CPSIA – Recommended Non-Legislative Changes

As promised, I wanted to provide my list of non-legislative changes to accompany my list of CPSIA changes. I have repeatedly called for effective process and resource allocation to bring about results. I do not share the view that draconian penalties and super-low standards are the answer – something else, something more “human” is needed to get better outcomes. So I conclude that changes to the law alone won’t work. The agency needs to rethink its priorities and its way of interacting with the market to reduce injuries in the long term.

As a preface, it’s important to note the following:

a. My suggestions for legislative and non-legislative changes will have NO material negative impact on safety. It is my fervent hope and intention that these changes will improve results for the agency.

b. It is critical that the agency be well-functioning after amendment of the law. In my legislative changes, I have placed a priority on cleaning up purposeless complexity and tasks that are not critical to the mission of supervising safety. It is essential the CPSC have a set of ordered priorities – because if everything is important, nothing is important. In my non-legislative changes, I propose prioritized resource allocations to improve focus on real drivers of behavior.

c. I believe the agency must reestablish a basic sense of what is safe and what is not safe. Judging from recent decisions of the Commission and recent recalls, I think the line between “safe” and “unsafe” has become blurred. Being careful about safety does NOT imply a fear of “everything”. I have tailored my legislative recommendations to focus in on REAL safety risks – only. In my non-legislative recommendations, I have focused on resource allocation, outreach/education and better communication with the regulated community, striving for constructive dialogue rather than behind-the-curve reactivity.

My list of non-legislative changes:

• Liaison office to manage Q&A with regulated companies. “No name” inquiries should be permitted. This office should be staffed adequately to ensure timely replies.
• Amnesty program – if a regulated entity turns itself in before it is notified that it is being investigated, the regulated party may NOT be penalized.
• Industry Outreach/Education – as a TOP priority, the CPSC must create an educational outreach program to sensitize industry to safety issues and to educate regulated companies on their legal obligations and on good safety practices. This office should operate independently of enforcement staff or activities. On-site training should be offered for free.
• The CPSC website should be reworked to meet best standards for access to information. The current website is quirky and difficult to navigate.
• The agency should reexamine its allocation of resources according to severity of threat, and then reorganize its assets in line with threat priorities. Threat level teams should be separately staffed and tasked, with timeliness of processing a top priority. If resources are allocated properly, the concept of a “queue” can be abandoned in favor of objective expectations on how threats are processed by the agency. The teams should be resourced independently, as though they were separate agencies (e.g., the “high threat” team would have different lab resources than the “medium threat” team).
• Industry self-regulation should again become the principal strategy of the agency to manage markets.

I recommend that all of my legislative and non-legislative changes be implemented to reduce the administrative burden of regulating the affected markets and to improve the effectiveness of the agency’s activities. The overly broad and unrealistic demands of the CPSIA made inevitable the observed diminishing impact of the CPSC. By eliminating many unnecessary standards, bureaucracy and supervisory activities (totally eliminating vast amount of work for both agency and regulated community), focus may be restored to the task of keeping kids safe. This will result in GREATER safety, certainly not increased injuries.

The task of properly allocating resources within the agency to bring about good results in the marketplace is far more important than having draconian rules on the books. With the scheme I recommend above, the CPSC would be in the optimal position to focus on real threats and to buttress safety against evolving threats. A revitalized agency focusing on high impact activities and structured to respond quickly and insightfully against emerging threats will make the CPSC a model agency within the Federal government.

It can be done . . . with some courage, some vision and a sense of conviction. The time is NOW.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Recommended Non-Legislative Changes

CPSIA – Still Steaming Over Mr. Waxman and His Unilateral CPSIA Amendment

I am still trying to unpack what happened late Friday when the Waxman amendment to the CPSIA leaked out. Since the news is so fresh and so few of the actors have come forward to account for themselves, let’s be conservative and analyze only the most positive possible scenario:

• Mr. Waxman now accepts that some aspects of the CPSIA need to be fixed.
• Mr. Waxman now accepts that the CPSC cannot fix the law through rulemaking alone.
• Mr. Waxman is being a “good guy” and showing his “good faith” by allowing a change to the law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum believed that something is better than nothing and made a practical judgment to support the Waxman amendment as a step in the right direction.
• Ms. Tenenbaum concluded that fighting with Ms. Waxman might worsen the situation for the agency and for the victims of the law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum thought that getting an amendment now might open the door to more amendments later.
• Ms. Tenenbaum thought the Commission could use this “loophole” to ease pressure on at least some victims of the law.
• None of this affects the good vibrations that emerged in recent weeks with the CPSC who has noticeably softened its rhetoric and reached out to the regulated community to find amicable solutions to the perplexing issues caused by the CPSIA.

I think that’s about as sympathetic a portrayal as I can paint of the Waxman amendment and the way it was generated. With that sunny scenario in mind, how would I now interpret the events?

1. Waxman is in control, and will not relent. Both minority members of Congress and minority Commissioners have been largely disenfranchised for the future of this law. His need for control made impossible redress of the many other issues documented by the likes of resale shops, education companies and apparel-makers.
2. Waxman will dictate precisely the speed and dimension of fixes to the CPSIA. The pain and disruption in the market does not influence him. As the terms of the original law indicate, he does not regard economics as a factor in setting safety policy. [An economist would characterize this outlook as irrational.] Political pressure does influence him, hence the meager effort to appease the ATV and publishing industries. This amendment is consistent with the longstanding position of his staff – so there is little to indicate further flexibility. If you believe the “one bite at the apple” crowd, this is grim news and contradicts the concept above that one amendment might lead to other amendments.
3. Waxman has no intention to publicly debate the issues under the law. Likewise, he has no intention of possibly losing control of the discussion or the message. Given his stated interest in reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, it remains critical to portray the CPSIA as a success and as an advance in regulatory “theory”. The Waxman amendment makes clear that the legitimate concerns of the regulated community are taking a permanent back seat to a political agenda set by consumer groups and the California contingent. Again, not good for us. . . .
4. The CPSIA is now clearly the Democrats’ law. Republicans have been exiled from the safety debate. It is shocking that party lines now define the children’s product safety debate since injuring children is not a political issue. Yet, any notion of bipartisanship has been crushed.
5. Whether for political gain, sympathy with the original design of the legislation or for practical reasons, the Democrats on the Commission have fallen in line with the Waxmanites. The teamwork on this amendment makes them appear to be allies. If this means that the Waxman views on implementation will also hold sway, it forecasts grim developments ahead for regulated companies.
6. The appearance of appeasement or even complicity by Ms. Tenenbaum is inescapable. Even in the friendliest interpretation of events, Tenenbaum comes out as a weak defender of the legitimate interests and concerns of the regulated community. And “common sense” seems forgotten. What kind of partner does that make her? Do her statements on consulting with stakeholders and open dialogue seem somehow self-serving now? Right now, it is very hard to know when or whether she will toss regulated companies overboard. This makes partnership with her difficult because you must give to get . . . now that the “get” is in doubt, how can the regulated community become comfortable with the “give”? I also think it’s reasonable to ask why Ms. Tenenbaum allowed this provision to be negotiated in the dead of night. That’s not how a partner behaves.
7. There is a BIG issue of trust within the Commission here. The very public way in which the Republican Commissioners received notice of their irrelevance will cause lasting injury to relationships. It is hard to see collegiality restored quickly on the Commission after this betrayal. Of course, I can’t help but recall the mantra repeated by many pro-CPSIA advocates – that the CPSC needs a five-person Commission. Doesn’t the amendment “process” expose this as a joke? If Tenenbaum and Waxman are going to ignore the Republicans, was Congress really saying that the CPSC desperately needed three Democrats in a majority position? Gosh, I think the Republicans that voted for the law might take issue with this . . . .
8. The inclusion of lead labeling for excluded items confirms the zealotry of the Waxmanites, the impotence of the resistance movement and the persistent disregard for the needs of innocent victims of this law. Of course, difficult-to-obtain exclusions are quite anti-small business, as are the lead labels. The labeling is even more incredible if you take into account that exclusions will only be granted in circumstances where the inclusion of lead will have virtually no conceivable health impact. So if the Chairman would sell us down the river with a useless and extraordinarily-limited amendment without addressing ANY of the other pressing issues or demanding the right of the Commission to assess risk, then what else can we reasonably expect from here on out?

That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? Frankly, this amendment and the behind-closed-doors process which excluded all corporate stakeholders and many political stakeholders, sharply erodes trust in all directions. Doing this behind everyone’s backs – during a two-day workshop purportedly designed to solicit stakeholder feedback and get everyone on the same page – seems remarkably disingenuous. You can safely assume many recent conversations in retrospect seem less than candid or straightforward.

To work out the difficulties with this law, leadership on the Commission (Democrats) and in Congress (Democrats) need to come to grips with the fact that the law is incredibly misconceived and destructive. The dream that the Precautionary Principle actually works to anyone’s benefit has been debunked. To cram down this noxious law despite the legitimate concerns of the regulated community will NOT snuff out opposition – but instead will inflame it. The problems won’t go away, and cannot be buried. The issues will fester and rot until addressed.

If the issues marbling the law are allowed to linger long enough, the Democrats can ensure lasting damage to the agency and market catastrophe. I will repeat myself: there is a legacy issue for Tenenbaum and the Dems – and having jettisoned the Republicans, it’s all theirs now. The CPSC can be rendered ineffective and wholly bureaucratic, with all the attendant damage that entails, or it can be restored to glory. The choice is theirs and the stakes are high. Interestingly, the regulated community will support an effort to restore effectiveness at the agency, but that will necessarily involved restoration of risk assessment and political independence at the agency. Hard to see Waxman going along with that.

Do we have the leaders for this effort on the Commission? Time will tell. Like everyone else, they will be judged by their results. You and I are along for the ride, whether we like it or not.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Still Steaming Over Mr. Waxman and His Unilateral CPSIA Amendment

CPSIA – Letter to CPSC Re Continuation of Testing and Certification Stay

Dear Chairman Tenenbaum, Commissioners Adler, Moore, Nord and Northup:

I am writing to strongly urge the Commission to vote to extend the CPSIA testing and certification stay (the “Stay”) originally implemented on January 30, 2009 and due to expire on February 10, 2010. The Stay should be continued for at least one year PAST issuance of final implementing rules and regulations relating to testing frequency, sampling, component testing, re-testing requirements, testing standards for phthalates and ASTM F963, enforcement policies and certification of sufficient laboratories to handle the market’s volume requirements.

The Stay has served its purpose well. When originally adopted in January, the Commission intended to create a pause to allow the issuance of implementing rules and further permit market adjustment to those new rules. The Stay was needed to avoid confusion and chaos in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the task of issuing implementing rules to fully realize the goals of the Stay has not been completed. The incomplete state of the full range of testing rules and related activities (like test lab certification) has prevented full implementation of testing and certification in the marketplace. While many companies are testing aggressively, as the much-reduced toy recall rates attest, the market is simply not ready for full implementation. No one knows what full implementation even means.

Many critical tasks remain incomplete:

• The “15 Month Rule” was not issued when due on November 14th. The stakeholder feedback from this week’s workshop on the “15 Month Rule” has not been received, much less reviewed or digested.
• Comments on the “15 Month Rule” are due on January 11. These comments have not received yet.
• The CPSC has not even solicited comments on the lifting of the Stay from stakeholders.
• Component testing rules have not been promulgated, despite calls by Commissioner Nord in her January 30th Statement on the Stay.
• The CPSC has not issued its phthalates test standard.
• The CPSC has not certified any testing laboratories for the phthalates test standard yet.
  The CPSC has not certified labs for ASTM F963 testing yet.
• The CPSC admits that it has not certified enough labs to handle a full burden of testing for many product classes or safety tests.
• The CPSC acknowledges that fixed testing costs are creating a serious burden on small businesses.
• The CPSC has not defined “children’s product”, “toy”, “play” or “childcare article” yet.
• The CPSC acknowledges that many companies have not acted to fill market gaps like component testing because the rules are not final (or even drafted in this case).
• The CPSC is on its third enforcement policy on lead and lead-in-paint.

Other serious issues relate to the practical impact of the rules on the marketplace. First, the current rules are complex and disorganized, having been released in several places and formats. Even video testimony includes unique statements of agency policy. Some “rules” contradict other rules. Many important industry questions posed to the CPSC remain unanswered months or more than a year later. The task of mastering the vast array of FAQs, letter rulings, rules, exemption requests and so on baffles even the largest companies. Notably, Mattel officials complained of this very problem in a recent meeting with Commissioner Adler and speculated on the practical impossibility of compliance by small companies. The timing of the lifting of the Stay in February will clearly affect small businesses adversely.

Second, manufacturers and their supply chains need time to adjust to new rules. Many of these new rules are not even drafted yet, much less ready to be issued in final form after public comment. This delay is not the fault of the manufacturing community . . . but the consequences could be quite significant for manufacturers if the Stay is lifted suddenly. Most legislative programs that involve a significant change in process or requirements include time for adjustment by manufacturers. It is not unusual for supply chains to receive two or even three years to shift to the new requirements. For instance, U.S. Customs started working on its new “10+2” program in June 2004, issued final rules in November 2008, has been running seminars nationwide for more than a year, and will only fully implement 14 months later in late January 2010 (compliance date). A reasonable lifting of the Stay requires at least a 12 month lead-time from implementation of the last component of the testing rules. Furthermore, to ensure successful implementation, the agency will need to make considerable investments in supply chain education and training during that 12 month lead-time. The agency must also make sure that the final rules are clear, simplified and understandable. Anything less will expose most businesses to the constant risk of conflict with 51 different regulators – regardless of their corporate efforts to comply.

Some suggestions have been made to lift the Stay in piecemeal fashion. We strongly urge the Commission to lift the Stay in the “right way” all at once after offering the regulated community a clean, complete, coherent package of rules, regulations and certifications sufficient to put manufacturers in an adequate position to successfully and efficiently comply with the new rules. Rolling out testing rules one-by-one with a similar ramp-up of compliance will only ensure that no one understands the rules for as long as possible.

The confusion engendered by a piecemeal implementation of the new testing rules will not only constitute a form of regulatory water torture, but will certainly cause regular conflicts between (a) the CPSC and its regulated community, (b) consumer groups, regulators and regulated companies, (c) State Attorneys General and regulated companies, and (d) regulated companies and their dealers/retailers. By lifting the Stay under these uncertain conditions, the Commission would be risking complete market chaos. The misery suffered by regulated companies and industries would be matched by equal misery at the CPSC. Under these circumstances, the agency would face a steady stream of crises caused by testing controversies and confusion without end. I fear that a drip-drip-drip implementation of the testing and certification requirements will render the agency crippled with overwork, inefficiencies and wear-and-tear.

These poor outcomes are avoidable by dynamic Commission action to delay the lifting of the Stay.

Manufacturers of children’s products are good law-abiding citizens who want to follow the law. Until the CPSIA rules are clearly written and implemented, following the law is an impossible task. Please take bold action to support the lawful activities of the regulated community by promptly continuing the Stay for one year past the issuance of final implementing rules and regulations relating to testing frequency, sampling, component testing, re-testing requirements, testing standards for phthalates and ASTM F963, enforcement policies and certification of sufficient laboratories to handle the market’s volume requirements.

Thank you for consideration of my views on this important topic.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.

Chairman
Alliance for Children’s Product Safety

Read more here:
CPSIA – Letter to CPSC Re Continuation of Testing and Certification Stay