Subscribe for Updates!
CPSIA – Rumorville on Pryor Bill
July 29, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, CPSIA Updates, Featured Articles
A little bird tells me that some people have verified that the the Pryor bill to amend the CPSIA has been “hotlined” in the Senate as a step to immediate passage. Other people have gone silent or have been unable to verify, so it’s not an entirely clear situation. “Hotlined” bills are on track for a unanimous consent vote. I gathered this explanation from Republican Committee on Rules site on hotlining: ” The Senate has largely institutionalized its unanimous consent process. On major pieces of legislation, the Majority or Minority leader may force a Senator from the other party to object to a bill’s consideration in the absence of a unanimous consent agreement. Similarly, the Senate will hotline a bill when it is ready to be considered under a unanimous consent agreement. Under the hotline process, the Senate cloakrooms notify Senators of upcoming bills that may be considered under unanimous consent to provide them with a final opportunity to object .” It’s all rumor at this time, but this suggests that someone wants to get something done now. While the Pryor bill is imperfect as drafted, it’s better than nothing, and if there is a chance of a conference bill later, the possibility of a better bill is not yet dead . . . before we all die.
See the original post:
CPSIA – Rumorville on Pryor Bill
CPSIA – Don’t Faint . . . Senator Pryor Put Up CPSIA Amendment Today
July 29, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, CPSIA Updates, Featured Articles
Senator Pryor today introduced the so-called ” Consumer Product Safety Flexibility Act of 2011 ” to amend the CPSIA. This four-pager is targeted at three problems: First , it makes the 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard prospective. Second , it exempts ATVs and motocross (off-highway vehicles) from the lead standards of the CPSIA. It also gives a year extension on the standards for all-terrain vehicles. Third , it codifies the holdings of the CPSC stay as it applies to bicycles (‘Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Bicycles and Related Products’, published June 30, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 31254)), thus exempting bicycles from the 100 ppm standard. The bill to my knowledge is not up on any of the Congressional monitoring sites yet and does not have a bill number. This is a useful effort by Senator Pryor. For one thing, the 100 ppm lead standard issue MUST be addressed before Congress goes on its August recess. Hats off to Mr. Pryor for at least providing a means to address this issue. Rumorville has it that the Senator wants to do more than is expressed by this bill. Other Dem Senators are on the list as purportedly wanting to do more for us. All I can say is . . . get in touch with your feelings, Senators. We need help NOW and we would appreciate your help and leadership in particular. As for saving the ATV’rs and bikers, well, they never belonged under this law in the first place. The devastation wrought by this law should have been addressed long ago. That said, there is nothing more or less sympathetic about ATVs or bikes under this law than the rest of us losers under the act. None of us were poisoning children or even injuring children with lead-in-substrate, much less phthalates. The neuroses of the consumer groups is no more applicable to bikes and ATVs than to us. [Please note my prior disclosures, dating back to January, that the AAP has long supported application of CPSIA lead provisions against the ATV industry to effect a tacit ban of youth model ATVs. The AAP admits they want youth model ATVs off the road. This duplicity exposes the sham nature of the CPSIA, how it has been misused for political reasons by the white-cloaked and self-righteous proponents of children's product safety.] Having spent literally countless hours on advocacy on this issue since 2007, I cannot say what more needs to be said or can be said to explain how misconceived the law is. The ATVrs and bike industry should be let off the hook . . . but so should all the other innocents. If ATVs deserve a pass, so do rhinestones, so do t-shirts and shoes, so do books, so do science kits. Come on , guys, science kits?! Do you REALLY want to send America’s science education back to the Stone Ages? It’s time to loosen the noose on American industry. One can only hope that this bill moves quickly through the Senate, and that the House quickly regains its Mojo on ECADA, leading to a useful and hopefully productive Conference negotiation to produce the long-awaited CPSIA Amendment that we have long craved and which is so long overdue.
Originally posted here:
CPSIA – Don’t Faint . . . Senator Pryor Put Up CPSIA Amendment Today
CPSIA – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
June 14, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, CPSIA Updates, Featured Articles
We live in interesting times. There has been no action by Congress to deal with the CPSIA since its controversial passage in August 2008 despite consistent and loud hue and cry. Right now, Dems are blocking progress. Apparently, they think the biggest threat to America is ANY change to the CPSIA. Our markets, our jobs, our livelihoods will be a necessary sacrifice to . . . what? Reelection. During this crisis of thousands of businesses catering to children, a Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee charged with managing the CPSIA mess, has been emailing photos of his you-know-what to women and girls all over America. One of Anthony Weiner’s email correspondents was reportedly voted ” Most likely to be involved in a tabloid scandal ” by her high school class (she’s only 21, it wasn’t long ago). I think you get the (sordid) picture. Mr. Weiner has been of no use on the CPSIA, riding the high horse “protecting children” with his Dem brethren, at the VERY SAME TIME he was using the Internet for interactions that are, at a minimum, pretty creepy. So Weiner is against letting even a notch out on the CPSIA belt around our necks, too unsafe . . . but he thinks it’s okay to creep around on the Internet, shooting pics of himself in the Congressional locker room and sending them out to his female Internet pals ( one of whom was a porn star ). Hypocrisy? How can that be, the Dems are cloaked in white, right??? Mr. Weiner remains perplexingly in office. As Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus noted on Meet the Press : ” What we called for is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in this country to do what every American knew had to be done immediately and call for his resignation. Now, it seemed to me that for the first 10 days in this circus that the only job [in America] that Nancy Pelosi was interested in saving was Anthony Weiner’s . We’ve got crushing unemployment in this country, we’ve got a president that’s, that’s whistling past the graveyard, we’ve got families that are struggling, and instead we’ve got leadership in a Democratic Party that are defending a guy that deserves no defense .” [Emphasis added] And back at the ranch, the CPSIA Amendment (ECADA) is stalled. Why? Consider the May 25th words of Rep. Henry Waxman, Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and principal roadblock to relief: ” But instead of refining a good law, the Republican bill goes after the law with a wrecking ball . The result is an assault on children’s safety. The Republicans call their bill the ‘Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act.’ A better name is the ‘Unsafe Toy Act.’ “ [Emphasis added] That’s right – the Dem leader is calling the work of the Republican majority the “Unsafe Toy Act”. Hmmm. Please NOTE that the General Counsel of this committee (Gib Mullen) is the former General Counsel of the CPSC and its former Director of Compliance. Is the implication that this former Kirkland & Ellis partner is a “hack”, lacking principle and integrity and is simply doing as he is told by Republican overlords who don’t care about children’s safety? Please, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The label “Unsafe Toy Act” is an insult and a lie in so many ways. First of all, it isn’t true. As I have discussed extensively in this space, ECADA is a surgical revision to the CPSIA, designed to fine tune the law without restructuring it. Reporters have called me to ask what the big deal is. Good question but the answer is obvious. No rational person subject to the laws of the United States or residing here would want to make toys, or any children’s product, “unsafe”. If you insist that they would, Mr. Waxman, PROVE IT. Oh yeah, you don’t do that, do you? Second, Mr. Waxman impugns the dignity and integrity of anyone who would dare support ECADA. That includes me since for more than 20 years my career has been devoted to making educational products (with perhaps the best safety record in the entire children’s product industry). Mr. Waxman’s label plainly announces to the general public that I favor poisoning kids to make more money. That is rather offensive, to say the least. Members of the House of Representatives are permitted to speak their minds, through and including libelous remarks, while on the House floor. They literally can say ANYTHING with impunity – I can’t sue them for this slander. As such, there is no recourse for this slander. This unfortunate label is at the heart of what the Dems are after – political advantage. Those of you who periodically pepper me with defenses of good Democrats fail to recognize the consistent pattern of obstruction and failure to act reasonably among the small group (cabal) of Dems and associated consumer groups behind this roadblock. The pattern of lies is all for political effect. Can you imagine the reelection commercials? Good for the Dems, bad for anyone who disagrees with them. The threat even applies to Dems who might have a conscience and be willing to stand up to the demagogues – the consumer groups are ready to attack them, too. Everyone knows it, no one wants to say it. Mr. Waxman trots out the usual lies and misstatements, relying on the trick of portraying this law as a “toy law”: ” The Unsafe Toy Act triples the amount of lead allowed in most children’s toys. For some children’s products, the bill would allow lead levels to increase 100 times or more. The bill eviscerates the requirement that toys imported from China be independently tested for safety. . . . Just listen to what the experts are saying about this bill. The Consumer Federation of America says that the bill creates ‘huge loopholes.’ Consumers Union says it will ‘lower standards and roll back safeguards for children and infants.’ The American Academy of Pediatrics and 100 other experts in children’s health wrote to express their ‘deep concern’ over the bill because it ‘would have the effect of permitting more lead in toys.’ Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and a majority of the Commission wrote that the bill ‘would effectively revoke key protections … and fails to adequately protect the health and safety of American children.’ ” I have rebutted the consumer group ”arguments” numerous times in this space already. I am not going to repeat myself here. Mr. Waxman’s reference to “triple” lead levels refers to a new limitation on the excessive and useless 100 ppm lead standard that, btw, has never been deemed technologically feasible by the CPSC. The “change” to lead levels of 100 times or more than existing standards refers to the rule exempting metal alloys (like brass) complying with the stay authorized by the CPSC Commission. OMG, you mean we can still use brass in children’s products like pens and trumpets? The HORROR! Neither the consumer groups nor Mr. Waxman and his Dem brethren have answered my question – Where are the victims? This question was asked several times in the April 7th hearing by members of the committee. To date, no one has supplied even one case history. No one calls Mr. Waxman to account for his lies and innuendos, so he persists in trashing those who can’t defend themselves. This is not unlike his unjustified attacks on Toyota that were later proven FALSE . Mr. Waxman did something similar at the April 7th hearing first discussing the CPSIA Amendment. In his opening statement , Mr. Waxman laid it on thick: ” But your discussion draft, which is the subject of today’s hearing, takes a wrecking ball to the law and would endanger young children. . . . Your discussion draft is a very different document. Democrats, consumer groups, and health experts were not consulted. The result is a one-sided proposal that provides relief to industry, but sacrifices children’s health and safety. . . . I have learned over the last few months that there seems to be no limit to the ability of the new Republican majority to pass bad legislation in this Committee and on the House floor. I have no doubt that if you want to do so, you could do so again with your draft bill. But there is no chance that a bill this extreme could ever become law. It would not survive in the Senate and if it did, it would be vetoed by the President . ” [Emphasis added] It’s always nice to end with a threat. The title of this post refers to a lampoon written by now Senator Al Franken (D-MN). In this book , he contends that Republicans are liars. Well, well, well, how times change, huh? Mr. Franken??? Any comment? I didn’t think so.
Read More:
CPSIA – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
CPSIA – Where are We Now?
May 8, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, Featured Articles
I wanted to give you a sense of where the CPSIA amendment effort is right now.
CPSIA – CPSIA Amendment Process
April 10, 2011 by michelle
Filed under BLOG, Featured Articles
I have been asked to explain how this week’s hearing relates to a “process” leading to a CPSIA amendment someday. Good question. I am certainly in no position to do anything more than give you my opinion. At the moment, the House Republicans have floated a draft (and still incomplete) amendment of the CPSIA. This is the third such major amendment try, but the first by the Republicans. The prior two amendments proposed by Henry Waxman died in the last Congress. You may recall many bills that have been proposed by various people to address various elements of the law. None of those bills have moved – they’re basically DOA but perhaps some current bill, like Ms. Klobuchar’s bill in the Senate, would eventually gain some traction. Next steps include completion of the CPSIA amendment and a vote on it in the House. The amendment must gain a majority vote in the entire House after it passes out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As usual, the Committee will seek a bipartisan approach if at all possible. The path forward is not clear in the House at this point. Assuming that the bill passes out of the House, then the bill proceeds to the Senate. Will they vote on it, propose their own version, or let it die? Your guess is as good as mine. There are definitely Senators left singing the old Waxman tune, we NEED this bill to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Will they EVER relent? Will they ALL relent (that’s important in the Senate)? Stay tuned to find out. If the Senate approves its own version of the bill, a conference committee will form to negotiate a common bill for both Houses to approve. That’s probably where the action will take place, far from your intruding eyes. Presumably, Mr. Obama will be consulted and his agreement secured. Mr. Obama wrote part of the CPSIA. Ugh . . . . The last step is for Mr. Obama to sign the bill. We are not exactly dancing in the end zone yet, although we’ve made progress. There will be more action to come.
Go here to read the rest:
CPSIA – CPSIA Amendment Process
CPSIA – Analysis of Pending House CPSIA Amendment (Sections 3-11)
April 4, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, Featured Articles
Continuing with my analysis of the pending draft of the CPSIA Amendment:
Section 3
CPSIA – Analysis of Pending House CPSIA Amendment (Sections 1 and 2)
April 4, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, Featured Articles
[This is a long essay - I apologize.
CPSIA – The Senate Wants to Save ATVs . . . What about the Rest of Us???
March 31, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, Featured Articles
Yesterday Senators Klobuchar and Tester offered an amendment to S. 493, a moving bill to reauthorize the small business administration (“SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011″).
CPSIA – New CPSIA Amendment Revealed
March 29, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, Featured Articles
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade has produced a new draft amendment of the CPSIA.
CPSIA – NAM Letter Pounds the CPSIA Database
March 9, 2011 by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman, Learning Resources, Inc.
Filed under BLOG, Featured Articles
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
