CPSIA – Statute of Limitations Applicable to Schylling

To close the loop on the Schylling fine fiasco, I wanted to provide you with the language governing the statute of limitations applicable to this matter (and all other CPSC matters unless specifically overridden by statute).

For those of you who don’t know, a “Statute of Limitations” is a provision in the law which states a maximum time after the occurrence of an event in which legal proceedings can be initiated. In the case of CPSC penalties, in the absence of a “tolling” agreement in which the warring parties agree to extend the time limit, these provisions are intentional limitations on the CPSC’s power. There is longstanding public policy that underlies the concept of a statute of limitations going back to ancient English common law.

The applicable statute is 28 U.S.C. §2462 entitled “Time for Commencing Proceedings”. It reads as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.” [Emphasis added]

The Schylling lead-in-paint violations were clearly beyond the statute of limitations. By the way, there is no exception to the provisions of a statute of limitations if the regulator is “really mad” or if the violator is a “bad guy”. It’s an ABSOLUTE rule and works effectively even against serious violations; for instance, prosecution of felonies can be closed off by statutes of limitations. The issue with respect to Schylling’s separate (but related) violation of “failure to report” is somewhat more controversial. When did the failure to report “occur”? The CPSC may be taking the position that the period relating to the failure to report begins when a report is finally made. In effect, then, the CPSC has interpreted the statute of limitations away for failures to report.

Arguably, this means that the CPSC reserves the right to penalize people for a failure to report going back to 1972, the year in which the agency was formed. Why not, they have the power . . . . . Everybody, keep an eye on your mailbox!

Don’t tell me that this surprises you nowadays.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Statute of Limitations Applicable to Schylling

CPSIA – More Details on Schylling Penalty Fiasco

The worm continues to turn on the Schylling penalty. Buried DEEP in the “easy to use” CPSC website are documents relating to the timeline of this penalty assessment.

1. First agreement was signed by the CPSC six weeks after Schylling on January 19.

2. The CPSC Commission met on February 3 to ratify the agreement. The vote is 4-1, with Anne Northup voting no. Northup apparently objected because she felt the penalty was out of line with other penalties set by the CPSC (too high).

[Ed. Note: I have been repeating myself of late when I assert that these penalties are PRECEDENT to be used against YOU. Ignore them at your peril - they are an evolving, common law measuring stick for penalties that may be assessed against you. Fact patterns are very difficult to compare but luckily big round numbers are easy to compare. Schylling may be . . . you next time.]

3. On February 5, in a remarkable and unexplained about-face, Tenenbaum, Adler and Northup voted 3-0-2 to rescind the agreement and send it back for to the staff “for further consideration of the financial condition of the company“. Nord and Moore didn’t vote.

5. On May 25th, the Commission again met to decide the fate of the beleaguered Schylling. By a vote of 5-0, the Commission approved the new, doubled penalty. Here is what the Record of Commission Action says: “The staff alleges that Schylling’s importation, sale, or offering for sale, certain consumer products, tin pail toys and spinning tops, entrusted to or for use by children, violated the Lead Paint Ban, and that Schylling committed these prohibited acts “knowingly” as that term is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA. The settlement agreement also resolves certain possible liabilities of Sections 19(a)(1) and 19(a)(4) of the CPSA for possible CPSA violations with other products. Section 20(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(a)(1), permits the imposition of civil penalties for the violations.”

As noted in my prior post, there is a question of whether the Statute of Limitations on penalties permitted the assessment of this punishment. The focus of this document seems to be on lead-in-paint violations, which were probably beyond the reach of the CPSC’s legal authority to assess penalties. Schylling paid anyhow.

So what happened? Only Ms. Northup provided a written statement. Her statement begs many questions but does provide fodder for conjecture. Here are some salient quotes:

“As an aside, I personally believe that it is inappropriate and risky for companies to ask political figures—including those who exercise control over the agency via budget or supervisory authority—to try to persuade the Commission to reduce a civil penalty. Our civil penalties are open for public comment for two weeks after publication in the Federal Register, and elected officials can comment upon them at that time. Intervention during the Commission’s quasi-judicial civil penalty decision-making process creates the possibility of conscious or subconscious influence on the fair resolution of cases. It also creates a perception that penalties vary according to the political influence of the violator rather than the severity of offenses. . . . The penalty will deter non-compliance and create the proper incentives to import safe products in the future without crippling the company. I believe Schylling has received a proportionately lower civil penalty than a similarly situated major corporation would receive if it engaged in similar conduct.”

Hmmm. Seems to be a case of foot-in-mouth disease on someone’s part. I admire that Ms. Northup was offended by the “insider baseball” approach apparently adopted by Schylling. The notion that the CPSC and the federal government is some kind of “good ole’ boys” club is both outrageous and not even slightly surprising. Who doesn’t imagine that there are people out there who have the ability to make your problems go away with a simple phone call? It’s nice to see Ms. Northup to take a stand on this. Quite interesting that it is a Republican ex-Member of Congress who was apparently offended. Surprising only because of the press bias against Republicans these days. Good for you, Ms. Northup!

One can imagine an ill-advised or ham-handed conversation that set off this odd sequence of events. This may also be why a new law firm was appointed by Schylling.

I still get the feeling that anger determines the size of penalties by this CPSC. Think Daiso. Since Ms. Northup speaks in terms of deterrence, I presume she is addressing our company and companies similarly situated (like yours). We are supposed to be influenced by these penalties. I sure will be. I can’t try any harder or spend any more time or money on safety. [Consumers, please note our almost unblemished safety record over 26 years - no more time is NEEDED, either.] Unfortunately, we have to spend a few moments every day tending to the OTHER needs of our business, like sales, marketing, product development, order fulfillment, accounting and so on. It’s a shame we can’t spend every waking moment on safety. What a world that might be.

In any event, I will be influenced by the mega-penalties that the angry CPSC is handing out. Given my conviction that there is no more time or money available for “more” safety, how will we be influenced? Well, we might hire fewer employees, develop fewer products, invest in fewer systems to operate our business better, pay lower bonuses, take money out of the business, enter new markets not subject to the prying eyes of the CPSC, and so on. We haven’t decided how to be properly influenced by the incentives so generously provided by the CSPC . . . but it all sounds good, right?

Time will tell.

Read more here:
CPSIA – More Details on Schylling Penalty Fiasco

CPSIA – Schylling Penalty Update

You may recall that I have written about the excessive penalty inflicted on Schylling for old and cold lead-in-paint infractions in the amount of $200,000. These infractions did NOT result in injuries. [As I have noted previously, I have no firsthand knowledge of this matter, nor do I have any direct relationship to the principals involved in this penalty.]

Well well now, some of the more astute observers of the CPSC may have noticed that poor ole’ Schylling did not actually end up paying the excessive $200,000 penalty. No, that agreement was apparently REJECTED in favor of a new agreement signed on May 18. The new agreement, which is virtually identical to the original agreement executed by the CPSC on January 19 (but for a non-substantive paragraph 30 and an order attached at the end) DOUBLES the penalty inflicted on Schylling to $400,000. The agreement was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 2.

Whoa.

So what happened?

It’s not entirely clear. The original agreement was announced by press release on February 4 and notes: “The penalty settlement, which has been provisionally accepted by the Commission, resolves staff allegations that the company violated the federal lead paint ban regarding toys with surface paints containing lead above the 600 parts per million (ppm) legal limit applicable at the time, and failed to immediately report to CPSC information about the non-compliant toys.”

The press release goes on to quote Ms. Tenenbaum sternly admonishing Schylling for violations that occurred between June 2001 and May 2003: “Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers have a legal obligation to ensure that no banned products are introduced into or distributed in the U.S. marketplace, and to inform CPSC as soon as they become aware of information that must be reported under our laws. We will continue to penalize companies that do not follow these basic requirements.”

The normal procedure is for the settlement agreement to be published for comment in the Federal Register, but that never happened. Although the February 4th press release states unambiguously that the settlement agreement had been provisionally accepted by the Commission, something derailed the agreement and back to drawing board it went. It’s possible that the Office of Public Affairs somehow jumped the gun with the press release, too. Nevertheless, the time between signing and press release suggests it had to be something else. But what? I cannot find the Public Calendar for this time period but there were probably at least two closed Commission meetings that could have considered this case.

Somebody was NOT happy with the size of the penalty for these old violations. Schylling apparently changed law firms to deal with the revived crisis (two different firms signed the agreements) and four months later, a new agreement doubling the penalty was signed by the parties.

There is no public record of who was unhappy or why. It could have been a Commission member. It could also have been one of the self-appointed protectors of the public good, our good friends the consumer advocates. Who knows? I will be submitting a FOIA request to see what I can find out. Watch this space carefully over the next several years to see if I ever get an answer.

Everyone feeling safe and happy? How about you manufacturers? Happy about justice being served?

Here’s another serious oddity: The statute of limitations for these violations had RUN by the time the agreement was signed. The CPSC should not have been able to assess penalties in this case. Hmmm. Let’s unpack this a bit further. There are really TWO kinds of violations here – (a) lead-in-paint violations, and (b) failure to timely report the violation. On the former, the statute of limitations is apparently quite clear – it had run out. The CPSC had no legal ability to hammer Schylling for lead-in-paint violations that were so old. Bummer for the agency.

Just as the FBI uses the device of failure to report income to put away gangsters like Al Capone, the CPSC has another trick up its sleeve. The other violation, failure to timely report, is in a grey area as far as the statute of limitation goes. Does the statute start to run when the company should have reported . . . or does it run from the date the company finally files a report? This has never been tested in court. The CPSC seems to have seized on this ambiguity to assert penalties against Schylling. To judge by the outcome, the company did not relish litigation with the Federal Government. The old rule that you should never litigate with someone with a printing press holds doubly true in conflicts with the Obama Administration. They clearly know how to print money.

So the CSPC doubled an excessive penalty on a hapless toy company without the means or the will to push back, and set a terrible precedent that could be used . . . against you. The due process rights of corporations are trampled again. Who is protesting? No one.

All this brings to mind the March 3rd Commission hearing on the new civil penalty rule. Commissioner Bob Adler took a very hard position on penalties:

“I do think that the regulated community deserves to know that we are making a ‘pivot’ with respect to enforcing the law [referring to the size of penalties] [28:20] . . . . I certainly agree that we have to have gradations of civil penalties depending on the gravity of the offense. I personally wouldn’t want to tie our hands by saying that the only time we can hit you with a big civil penalty is when there was a death or a serious injury. There may be an immense potential for death and serious injury which just through fortuity did not occur. So what I would like do is to retain the discretion on the Commission to say where you have done something REALLY BAD, and it could be a variety of factors, we are going to impose civil penalties. But there may be situations where what the company did was REALLY BAD but through fortuity, nobody was injured or nobody was killed. [32:00]” [Emphasis added]

Call it the “Adler Penalty Principle”. Schylling’s case did not involve any injuries, but perhaps under unforeseeable circumstances, a child or two could have been injured by the toys. They weren’t but that doesn’t seem to matter under the Adler Penalty Principle. The company also failed to report (see my original blogpost for details). another “crime” needing retribution. One cannot help wondering if Mr. Adler decided this was one of those “REALLY BAD” cases. It’s not clear how such an assessment is to be made. Adler explicitly rejected outcome as a measure of the severity of infractions. In any event, a massive penalty like this is clearly intended to terrorize the regulated community. The niceties of whether the company’s behavior merited this treatment seems to be a secondary consideration.

The penalty policy of this CPSC Commission is completely arbitrary, excessive and intended to be highly coercive. Practitioners in the CPSC Bar have regaled me with stories of the CPSC’s use of the penalty free-for-all to coerce all sorts of unreasonable settlements.

Every outcome can be justified in a world without rules or due process protections. Maybe that’s the pivot that Adler was referring to.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Schylling Penalty Update