CPSIA – Tenenbaum/Adler Comments Revealed

A little birdie dropped off what are purportedly the comments of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Bob Adler on the Waxman Amendment. This is one interesting document. First of all, it’s quite secret (but not anymore). You can’t find it on the CPSC website. Other members of the CPSC community haven’t seen it and have been refused a copy. It also doesn’t have Tenenbaum’s or Adler’s name on it so it has appropriate deniability. Oddly, it speaks in sentence fragments. Hmmm. In an era of greater “transparency”, this secrecy is something of a shock. Perhaps the Prince of Darkness is at work here.

Among the “highlights”:

• The comments recommend incorporation in the legislative report of the consumer group belief system assertion that there is no safe level of lead. If enacted, this change would enable, if not instruct, the Commission to reason from this “principle” and presumably ban many safe products. The hypocrisy of this position (or its obliviousness) in light of the permitted lead in our air, water and food is part and parcel of the CPSIA.
• The suggested report language clarifying the “no measurable adverse effect on public health and safety” will perpetuate the exemption morass confronting the Commission and regulated community. The comments state explicitly that anything that can be empirically measured will be impermissible, the exemption process will remain a hollow shell, a phantom provision. Why not just delete the exemption process and save everyone a lot of time, money and aggravation?
• Tenenbaum and Adler seem to miss the point that requiring a warning label for a product deemed safe is fatally inconsistent. Why warn for something determined to be safe in an exemption process? They ask for more discretion – to do what? What exactly is the risk here?
• The Commissioners note an openness to using a different term than “low volume manufacturer”, such as “small batch manufacturer”. This is apparently important to the HTA but seems to connote nothing of substance as both phrases are just terms or labels. I am stumped.
• The Commissioners basically go along with the definition of “low volume manufacturer”. As if to dispel any notion that they favor relief for small business, they note simply that the $200,000 revenue limit should be restricted to manufacturing or importing revenue. The fact that this revenue level is both absurdly low and that the provision itself is designed to be useless to almost everyone did not garner comment from Tenenbaum and Adler.
• Their comment about the need to “assure” compliance by LVMs confirms my reading of the Waxman Amendment that it is NOT designed to change testing requirements on small companies – they must ALL “assure” compliance through a reasonable testing program. The “assurance” will require third party testing. Here is the comment offered by Tenenbaum and Adler: “At this time, CPSC staff believe that reasonable testing methodologies meeting this criterion could be developed for only a few of the CPSIA testing requirements and that third party testing will still be required in many instances. However, this provision could provide greater relief in the future as new technologies develop that the agency may be able to recognize as capable of ensuring compliance through reasonable testing methodologies.” I guess LVMs can lump it . . . .
• The comments clarify that “imminently hazardous consumer products” incorporate the definition in Section 12 of the CPSA. Here is the definition from the CPSA: “[The] term ‘‘imminently hazardous consumer product’’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” The comments simply remove any reference to “being made aware of” – perhaps to avoid the implication that the CPSC has to act before it has “identified” the risk, whatever that may mean. Remember, current law requires going to court – the new language merely requires that the agency “identify” the risk. That’s quite a change – especially if you are on the receiving end. Think baby slings.

The comments by Tenenbaum and Adler did not comment on the perils of the “technical” provisions in the Waxman Amendment previously documented in this space. As I have noted, Rumorville has it that some or all of these changes appeared on a mysterious and secret document sent by Tenenbaum to the Hill with her 20 requests for changes to the CPSA and CPSIA. This secret document has not been revealed yet. It is therefore no surprise that her comments would endorse the approach of the Waxman Amendment (as in the foregoing tweaks). Perhaps Rumorville is right that these changes were made at her request or with her consent.

Consider the noxious changes to Section 6(b) of the CPSA – Tenenbaum and Adler apparently see nothing to comment on. Did you realize that the Waxman changes permit release of information based on a phone call? Say you make a Section 15 report, the CPSC does some interviews, creates internal documents, sends letters and emails back and forth to you – and a plaintiff’s attorney calls for disclosure of these confidential exchanges and papers. The CPSC may simply ask how quickly the lawyer needs them. Did you also know that this release can be done without notice or even the knowledge of the parties affected by the information release? Did you know that the new language even permits the CPSC to release information it knows to be FALSE? Due process doesn’t matter when you are protecting kids!

Can you believe that Tenenbaum and Adler had no comments on this terrible provision?

Or, how about the problems associated with damage to physical evidence subpoenaed by the CPSC which are also the subject of a civil suit? There is apparently substantial risk that this would be held against the defendant (you) under a principal called “spoliation of evidence“. What might happen? If the evidence is damaged, “[the] finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.” Ouch – that means you lose, big.

To judge by their comments, it appears that Tenenbaum and Adler don’t believe we deserve any procedural protections here.

It would appear that the “governing principle” demonstrated by yesterday’s passage of the health care bill applies here. There is little need for Democrats to try to build a consensus. They have control, so bipartisan support will only be achieved when those with opposing views capitulate or are outvoted. Brave New World, I feel so safe now. . . .

Very disappointing.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Tenenbaum/Adler Comments Revealed

CPSIA – Duplicity and Sleight of Hand in the Waxman Amendment

The icing on the cake of the Waxman Amendment is their sneakiness. As if the problems already reported were not enough, the Dem authors greedily tossed in some real bombs, all using language sufficiently opaque to obscure their meaning. I presume this was some sort of “clever” gambit to escape attention.

You deserve to know more.

First, by way of background, let’s review how we got to this point. The CPSIA was signed into law in August 2008 and howls of pain and protest began immediately. For more than a year, the Dems asserted that the law was perfect and the CPSC would fix the “unintended consequences”. Over time, overwhelming evidence mounted to prove that the law needed to be changed, the CPSC could not fix everything without help and most disappointing, not all the bad consequences were ‘unintended”. After more than a year of bickering, Henry Waxman unilaterally tried to sneak a CPSIA amendment into an omnibus bill in December but failed. Finally, the CPSC Commission was ordered to submit a list of recommended CPSIA changes to the House Appropriations Committee on January 15. The Commission issued its report on time but could only come to consensus on a small handful of items.

In the wake of the Commission report, this amendment was drafted by Waxman’s staffers to “fix” the CPSIA.

But . . . a couple other things happened. First, it is my understanding that Inez Tenenbaum sent a secret list of 20 changes she wanted to the Waxmanis. [I have not seen this document; its existence is an open secret.] So apparently, the Commission report was for public consumption, but the Chairman had her own wish list for private viewing.

The second thing that happened was that the Waxmanis decided (perhaps with the encouragement of Tenenbaum) to use this amendment as a way to further amend the original CPSA (dating back to 1972) and make things WORSE for you and your businesses. These changes were cloaked in seemingly technical jargon at the end of an the amendment. [Connsumer groups had also expressed support for these changes in recent public meetings.]

Let’s look at what the Waxmanis are trying to do:

a. An Open Door to Confidential Information. Section 6(b) of the CPSA provides a notice period before disclosure of information to the public by the CPSC. Among other things, this provision requires that the Commission must give notice to the manufacturer of the disclosure to permit comment and dialogue, as well as the initiation of court actions (injunctions) to prevent the disclosure of such information (this is called “due process”). The Commission is also obligated to make sure “that such disclosure is fair in the circumstances and reasonably related to effectuating the purposes of this Act”. This provision essentially provides a check-and-balance to prevent the unfair coopting of the information disclosure process against manufacturers.

The amendment makes the following change to Section 6(b)(1): “striking ‘its public disclosure’ and inserting ‘initiating the public disclosure’”. Wow. I can tell you’re reeling from the significance of this change.

Okay, what’s the big deal? Is there ANY difference here? Yes, in fact, there is. By changing these three words, Section 6(b) now applies ONLY to disclosures initiated by the Commission. Isn’t that everything? No. What kind of information disclosures might NOT be initiated by the Commission? Freedom of Information Act requests by, say, reporters, plaintiff attorneys or consumer groups.

Uh-oh.

Let me state this a little more clearly – the changes in the Waxman Amendment take away ALL protection of businesses on FOIA requests and allows the (passive) disclosure without prior notice. You lose ALL protection under 6(b) with this tiny change of three words. This would apply to all investigative files (like any of your Section 15 reports) and other confidential correspondence between you and the CPSC. Presumably, if enacted, that confidential material could show up on the front page of the Chicago Tribune WITHOUT NOTICE. [Disclosure of trade secret information is regulated by Section 6(a) and is presumably not eroded by this amendment.]

The relationship between this provision and the Public Database is not clear. It might change (reduce) the flimsy protections already in place, or might provide a way for reporters, plainiff attorneys and consumer groups to get at information that might not appear in the database.

This provision is entitled “CLARIFICATION OF LAW” in the Waxman Amendment. That is a plain, unambiguous LIE. The authors of this amendment think you are a fool.

b. Subpoena Authority Loses Its Check-and-Balance. The amendment changes the rules on subpoenas in two important ways. First, in another “clarification of law”, Section 27(b)(3) is amended “by striking ‘documentary evidence’ and inserting ‘documentary and physical evidence’”. This change does not incorporate any reasonableness standard and thus allows the CPSC to subpoena evidence in private suits regardless of the consequences, and even more importantly, can subpoena inventory as a backdoor way to recall it. This is unfettered government power. Is that a good idea?

The second change requires a little background. The Commission has broad powers to delegate its powers to staff – except for subpoena power. So, if the CPSC wants to issue a subpoena, there is a procedural check-and-balance in place to require the additional step of seeking Commission approval. The Commission, being an entity visible to the public, presumably would be less wrapped up in the emotions of an investigation and be capable of more balanced judgments. It’s a procedural safeguard that protects the integrity of the system but is highly unlikely to slow an investigation detrimentally.

The amendment, however, gives the Commission the power to delegate its subpoena power now. This opens up the possibility of zealous staffers who could use subpoena power to harass or even punish “uncooperative” firms, all outside of public view. There would be no due process protections to rely on, either. This is yet another expansion of government power – but with little demonstrated need. [In other words, what terrible things have happened that could only be fixed with this legislative change?]

c. Information Disclosures in Voluntary Recalls Ratchets Up. The CPSC recently put out a 17 page Federal Register notice of its requirements for Mandatory Recall notices. Memorized it yet? Why not?! Of course, you may be forgiven for feeling you could ignore it, since mandatory recalls are quite rare and usually relate to severe risks to public health and safety. Most recalls are voluntary, which means mandatory provisions are rarely used. In any event, if it ever comes to this, the disclosure probably needs to be more comprehensive and significant.

For those reasons, I did not comment on these rules. They seemed irrelevant to me. G-d forbid such a thing should happen on my watch. Pew-pew, knock wood. I may not have been the only one to look at it this way.

Oops, my bad. The amendment makes these provisions apply to VOLUNTARY RECALLS. Sneak attack? Perhaps. The rules for mandatory recalls includes several obnoxious requirements, making compliance much more burdensome and expensive, not to mention potentially devastating to your business.

d. If You Liked the Baby Slings Warning, You’ll Just Love This Change. Knowing you as I do, I imagine you are thinking “I wish the CPSC could act more impetuously and strike out at entire product classes or industries without doing studies or anything too science-y.” Well, it’s really your lucky day!

The Waxmanis sent you an early Christmas gift with their proposed change to CPSA Section 5(a) requiring the Commission to “promptly inform and educate consumers regarding a class of imminently hazardous consumer products upon identifying or being made aware of such a class of products.’’

And how will this work? “[Whenever] the Commission identifies or is made aware of a class of imminently hazardous consumer products, the Commission shall take appropriate steps to inform and educate consumers through the media, State and local governments, and private organizations regarding such class of products and the nature of the hazard.’’

I believe that the CSPC must go to court to do this now.

I have just a few questions:

- What about due process?
- What are the procedural safeguards?
- What constitutes a “class of imminently hazardous consumer products”? What steps must the Commission take to reach that conclusion? Is reading an AP story enough? [I presume the answer is yes.]
- Who will protect innocent companies inadvertently slandered by your advice? [For example, the baby slings warning apparently related to very young babies or preemies, but the headlines applied to everything in the product class. Too bad for companies making safe baby slings for older babies?]
- When the CPSC jumps the gun and hurts companies or entire industries needlessly or in error, who will pay the damages? Do we get a bailout?

Call me a cynic, but I think this erosion of safeguards is just a mite troubling.

There are probably other ticking bombs in this legislation that I haven’t found or told you about. I think you get the point nonetheless.

Two more thoughts:

1. These four changes significantly erode protection of corporate interests under the CPSA. This makes doing business MUCH riskier and invites a lot of randomness into our business lives. It also makes it tough to believe you can trust the CPSC during a Section 15 investigation or other altercation. If you have a real worry about how you will be treated, do you experience a heightened incentive to cooperate or to hide? Will this raise the rate of disclosure of problems, or provide an incentive to bury the problems?

If disclosure to the CPSC now involves certain pain, why would people bring misery on themselves voluntarily? And when more people start to hide – and are found and punished – will the cries for stricter rules rise or fall? They will rise, as howling consumer advocates will assert that this is “proof” of the venality of corporations. The “only” solution will be even stricter rules and higher penalties. Perhaps we should all be sent to jail preemptively, save some time.

2. I hope you share my utter outrage at the arrogance and effrontery of the duplicity and sneakery of the Waxmanis. Such arrogance is only possible when public officials feel that they are beyond reach. This deception shows clearly how high and mighty the Waxmanis feel, how imperious their attitude. Their anticipated ultimatum to the business community to fall in line behind this amendment is more of the same. It’s rather revealing.

There is no reason to puzzle over disillusionment with our government. The Dems blew it . . . and continue to blow it. This amendment was a chance to build bridges and mend fences. Insead, the Dems go on a rampage.

I am tired of being treated like this by my own government.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Duplicity and Sleight of Hand in the Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – Phthalates and Lead Limits in Waxman Amendment

Two minor but important points in the new Waxman Amendment relate to the ban on phthalates and the 100 ppm lead standard looming in August 2011.

Phthalates: The phthalates ban has been clarified to exclude “inaccessible” components, thus reducing the cost of testing for victims of this poorly-conceived law. The definition of “inaccessible” is based on foreseeable use and abuse by children. The term “reasonably foreseeable use and abuse” is defined, lest anyone misconstrue what the Waxmanis want it to mean, and hence new concepts have been incorporated: “breaking” as well as “the aging of the product”. In the past, “reasonably foreseeable use and abuse” has been interpreted to exclude intentional misuse. The term did not typically include aging since most worn-out products are either handled differently or discarded. The changes wrought by this amendment fundamentally alter the common meaning of “reasonably foreseeable” in quirky ways, making a confusing law all the more difficult to understand or apply.

If “reasonably foreseeable use and abuse” includes breaking the toy, it’s hard to know which parts will ever be considered “inaccessible”. Reading this language by its plain English meaning, I cannot imagine what might survive this legislative test. Worthless. I sense another rulemaking process for the long-suffering CPSC.

The amendment also clarifies that the CPSC can revoke this exception to protect the public health and safety. Remember, we are talking about a rule affecting mandatory testing of internal components that may or may not contain phthalates. Can anyone tell me what threats to the public health and safety could POSSIBLY result from an internal component made with phthalates? Phthalates have been in use in this country for more than 50 years – wouldn’t we know about “leaping phthalates” by now? Oh yeah, I’m sorry, i forgot that reasoning and science don’t matter anymore. . . .

Perhaps concerned that the CPSC was running out of things to do, the authors added yet another rulemaking on “inaccessibility” for this new exception. They are free to adopt the definition already set for lead. It’s up to them. Study up, guys! Can’t wait to give comments . . . .

Can you say . . . mania?

It is worth noting that in taking this route to “resolve” the pain points on phthalates, the Dems have chosen to NOT address a pending issue between the CPSC and California. Attorney General Jerry Brown of California sent a hot letter to the CPSC last year indicating his unwillingness to accept testing of the entire product for phthalates ban purposes. In the wake of his letter, the agency reversed course and rescinded its rule permitting a single test on the entire product. This would have been inexpensive for manufacturers.

It is pure fantasy that the Dems would take on Jerry Brown since our Congressional overlords are largely from CA (Waxman, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein) and are busy trying to California-ize the rest of the country. Henry Waxman would certainly never preempt Jerry Brown for the national good. Hence the half-a-loaf approach here.

Lead: The Waxman Amendment makes the pending 100 ppm lead standard prospective. This is a tiny bone thrown in our direction. You may consider it a nod of acknowledgement of your pain from the retroactive application of the lead standards and phthalates ban. Nonetheless, this is all you will get.

Again, this is only half-a-loaf. A more thoughtful and helpful change would have been to draw a FIRM LINE under the 300 ppm standard, eliminating the 100 ppm standard altogether as well as the rule ratcheting down the lead standard in the future (forgot about that one, right?). They could have said that the CPSC would be free to lower the lead standard in the future if necessary to protect public health and safety (taking into account the cost and benefit of any such new rules). But they didn’t.

The Waxmanis have no interest in such concessions. Whether out of zealotry or pride of authorship, no amendments will emerge if they reflect any concession of error or misjudgment in the Perfect Legislative Process. Thus, the 100 ppm standard can’t be removed because they put it there for a reason. We must live with it . . . so they say.

Rumorville has it that the Waxmanis are about to deliver a message to leaders of the business community to fall in line behind this “wonderful” amendment or else . . . they’ll get NOTHING. Don’t you love this? And I used to think THEY worked for US. What an idiot I am!

And on that note, I encourage you to read ONE more blogpost about this toxic amendment. I still need to show you how the authors are trying to deceive you and gut the system that regulates safety of safeguards against governmental abuse. That is, abuse of the interests of your businesses. It’s really something to see.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Phthalates and Lead Limits in Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – Proposition 65 Provides Funding Mechanism for CEH Crusaders

Has the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) gone into the business of finding violations of law for profit? You gotta wonder.

This past week, CEH capped off a six-week investigation of 250 children’s items at the request of or in partnership with the CA Attorney General’s office, finding seven mildly offending items. As detailed in my blogpost last Wednesday, this rogue’s gallery of offenders include a pair of shoes (soles), sandals (insoles), a poncho, a small patch of material on a bicycle accessory and the like. The CA AG issued cease-and-desist orders on his own, cutting the CPSC out of the picture, and a media feeding frenzy ensued. Presumably to the delight of the CEH troublemakers, Oregon followed up with its own action. [To Oregon's credit, they indicate they would inform the CPSC of their concerns, not take a direct recall action like the CA AG.] Perhaps other States plan to follow the CA lead and jump down the retailers’ throats for these trivial defects.

How did this come to pass? It turns out that the starting point was a tip by CEH on another lead case, this one involving Mattel. As you know, Mattel was responsible for some major lead-in-paint recalls in 2007/8. These recalls were a result of a violation of longstanding federal law, and the authority for the recall was found in the CPSA (before its amendment by the CPSIA). [In other words, the new law was not required to force Mattel to recall these items.] It turns out that California’s Proposition 65, its notorious consumer-right-to-know law, was also violated by those recalls. The insidious Prop. 65 (explicitly exempted from preemption under the CPSIA by the powerful California Congressional delegation including Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Reps. Pelosi and Waxman) requires that products exceeding (in this case) its lead standard be labeled to “inform” the consumer. Prop. 65 lead standards now match the federal standards. By violating the federal standards, Mattel also violated the Prop. 65 label requirements, thus giving California the chance to extend its palm for penalties and other concessions.

In the first of many settlements relating to its recalls, Mattel and other companies settled
a Prop. 65 lawsuit and paid a collective $1.56 million in penalties and fees. [The CA AG extracted similar penalties from Target, TRU and KMart for lead violations earlier this month.] It turns out that this $550,000 penalty case stemmed from a rat out by CEH: “This agreement settles a lawsuit filed by the State of California and the LA City Attorney in November 2007, after receiving notices of violation from the Center for Environmental Health, As you Sow, and the Environmental Law Foundation.” Part of the money extracted ($550,000) was applied to a fund “to test toys for lead and improve outreach about future recalls.”

So how did Mattel’s misery pay off for CEH? The CA AG’s press release tells all: “In 2008, Brown’s office reached a settlement with several major toy companies over excessive levels of lead in their products. The settlement allocated $548,000 in funding for consumer safety groups to monitor lead levels in consumer goods and to provide outreach about product recalls. The Center for Environmental Health discovered the current violations with a grant from the Public Health Trust, which administers the settlement fund.”

So, here’s the game – CEH finds violations of the law, and then puts in for grants to find more violations, all funded by the violators. CEH is a not-for-profit – it is not a business, does not make or sell products or services for a profit and its officers and employees have no source of funding other than contributions . . . until now. Proposition 65 is their new funding source. Shaking down corporations under the auspices of Prop. 65 to provide funds for new hires, salaries, raises, perhaps even bonuses. Thus, the unholy alliance of plaintiff lawyers and consumer groups is made even more cozy. Consumer protection as a plaintiff lawyer’s dream. Job well done, CEH!

CEH and its ilk want you to believe that they are simply out there to protect your interests, which is the reason presented to explain their “passionate” search for “scofflaws”. But does that explanation hold water when the consumer group is essentially working on a commission for pay? Can you really be sure these violations are actually dangerous when it is clear that CEH must find them to pay its rent or keep its officers on the job? And what about the interests of the local politicians in this dynamic? Jerry Brown wants to be California’s governor – what are his incentives in this case, being egged on by the pay-by-the-violation consumer group?

Does anyone see the possibility of conflicts of interest here? What is that odor I smell?

Aside from the OUTRAGE of CEH taking money for its escapades, the entire Proposition 65 gambit seems to be a parallel safety law allowing a local politician to upstage and trump federal regulation, all the while shaking down companies with duplicative penalties for the same offense. Mattel, no particular object of sympathy in my book, was hit with Prop. 65 penalties (collectively with others, $1.56 million), a “consumer fraud” settlement with 38 states for $12 million, a CPSC fine of $2.3 million and a class action settlement said to be worth more than $50 million. Since Proposition 65 is exempted from preemption by our wise Congress, this liability bonanza will continue to plague the toy industry for a long time to come (forever?).

What is the consequences of the long term, relentless, pointless (from a social good standpoint) assault on our industry under Proposition 65? A poisoned well. What do you think will happen to small business vendors to retailers who have been hounded and hunted under this law? The ultimate in skittishness. It is just not possible to satisfy their hunger for safety mania. As an example, a large national retailer has been demanding that our company test every product for lead-in-paint . . . regardless of whether it has any paint on it. That can only make sense in a world where the consequences of violations are too horrible to contemplate.

Is a violation of this law really worse than mass murder? I think not. This week’s CEH violations are innocent and have not and will not harm anyone. They are minor manufacturing defects and can be corrected easily and inexpensively. By making each such trivial violation into a capital case, the cost of doing business skyrockets, profit incentive crashes and many players exit. We have already seen one offering memorandum for a customer of ours who can’t take it anymore. Most of the exits are quieter and harder to detect. See my post about Whimsical Walney. If we allow regulators to run roughshod over our industry this way, there won’t be anything left to protect. That would be terrible for all Americans. Sometimes you don’t know what you have until you lose it.

This is your country. Think about the corruption of fee-driven consumer groups and marauding State AGs who don’t answer to the CPSC. What are you going to do about it???

Read more here:
CPSIA – Proposition 65 Provides Funding Mechanism for CEH Crusaders

« Previous Page