is still on the market a month later. This toy is dangerous and should not be given to children.

Comment Initial post: June 15, 2010 8:37 PM PDT

Julie Everett says:

The same thing happened to my 19 month old son tonight. I reported it to the CPSP [sic]. You should do the same since the company didn’t take you seriously. My son has injuries to his penis and testicles. Here is the link if you like. https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx

Very Dangerous, June 15, 2010
By Julie Everett (Florida)

My son loves this toy. Tonight he was playing with it in the tub and also set it in his lap and it sucked some of the skin from his penis and his testicles and cut both of them. I will be filing a complaint with the company as well. Do not buy this for your child!

I agree it is a dangerous toy…, August 8, 2010
By Pamela Beightol (Falconer, NY United States)

I had the same thing happen to my 15 month old when he was playing with the toy. His skin from his penis got cut after about 3 minutes play with the toy. I would not let my 5 year old play with it either.

I would have given it no stars if possible, August 26, 2010
By Kendall Tupker

The same thing happened to my 13 month old son. We had just given him this toy to play with in the bathtub and within a few minutes he was screaming in pain. While he was holding it in the water near his lap it caught his foreskin and cut him. Needless to say the sub ended up in the garbage and I made a complaint to the company. Never, ever buy this toy.”

This was publicly available on Amazon for months before either the company or the agency did anything about it. By all appearances, neither did Amazon.

Let’s face it, this item is not exactly a dire threat to our way of life. That being said, this kind of insensitivity to consumer needs and expectations is how unjust laws like the CPSIA get written, passed and revered. It is also raw, red meat for a headline-mad CPSC anxious to justify its existence and its budget. Do I hear massive penalties?! Manufacturers have to think ahead and consider whether they want stories like this told about them. This is a compliance issue, a duty of care issue. It is NOT an issue that requires legislation. Unfortunately, nothing is routine at our regulator these days. Who knows what the implications will be flowing from this recall.

One last thought: among the many reasons that I truly HATE the CPSIA, it is the rising spectrum of a liability feeding frenzy over children’s product safety. This can ruin what we are doing, and in any event, I don’t relish planning my business around protecting myself from ravaging trial attorneys. Paranoid? Well, I received notice of this recall at 5:40 PM CST and in the next 15 minutes found these two sites devoted to this very recall:

Lawsuit Settlement Funding and Lawyers-and-Settlements.com. The latter website invites: “If your child has suffered an injury related to the use of this product, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a lawyer who may evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.” Remember, this was up within 15 minutes of the announcement of the recall.

Think of the chaos that will follow the much-anticipated public database. We can only pray that a Republican Congress will de-fund the database before it gets off the ground. Or else we’ll all be in the ground . . . .

Vote on November 2nd. It’s your duty!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Appropriate Recall Points Out The Real Problem

CPSIA – Take the Product Safety Letter Survey on the Waxman Amendment

The Product Safety Letter is gathering your opinions of the noxious Waxman Amendment in a survey closing on March 31. This is a great way to add your voice to the din over this dangerous piece of legislation.

Remember, your entry is due by next Wednesday. Thanks!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Take the Product Safety Letter Survey on the Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – A 52-Page Morsel for You to Nibble On!

How many pages do you think are necessary to define “Children’s Product”?

Okay, I bet you said 52 pages. That’s cheating! Here is the CPSC’s stab at the definition. No, I haven’t read it yet. It’s 1 AM and I have decided to take a little nap before the sun comes up.

I will be back to you on this important document.

Read more here:
CPSIA – A 52-Page Morsel for You to Nibble On!

CPSIA – Treatment of Section 101(b)(2) in the New Waxman Amendment

i have attached a conformed version of Section 101(b) reflecting the new Waxman amendment’s proposed changes for your reference.

The dilemma posed by the current Section 101(b)(2) is that exclusions to the lead standard are basically impossible to obtain. There have been several rejected exemption requests and much pleading by Nancy Nord and Anne Northup for changes providing flexibility.

Last December, Mr. Waxman (supposedly with input from Chairman Tenenbaum) launched a sneak effort to implement something called the “functional purpose” exemption to “solve” these issues. The original construct of this exemption applied to situations where the manufacturer could demonstrate that the lead served a “functional” purpose and could not be removed without consequences (not including economic loss). This provision would have permitted ATV manufacturers to assert the need to put lead in certain parts to strengthen the steel, for instance. The functional purpose concept derives from a similar procedure under the EU’s ROHS-WEEE and is also present in the treatment of electronics under the CPSIA.

Waxman’s functional purpose language generated howls of protest as the “solution” solved nothing for anyone. Later, the Commission could not agree on a functional purpose recommendation for its January 15h report, and the idea “died”.

In the new Waxman Amendment which emerged last week, a new version of the functional purpose exemption was introduced to modify Section 101(b)(2). You may find the conformed version of Section 101(b)(2) helpful in understanding how the new provision works.

My thoughts on the new language:

a. The limitations of the exemption process in Section 101(b)(1) are UNCHANGED. In other words, the problematic “any” language is still effective. The new functional purpose exception will be an exception to the exception. Get it?

b. The Section 101(b) structure which limits exceptions to specific products, materials (or component part, in the case of the functional purpose section) remains in place. The language does NOT permit exceptions by product class. You must apply product by product, material by material. The rule even specifies that each component must be individually considered. How many parts are in an ATV . . . .

c. The Commission is now allowed to act “on its own initiative” to exempt “a specific product, material, or component part”. A petitioner may also seek the same relief.

It is hard to imagine how this would take place – will a Commission of five people pick lucky companies or industries for random acts of kindness? Of course, the first products likely to be accorded this “on its own initiative” treatment would be books, ATVs and bikes because of political pressure. [Let's not call that "influence peddling".] More complex product categories, like school supplies (my industry), would be stuck without an effective means to seek exemption.

d. The process, regardless of who initiates it, will be subject to a notice and comment period. This is new and presumably is designed to enable consumer groups to “participate in” (read, slow down or obstruct) the exception process. You have to hand it to the authors of this provision – they found a way to make a slow, expensive and tedious process even worse.

e. The standard for obtaining a functional purpose exception has several parts (all of which must be satisfied) -

“(i) the product, material, or component part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture such product, component part, or material in accordance with subsection (a) by removing the excessive lead or by making the lead inaccessible.”

This clause has several tricky parts in it. First, the word “practicable” was supposedly chosen because of a Supreme Court decision holding that “practicable” implies consideration of economic factors. So bickering over what “practicable” means is almost certain under this provision. The legal standard will need to be developed to make this provision workable – another nice project for Cheryl Falvey and her CPSC legal department. No guidance has been provided on how much economic pain needs to be incurred before lead removal is deemed not “practicable”. Consider for instance the use of recycled metal for bike frames. When is removal of lead from bike frames not “practicable”? Each frame is presumably different. Virgin metal is available without lead. You figure it out, I can’t.

Let’s not forget that the amendment also uses the term “technologically feasible” as defined in CPSIA Section 101(d). The CPSIA definition omits any reference to economics – intentionally. So the phrase “is not practicable or not technologically feasible” means that it is either too expensive or impossible to remove lead. This makes no sense to me, as the term “practicable” with its advertised meaning incorporates technologically feasibility and makes inclusion of the latter term duplicative. If there is a reason to use both terms, I can’t figure it out. Readers?

In addition to the problematic standard of “practicable”, the petitioners must also demonstrate that it is both too expensive to remove the lead to levels below the standard AND also too expensive to make the part inaccessible. Since the standard for “too expensive” (not “practicable”) is not specified, this language means we must invite the CPSC, the Commission and (due to the notice and comment period) the general public and our competitors into our business processes. That rag-tag lot will get to decide whether the expense of money on the removal of lead from the subject product, material or component is “practicable”. Yes, that’s what it means – you must publicly expose your judgments and economic choices to the Commission for their feedback and approval. Presumably, this would require you to publicly disclose your costs to obtain the “not practicable” decision.

That really sounds like FUN! I can’t see a deterrent to submitting a petition . . . can you?

“(ii) the product, material, or component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested, taking into account normal and foreseeable use and abuse of such product, material, or component part by a child; and”

Two years ago, I might have thought this was reasonable language. In a world where logic prevails, this language is something that most companies could fairly easily (and probably already do) consider. However, after Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony about rhinestones on September 10, 2009 in which she speculated about the ingestion of 50 rhinestones by a child, it is hard to predict which imaginary risk the CPSC will fixate on. Recent events suggest that “foreseeable” is now in the eyes of the beholder.

“(iii) an exception for the product, component part, or material will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety.”

This third plank in the exception standard is supposedly meant to connote that contact with a subject product which produces less than 1 micro-gram per deciliter change in blood lead levels (the smallest increment for measuring blood lead levels today) is okay. It does not say so explicitly but wink-wink-nudge-nudge, that’s what it means.

Unfortunately, the precision of this “standard” promises more than it delivers. There are few identifiable lead threats in children’s products that could foreseeably cause this kind of change in blood lead levels other than lead-in-paint (probably above 90 ppm, too) and lead in jewelry. So if each case must be argued and decided, isn’t the standard and the process some sort of sham? I think the difficulty and expense of proving the negative in this case is a strategy by the Dems to keep their ridiculous standard in place while appearing to be magnanimous in offering an exception process. Few companies will get exceptions.

Sadly, fear does not allow for the use of science. There’s a lot of hypocrisy here, too. Apparently, the risk from lead in handlebars of a bike is far more worrisome than lead in our air, water or food supply. Likewise, it must be far more serious than, say, lead-in-paint on cars and boats (both of which are perfectly legal). And for those cases which this law obsesses over, lead-in-substrate in children’s products, the zealots cannot agree on how to measure what’s safe – mainly because they don’t know. Let’s not forget that Commissioner Bob Adler wrote a lengthy paper )with 89 footnotes) on how there is NO safe level for lead. The non-scientists who now control this issue have even drafted a MOVING target for safety – it is dependent on what we can measure. If we can measure lead blood levels more precisely in the future, the exception standard will automatically tighten. Like a noose.

f. The Commission can require a warning label for those items afforded an exception under this strict standard. What? Are they going to warn us that the product is safe? No, it’s Proposition 65 creeping into federal law – apparently, the Dems think that the Commission may decide to warn the public that they weren’t able to rid these items of lead, even though they have determined in an investigation that the products are safe. Again, since the zealots think “there is no safe level for lead”, it is very scary for them to concede that anything could be safe if it contains lead. This is a belief system, stop trying to figure it out.

Btw, have any of you ever tried selling a children’s product with such a warning label? At our company, we would drop such an item rather than try to sell it. No one will buy such a product for their child or for use in their classroom. The imposition of a Prop. 65-style lead warning on a children’s product is a tacit ban.

g. The petitioner has the burden of proof in applying for an exception under this provision. That means a small business has to make the same case as a Big Business. Why not simply say that small businesses can’t have an exception under this provision?

The petitioner may utilize data submitted by other petitioners in making its case, but there is no requirement that such data be made publicly available. In recent cases, the submission of the petitioners has not always been made public.

h. The language allows a sunset date to be imposed for the exceptions, even though the very terms of the exception requires that the CPSC conclude that public health and safety will not be imperiled by sale of the product. I am made to understand that the motivation behind this illogical provision is that exceptions should not last forever. Why not? I think it’s the belief system again, or it could be some sense of unjust enrichment. In any event, the CPSC would be empowered to force the continued gratuitous erosion of a company’s cost structure for no particular reason other to remedy the offense of an exception to the rule.

i. The exception will have retroactive effect unless otherwise specified by the Commission. This sounds good . . . other than the fact that we have been shooting our businesses in the foot since August 2008. The ability to give retroactive effect to exceptions might have been valuable two years ago. To put it in an amendment now, two years too late, is an insult to the regulated community. Alternatively, it is yet more evidence of the absolute inability of Democratic legislators to even SIMULATE understanding of business issues under this law.

Next up – discussion of the Resale Shop Exception under Section 101(b)(3).

Read more here:
CPSIA – Treatment of Section 101(b)(2) in the New Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 25

The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety’s “CPSIA Casualty of the Week” highlights how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is disrupting the U.S. marketplace in order to draw attention to the problems faced by small businesses, public institutions, consumers and others trying to comply with senseless and often contradictory provisions of the law. These provisions do nothing to improve product safety, but are driving small businesses out of the market.

Congress and the CPSC need to address the problems with CPSIA implementation to help small businesses by restoring “common sense” to our nation’s product safety laws.

CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 25, 2010

CPSIA Means No Bling for Baby

When Elementary School teacher Marcy Cohen had her first baby girl, she and her sister Lori Rockoff, a social worker, started making tiny accessories for the newest addition to the family. With only a few strands of hair to adorn, the sister team developed “no slip” clips and bows. Soon, their sparkling rhinestone creations were catching the eye of friends and strangers, prompting them to launch Pea Soup Accessories for Kids, which quickly became a leading manufacturer of hand-made children’s products. Their trendy product line includes a wide variety of accessories from embellished headbands to ornate socks.

Yet, while the sisters behind Pea Soup were busy supplying hundreds of high-end boutiques, Congress was working on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) to devise new testing standards of the metal and crystal embellishments that give Pea Soup accessories their unique flair. While none of Pea Soup’s products ever had any safety or lead problems, the confusing nature of the CPSIA forced the sisters to make substantial changes to much of their line.

“We did not want to take any chances with violating the new law,” says Marcy. “In order to avoid any risks, we scrapped many of the products in our line and had to manufacture new ones with different and compliant materials.”

As a result of the law and the cost of the required testing, Pea Soup was forced to significantly change their product line, eliminating much of the creative embellishments that made their accessories distinctive and leaving them with thousands of dollars worth of perfectly safe (and adorable) unsalable inventory.

For more information about Pea Soup visit, http://www.peasoupaccessories.com/about_us/

For additional information on the Alliance for Children’s Product Safety and CPSIA, and to view previous “Casualties of the Week, visit http://www.AmendTheCPSIA.com/

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 25

Next Page »