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 – 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 – Commission Report to Congress on CPSIA Changes

The CPSC Commission issued its January 15 Congressional report on recommended changes to the CPSIA last Friday. As promised by Inez Tenenbaum, the Commissioners were afforded the opportunity to present individual statements to accompany the Commission report. Four of the Commissioners (Tenenbaum, Adler, Nord and Northup) chose to present their own statements. Adler also promised a supplemental statement on the subject of lead, which has not been released yet to my knowledge.

The Report and the accompanying statements make interesting reading. I do not propose to summarize the documents here, but have set out a few thoughts:

a. The Commission’s Consensus is Important. The Commissioners made a big effort to speak with one voice in the report. While they certainly did not agree on everything, their effort to achieve bipartisanship agreement in the report sends a good message. The Commission needs to work harder to find this middle ground more consistently and less fractiously. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for turning safety into a game of political football. If the Commission can work better together, confidence in their administration will grow and extremes will be avoided.

The prohibition against full Commission meetings in private (the Sunshine Act) is a hidden factor in the report. Since the Commission ill-advisedly voted down a public discussion of the report, the Commissioners were prevented from meeting in groups of three, four or five. When you read this report, imagine how it might have read if the five Commissioners were allowed to sit in a room and duke it out. It might have been a better document, more complete and more prescriptive.

b. Where’s the Functional Purpose Exception??? The report is as interesting for what it DOESN’T say as for what it does say. Most importantly, the functional purpose exemption is GONE. Rumorville has it that the functional purpose exception became more and more ornate and complex as the Commissioners struggled to write a recommendation until even its most ardent supporters had to concede that it wasn’t going to work. This was set up to be Waxman’s excuse to do nothing or nearly nothing. It’s not there anymore.

Too bad for Henry, huh?

c. The Commissioners’ Statements Reveal that Common Sense is Divided on Party Lines. The Commissioners’ statements reveal a lack of communication within the Commission. I know they were talking but it appears that some messages weren’t being heard. The statements of the two Democrats (Moore apparently did not prepare a statement) were straight out of Central Casting. Disappointingly, Ms. Tenenbaum chose to repeat a fairy tale about the law’s origins:

“In response to the flood of dangerous imported products, which were involved in tragic fatalities, poisonings and injuries involving children, Congress closely examined the needs of the CPSC and the statutory changes necessary to enhance the regulatory safety net maintained by the agency. Congress spent considerable time reviewing these needs and continually consulted with the agency’s leaders, staff, consumer groups, and the regulated community in order to carefully craft the proper legislation to achieve this end. Seeing a clear need to reauthorize and reinvigorate CPSC with new energy and purpose, Congress passed a sweeping law.” [Emphasis added]

The re-characterization of what was essentially an anger-fueled legislative mania into some sort of group hug is apparently the Democrats’ effort to justify a passive or inert approach to fixing the law. In addition, both Tenenbaum and Adler repeated the misleading togline about the dangers of lead, although I don’t think that’s news anymore. It’s also not really relevant to discussing the issues under the law – and their persistent refusal to acknowledge this is disappointing.

The Republicans (Nord and Northup) delivered rational and balanced statements that calmly and appropriately diagnosed the issues with the law. They are cognizant of the excesses of the law, the dramatic impact on both the regulated community and the hobbled agency itself. The Reps make no effort to prop up the CPSIA – you know, the law passed by REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE. There’s no pride of authorship by the Reps – to their credit, these Commissioners seem to be trying to restore a rational system of law and regulation designed to provide appropriate levels of safety at an affordable cost.

I am tired of the Dems on the Commission simply being good Dem soldiers rather than committed stewards of safety. The ANGER expressed in Massachusetts today is a strong message to the Dems – America is sick and tired of government aggressively inserting itself into every aspect of our lives, including by way of the CPSIA and its precautionary principle. See tonight’s Wall Street Journal for more details. It will be interesting to see if Massachusetts impacts the CPSIA amendment process.

d. Does it Matter What’s Safe Anymore? I am struck again by the absurdity of the debate over lead. As I see it, the debate is over which incidents of lead that are illegal should be permitted. This is different from defining what constitutes safe lead. This used to be a simple decision. Now the premise is that there is NO safe level of lead. Is that really TRUE?

Think of ALL cases where lead is found in children’s products. Now separate them into two piles, one that is labeled “safe” and one that is labeled “not safe”. How do these piles compare to the piles made by the CPSIA, FHSA and CPSA? Well, that question never comes up in the debate. The big question is about compliance with law, not safety.

This is not a rational system for administering risk. First of all, if lead were so deadly that it needed to be eliminated in all cases in all children’s products, then presumably we would be even MORE motivated to remove it from our food, water and air (not to mention dirt). After all, we consume food etc. and the lead in the food gets into our bloodstreams. But this isn’t an issue today because the CPSIA didn’t make it illegal – and apparently the CPSC does not feel lead is dangerous in food, water or air (or else it would have acted on the threat under the FHSA). It gets worse – consider that lead paint is illegal on children’s products but not on cars. If lead is so dangerous and mere contact with lead-in-substrate is so dangerous that it is utterly intolerable in a modern, sophisticated society likes ours, then why does the CPSC permit kids to touch or even ride in cars? After all, the zipper pull on a kid’s golf bag is illegal if it has a dot of lead paint on it. But a whole car dripping with lead paint, that’s fine.

The answer – it doesn’t matter what’s safe when it comes to lead, it only matters what’s legal. The Dems prefer to portray what’s illegal as unsafe, and imply that what’s legal is safe. [Call this the All-Knowing Congress argument.] It’s hard to take this seriously. It’s time for them to drop the precautionary principle pretense and start being accountable for the rationality of their regulatory positions. If lead is a crisis as they say, then please ban everything with lead in it, including our entire food chain. I am ready to be safe, finally.

e. What Has Been Accomplished in the Last 18 Months??? Does it bother you as much as me that so little has been accomplished by the last 18 months of chaos? The many steps and achievements documented in the report and statements might make a bureaucrat blush with pride but how have injury statistics changed? [Recall statistics are a poor measure of the effectiveness of safety rules.] How much did we pay as a society for these extremely meager achievements? If you add in the cost to our society of a crippled safety agency, the price we paid is staggering. The waste is sickening. It’s not possible for me to read the recounting without a sense of loss.

f. Does Anyone Else Want An Exemption? Umm, Yeah! It’s important to note that the low number of exemption requests does not reflect a lack of interest in exemptions. Exemption requests are very expensive to prepare and are complex. In many cases, the exemption request will obviously be rejected or is too broad to state in any compelling way. For instance, educational products span so many categories that it is impossible to state a coherent exemption request. More importantly, the real inhibition to filing is a fear of losing the request. For many companies, it just doesn’t pay to ask for permission – they prefer to beg for forgiveness if a problem ever arises.

Anne Northup correctly notes in her statement that it is bad law to require that regulated companies line up for exemptions. She is not arguing on behalf of the companies – she focuses on the huge burden these requests place on the CPSC and the Commission. She is TOTALLY correct. The idea that we should have a safety system based on exceptions would only appeal to the IRS. Somebody needs to listen to Northup on this point.

g. The Report Whitewashes Ineffective Help for Resale Shops. It is a sad joke to assert that coaching resale shops with the CPSC’s guidance document and a few workshops is somehow a solution to the massive problem caused by the CPSIA. For one thing, it is quite clear that this message has not reached its audience. The CPSC’s approach is inherently inefficient and unlikely to bring relief to many affected stores. A better law is the necessary solution. Second, it is apparent that the CPSC’s efforts did not relieve anxiety – the stores are still dropping children’s items. This lack of accountability begins to look cynical when you consider that only last week, Scott Wolfson was warning people not to sell cheap jewelry on auction sites or in resale shops. Hmmm, that sounds very reassuring, doesn’t it? Problem solved!

If the Commission truly cares about resale shops, then a more effective approach (including a communication strategy) needs to be implemented.

With the issuance of the report and statements, the shuttlecock has been batted back to Congress. The next step is to work on a long-needed amendment of this awful law. Stay tuned.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Commission Report to Congress on CPSIA Changes

CPSIA – Republican Senators Call for CPSC Advice on Law Change

Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Roger Wicker sent a letter today to Inez Tenenbaum asking for detailed recommendations on how to fix the CPSIA. You can see their letter here. In closing, they note:

“We all agree protection of our children is paramount. Congress can fix the CPSIA to ensure it accomplishes the safety intended without necessarily overburdening our economy. This can only be achieved with your assistance, the mandated detailed report to Congress, and increased transparency of your efforts to implement the law. We look forward to your report.”

Amen, brother!

The Commission noted in its meeting yesterday that the agency has not been given much time to get this report done. In addition, there seems to be little consensus on the Commission on the content of the report. Finally, as you may have figured out by now, I think there may be some value in talking about the issues in an open meeting. . . . So I call on the CPSC to get this report RIGHT. Be late, if you must, but get the recommendations done properly. AND, I call on the Commission to reverse its partisan and ill-considered decision to forgo public debate on the content of this report. Let’s learn from the lessons of Watergate and let the light shine in. Trust the public as they trust you, and let them hear you state your positions and work together as a Commission, not a collection of individuals.

It’s time to step up to the challenge, guys.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Republican Senators Call for CPSC Advice on Law Change