GUEST BLOG – BOSTON GLOBE WRITER TAKES NOTICE OF ALL THOSE CPSC RECALLS

Rick has blogged in this space about how the onslaught of recalls by the CPSC is numbing to consumers. Boston Globe writer Sylvia Pagán Westphal has taken notice in a column over the weekend:

Boston Globe

The safety scare
Separate dangerous products from those that pose little risk
By Sylvia Pagán Westphal | July 7, 2010

IF YOU’RE the parent of a young child and want to be very scared, don’t waste time looking for horror movies on TV. Just go to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website for child product recalls. You won’t be able to sleep for days.

The site features an interminable selection of common children’s products that have been recalled. Some of the depictions are downright gruesome: in cases of defective cribs, for example, there are pictures of baby dolls with necks pinned down between rails, or of their little faces pressed against a mattress, as if suffocating. The intent is, to be sure — for I see no other reason to scare the wits out of an unsuspecting, Internet-roaming mother — to jolt parents into action if they own one of the products.

One recent afternoon, I was clicking through the recalls page when I realized, to my dismay, that during my 9-year stint as a parent I have owned several of the featured items. My colorful rainforest-themed baby swing was there, and so was one of my cribs. The baby sling I used with my son was recalled after three babies suffocated in 2009. The kinds of bath seats I used (and loved) with my daughter aren’t sold anymore, following various recalls.

I never found out about these announcements. Had I taken the time to register each product I might have heard from the manufacturers, but I didn’t do it, and neither do most of the parents I know. Some pediatricians’ offices and stores post selected recall sheets, and there is an e-mail list from Consumer Product Safety Commission one can opt into, but with over 100 of these announcements per year it’s hard to keep track of the information.

Part of the problem is that recall announcements don’t explicitly distinguish between problems with products that are truly dangerous and defective versus products with sub-optimal design that, when used properly, pose little risk. For example, the commission recently recalled a bed because one child got his head stuck in its storage compartment. Not to take away from that kid’s pain, but I have numerous compartments in my home where my children’s heads would fit if they tried hard enough.

In a way, some of the announcements appear to be directed at shielding us from our own parental incompetence. Millions of baby bath seats and walkers are no longer sold due to drownings and falls suffered by babies who were basically left unsupervised. The recent high-profile recalls of drop-side cribs were prompted by deaths that, in some cases, were caused by cribs that were incorrectly put together or were subjected to shoddy home repairs.

Don’t get me wrong: to the extent that these recalls remove poorly designed products from the market the efforts should be praised. If motels and hotels are forced to carry safer cribs, that’s a good thing. But the Consumer Product Safety Commission and other safety advocacy groups should be mindful of putting each recall into perspective, so as not to unnecessarily scare the public. For example, the multiple recalls (and likely national ban) on drop-side cribs comes after 32 documented deaths over the last 10 years and millions of cribs sold. That’s surely 32 deaths too many, but more children die each year choking on food.

There is a real downside to a system that feeds into our nation’s growing safety paranoia, which isn’t healthy either. Many of my overseas friends have a hard time understanding our obsession with safety — we put locks on our toilet seats, cover the corners of tables with rubber guards, and use hand sanitizer with ever-intensifying zeal. Taking that baby walker away, just like covering the table corners, is a bit like avoiding air travel for fear of crashing, while still driving a car every day. The world is a very dangerous place to raise a child. Leave the house and there are hard edges, pointy rocks, and steep inclines everywhere. As much as we’d like to, we just can’t childproof those too.

Sylvia Pagán Westphal is a regular contributor to the Globe opinion pages.

Posted to Rick’s Blog by Alliance for Children’s Product Safety Staff

Read more here:
GUEST BLOG – BOSTON GLOBE WRITER TAKES NOTICE OF ALL THOSE CPSC RECALLS

CPSIA – Guest Blogs

I am going on vacation (!) and therefore my blog will be dark, more or less, for a couple weeks. In my absence, we have invited a few friends and interested parties to contribute essays on the CPSIA for inclusion in this space. We do not plan to edit the posts, and hope you will enjoy them.

If you have something to say and were not solicited by me, feel free to send me your essay(s). No promises, but we will consider anything you send us. We are open to opposing views as well. It is my hope to stimulate debate and discussion of important issues relating to the CPSIA . . . before it’s too late.

Rick

Read more here:
CPSIA – Guest Blogs

CPSIA – Deaf Congress Makes Up Its Own Justifications for New Law

The recently approved H.R. 4678 Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2010 is based on testimony given by several of the usual suspects. Consumer groups filed testimony portraying the need for this law as rather “obvious”:

Consumers Union (June 16, 2010): “While [the CPSIA] has made great strides in improving product safety, and will continue to do so as its implementation continues, the CPSIA focuses on improving safety by requiring that children’s products subject to mandatory standards be tested to ensure compliance with the standard. The law does not address bringing foreign manufacturers into our civil justice system. However, to fully protect consumers from unsafe products, wherever they are made, American consumers must be able to hold manufacturers accountable when they are harmed – no matter where the products are made.”

Consumers Union goes on to assert: “If a foreign manufacturer knows that they cannot be held responsible in U.S. courts for the products they sell, this knowledge has a likely significant impact upon their manufacturing decisions. Do they use the stronger, more expensive component? Do they ensure that the product meets the safety standards? Do they prioritize safety if they know they are not accountable to U.S. consumers in U.S. courts? Holding manufacturing entities accountable in our civil justice system acts as an important deterrent to unethical and potentially harmful business conduct.”

The Briefing Memo for the mark-up (prepared by the Dems) takes up the anti-business, leftist consumer group cause, namely that we need to change the rules to allow consumers to sue foreign manufacturers to protect our way of life. The new law is intended to overcome a little legal wrinkle preventing true consumer justice – the U.S. Constitution:

“In addition, even if a victim successfully serves process on a foreign manufacturer, the manufacturer will likely challenge the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it by a U.S. court. Under well-established constitutional due process principles, before a U.S. court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant it must consider: (1) the defendant’s purposeful minimum contacts with the state in which the court sits, and (2) fairness to the defendant of being subjected to jurisdiction in that state’s courts. . . . H.R. 4678 requires foreign manufacturers and producers that import products into the United States to designate a registered agent who is authorized to accept service of process here in the United States. . . . Registering an agent consistent with the Act constitutes acceptance by the manufacturer of personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of the state in which the agent is located.”

Problem solved! Congress found a way to circumvent the framers’ intent. That darned Constitution gets in the way of good government, you know.

Notably, the “urgent” need to go around the Constitution was not echoed in the CPSC’s own testimony:

“Additional authority allowing the CPSC to require foreign manufacturers designate a U.S. registered agent for service of process could be helpful in some cases – particularly those involving administrative requests for documents or information.”

“In a few cases, however, the lack of a registered agent for service of process has hindered the Commission’s ability to develop information that would help us to provide relief to consumers.”

“The lack of a registered agent for service of process has also been recognized by Chinese industry groups, and some local lawyers in China have provided legal advice seeking to exploit this situation . . . . This type of sentiment appears rare.” [Emphasis added]

Opponents to the bill made arguments similar to those previously highlighted in this space (see above and here): American Association of Importers and Exporters and National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America.

I estimate that our business will lose 25-50% of our foreign suppliers and untold numbers of component factories if they are required to have a registered agent under this new law. Most of these sources are irreplaceable in our business (for a variety of reasons). That means that the products we make at these factories will have to be discontinued. Too bad for us, I guess. This could happen quickly, too.

I wish that were the only problem. The lame-brained notion that foreign countries will allow U.S. citizens to cross borders to take domestic assets to settle foreign disputes will prove to be delustional. U.S. companies will soon be greeted by reciprocal registration requirements or even harsher laws exposing them to onerous trade barriers and significant new legal risks. Again, our business is squarely in the bullseye of this maelstrom. We have worked tirelessly for more than 20 years to build an international network of dealers for our products. That creates JOBS here. Anyhow, it is inevitable that a law like this will spawn a need to register our company in dozens of countries abroad, meaning we would need to hire a law firm for each country, translate all the laws, decide if we want to bear the expense and risk of registration. Our foreign business would evaporate quickly and efficiently.

The basic idea that our country actually needs this law is hard to comprehend. Where are all the hungry plaintiffs’ attorneys who can’t put food on the table? Which rights aren’t being satisfied? For each product imported into this country, there must a U.S. importer. Why isn’t that pool of assets enough to satisfy this need, as it has been for years and years? Why doesn’t importers’ exposure under the U.S. tort system provide enough incentive to address Consumers Union’s parade of horribles above? I thought that’s why we have our crazy tort system in the first place. No answer has been provided by Congress to these questions. They just gave us a wonderful new law to worry about.

Thanks so much, Democrats in Congress. We love ya! And we can’t wait to vote AGAINST you! See you at the polls.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Deaf Congress Makes Up Its Own Justifications for New Law

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

CPSIA – Publishers HOWL Over Inadequate Waxman Amendment

As rumors swirl over the demise of the Waxman Amendment (CPSEA) over Mr. Waxman’s stubborn refusal to fix the CPSIA, the Publishing industry is bemoaning their fate under the awful CPSIA. Stand in line, baby!

In an article in Publishers Weekly online, the publishers noted that last week’s hearing did not “address the needs of the book publishing industry, which argues that it should be exempted since virtually no ‘ordinary’ children’s books contain lead above the limits outlined in the CPSIA.” Hmmm. Apparently, the publishers don’t have much of a sense of humor about the burden of being swept up in new safety rules that will accomplish nothing:

“’We don’t see the sense of hundreds of thousands of books clogging the queues at the independent third-party testing facilities, only to be found safe, at a great burden of cost to publishers,’ said Allan Adler, v-p for legal and government affairs at the Association of American Publishers. . . . Adler noted that the current stay of enforcement expires in February 2011 and the publishing industry needs a solution before then. ‘We have our eye on the calendar.’ No matter what happens with “ordinary” children’s books, novelty and book-plus titles (such as those with plastic incorporated or toys attached) will still be subject to the CPSIA’s testing and other requirements.” [Emphasis added]

Eyes on the calendar . . . wow, the publishers really seemed pissed off. I wonder why.

Well, since you asked, here is the data for all book recalls in the last 11 years:

• Choking recalls: 8 recalls, 1 injury, no deaths
• Lead recalls: 2 recalls, no injuries, no deaths
• Lead-in-paint: 3 recalls, no injuries, no deaths
• Strangulation: 1 recall, no injuries, no deaths

Obviously a very dangerous category of products – books produced one injury in 11 years. The “injury” was that a child “began to choke”. Oh the horror of it all.

Think of the quality of our government – the book guys have been begging, literally BEGGING, for relief for almost two years now and the Dem-led Congress has utterly refused to act. The most the CPSC could do for them was to announce that books printed after 1985 were lead-free. Everybody, toss out your copy of “1984″. The government says so!

Let’s dig a bit deeper into the five recalls associated with lead. I am sure these injury-free lead recalls over the last 11 years will clarify how at risk we are:

1. Parragon, Inc.: This recall for lead featured lead solder on a jewelry charm. Oooo, that’s scary.
2. St. Martin’s Press LLC: This recall of cloth books featured a “red plastic dot” that contained high levels of lead. I assume this “dot” was made of vinyl and was not in fact coated. One might ask how this might cause lead poisoning. This recall was a head scratcher for many people after it occurred.
3. Martin Designs, Inc.: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.
4. eeBoo Corp.: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.
5. Galison/Mudpuppy: This recall involved lead paint on the spiral binding of a book.

Please note that the lead-in-paint violations were ALSO violations of prior law. Lead-in-paint has been illegal for decades on children’s products.

Can anyone identify the dreaded danger posed by books? As I said long ago in this space, I always thought it was the words that were dangerous in a book. Certainly that’s what seems to be dangerous in a blog . . . .

And perhaps someone from the CPSC (I know you are reading this, I can see you!) could leave a comment here admitting how many man-hours have been spent (wasted) on the book issue under the CPSIA. I bet it’s nothing short of 500 man-hours, and would not be surprised if it’s more than a full man-year.

And remember, when the CPSC devotes all its resources to counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, they have very little time to find dangerous products (no, I mean ACTUALLY dangerous products). Feeling safer yet? [You shouldn't.]

Too bad, book people. You are a “necessary sacrifice” to the greater cause of making children so, so, SOOOOO safe.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Publishers HOWL Over Inadequate Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – The New Waxman Amendment Analyzed

On Friday, House Democrats began to circulate a discussion draft of a new amendment to the CPSIA. This draft follows the abortive effort by Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slip a CPSIA amendment to his own liking into omnibus legislation last December. [That effort was disclosed and discussed in this space from December 11-16, 2009.] The crash-and-burn of the first Waxman amendment created a new dynamic in CPSIA negotiations as it was the first (tacit) public acknowledgement by Waxman that the law was flawed AND that the CPSC could not fix it by itself. The failure of the secret amendment effort also showed that Mr. Waxman isn’t invincible. So, a step in the right direction.

Recently, in the wake of the January 15th recommendations of the CPSC Commission, the Dems reignited the simmering discussion of CPSIA changes by engaging various stakeholders on how the first Waxman amendment could be improved. This process was constrained by the Dems’ insistence that comments be in the form of changes to the first Waxman amendment, thereby eliminating anything too “blue sky”. Consistent with the recent (and short-lived) post-Massachusetts Dem preference for bipartisan “cooperation”, the Dems actually asked House Republicans what they thought. Let’s just say the Republicans see some basic flaws in the law. . . . Anyhow, the Republicans having provided their feedback, largely rebuffed, this draft emerged.

The procedural process forward is unclear. The standard (and appropriate) process would be a hearing followed by a “mark-up”. The Senate also has something to say on this legislation (their position is not clear although Senate Dems more readily acknowledge the need to fix the law). It remains to be seen whether Waxman will allow a real hearing on the CPSIA to take place. Dissenting views are not well-tolerated in this era of Congress. Anyhow, the Dems are asking stakeholders to send comments by this Friday.

I intend to discuss this proposed legislation in several essays. In this essay, I would like to discuss global issues. I will return to discuss the specifics of the law, notably the treatment of Section 101(b), in later posts.

A few thoughts, generally:

a. The amendment dodges most of the serious issues in the law. My list of changes is comprehensive, and the draft legislation avoids most of it. This amendment makes no effort to respond broadly to the well-documented flaws in the law. No one can argue anymore that the CPSC can fix these problems. The legislation reads (to me) like the position of someone almost completely in denial.

Let’s face FACTS – the CPSIA was passed on August 14, 2008. It is now March 14, 2010. That’s a long time. The CPSC has blown countless deadlines, and has failed to resolve MANY critical issues so far, like the phthalates test standard, the 15 month rule and so on. They are working around the clock. This thing is not going to fix itself, and the agency’s future is literally at stake.

The Dems refusal to face up to these issues is a betrayal of you, your customers and your marketplace.

b. You might ask – WHY are the Dems avoiding all of these serious issues? Are they deaf?

I think the answer is that they are hardly deaf but have little interest in opposing viewpoints. The CPSIA is their legacy and as such, no amendment will be blessed by them if it admits a defect in their original thinking or their asserted Perfect Legislative Process. An “acceptable” amendment must therefore pay homage to the original law and its structure. By working within the law’s original structure, the Dems ensure that the basic defects will survive amendment – and the consequences to your business, your market and to the regulators themselves will remain devastating.

[The Dems' "legacy" also survives if they can delay change long enough to make it impractical or impossible to unwind all rules and regulations implementing the misguided CPSIA. After all, we business people have no choice but to upend our businesses to follow these rules, and would incur more damaging expense to change our processes a second time. There seems little doubt that the forces behind the CPSIA want the law's infrastructure to be impossible to untangle by future Congresses or CPSC Commissions.]

The Dems’ homage to the original law is evident in several places. For instance, the concept of a “low volume manufacturer” is designed to provide a very (VERY) limited opportunity to craft an exception to the original testing requirements. Even so, the language clearly states that exceptions benefiting the LVMs must still “assure certification based on compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards.” [Emphasis added.] In other words, no exception will be given to the little guys from the law’s basic premise that manufacturers must prove compliance before sale. [More on LVMs later.]

The proposed rules on the so-called “functional purpose” exception also kowtows to the law’s concept that everyone must ask for permission to be excused from lead requirements. In other words, the Dems reject the notion that the law can be narrowed rationally and appropriately without a burdensome bureaucratic process. Even action by the agency on its own initiative will be a major ordeal. The Dems know (because they have been told) that the exception process is effectively a closed door for all but the most well-capitalized companies. You may interpret the legislative language as the Dems’ response to this small business issue.

Another good example of the Dems’ sticking with the original law’s structure is the use of the word “practicable” in the Section 101(b) changes. This change is the doorway for the ATV’rs and book publishers to argue for exceptions to the lead-in-substrate standards. I am told that this word was chosen because of a Supreme Court decision (that I have not read) holding that “practicable” incorporates concepts of economics. Ah, I see. In other words, this language is a way to make the law look just like the original one, but still provide a faint hope for business people that they can somehow wriggle out of ridiculous lead-in-substrate restrictions. It’s obscure, to say the least, but leaves the original legislative structure in place – the Dems’ principal goal.

c. The new amendment ADDS more complexity to an already blindingly complex law. I have written about complexity numerous times, and recently posted a video explaining the frustrating challenge of trying to understand this law fully. Complexity in this case does not reflect the difficulty in creating a safe market for children’s products. Actually, that issue is long-resolved. The complexity stems entirely from a defective legal structure and its consequences. If the Dems insist on keeping the original CPSIA structure in place, you must get used to complexity spawning more complexity in your business life. It will only get worse.

This is what Big Government looks like. Hope you like it.

d. CRITICAL ISSUES are absent and unaddressed in this legislation. Examples:

• Risk Assessment by the CPSC and/or the Commission.
• Changes in age limits for the lead standards and phthalates ban.
• Narrowing of the scope of “Children’s Product” to eliminate many categories of products unthinkingly pulled into this law by its overly broad language.
• True reform to protect small businesses.
• Tracking labels relief.

And so on. As noted above, to take these steps would mean acknowledging that the original law was grossly defective. The Dems would rather eat lead-free glass than admit their career achievement was fundamentally defective. Ironically, the Republicans have no such reluctance, despite voting for the original law. The sad prospect is that unless the Dems have a change of outlook (soon), real reform may need to wait for a change in gavel (bye, bye, Mr. Waxman).

Hence my excitement over the prospect of voting in November.

More to follow.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The New Waxman Amendment Analyzed

CPSIA – Redesign the Dog!

I hope you didn’t miss the hubbub today from the American Academy of Pediatrics over dangerous hot dogs. Apparently, you can choke on hot dogs. This shocking revelation stimulated an outpouring of news articles, including this one: “Pediatricians call for hot dogs to be redesigned“. I guess the bun would have be altered, too. Readers, submit your suggestions as comments! I am looking for something very “Space Age” but also exquisitely safe.

Pundits across the blogosphere couldn’t let this pass, like our friends Walter Olson (“Cut grapes into pea-sized portions?“) and Lenora Skenazy (“Surely You Must Be Choking!“). Many newspapers repeated the AAP’s call for warning labels on items like nuts, certain hard fruits and hot dogs. “Back away from the peanut slowly, Tommy, I don’t want you to choke!”

Any of this ring a bell? The AAP remains among the most ardent of the CPSIA advocates. They are in regular contact with the Waxmanis and advise on which scraps of relief we might be allowed. In fact, my spies point to the AAP as the big rabble rouser on rhinestones (sooooooo dangerous!) Having succeeded in gutting the children’s products industry, the AAP have turned their attention to that symbol of America, the hot dog. Parents cannot possibly deal with hot dogs without government intervention – individual responsibility is so passe. The AAP will make us all so safe . . . .

This seems to be a theme of this space – the world seems to have lost its moorings. Redesign the dog, indeed. Spare me.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Redesign the Dog!

CPSIA – Some ICPHSO Humor

After a day at ICPHSO when

• The General Counsel quizzed the audience perhaps ten times about who was tweeting (my spies indicate that three people tweeted from that session, including me), ribbing us (me?) for letting you know what she was saying. [I blogged live from last year's event, which was noted with shock by some participants.]
• The Chairman instructed us not to believe “Internet rumors” and to only believe websites ending in “dot gov”. You know, you can always believe your government!
• The Chairman told us to stop fighting old battles – in other words, give up, guys!
• The Chairman heralded the work of the Center for Environmental Health, one of the most noxious of the consumer group terrorists active in today’s market. Their tactic of extracting coercive settlements under CA Proposition 65 to set precedent and to fund their activities has been well-documented in this space.
• The looming reality of the public database was shoved in our faces (Tenenbaum: It’s time to get prepared). We confronted the realization that we will be forced to treat every consumer report as an emergency simply because of the database, and
• The Chairman pointed to the Toyota feeding frenzy as the model for future regulatory action on “slow” recalls in this era of populist corporation bashing,

where do you think the ICPHSO planners sent everyone on last night’s social event?

To see “Sheer Madness”, of course!

You have to admit, it was a perfect choice.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Some ICPHSO Humor

CPSIA – The Eyes Glaze Over . . . .

Sometimes I wonder if they have completely lost it at the CPSC. This evening we received the CPSC Federal Register notice on the Stay decision (actually entitled “Consumer Product Safety Act: Notice of Commission Action on the Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification Requirements”). I seriously wonder if anyone read it over in Bethesda. I have NEVER seen anything this dense and unintelligible come out of that office.

As the Commission tucks itself into bed before an exciting day tomorrow in which it can either decently provide enough time for an orderly implementation of this mess of a law or send small businesses down the river, I hope somebody is thinking about the complexity of what they have wrought. Of course, rules always seem more complex when they apply to you than when they apply to someone else. Still, perhaps a quick scan of this document might enlighten the Democrat Commissioners who seem particularly dense on the subject of why businesses want more clarity before the rules go “hard”.

I uncovered this while on a mission from a reader of this space. I had been alerted to the possibility that this document said that the lead content stay was LIFTED. This could not be true, since a ballot vote is definitely docketed for tomorrow on this subject. Even at a Waxman-dominated CPSC, it would be rather ballsy to issue a notice announcing a decision before the vote was tallied. With three Democrats “highly sympathetic” and “seriously considering” the opposing views but by all appearances having irretrievably made up their minds, it is not hard to imagine that skipping a step might have a certain appeal. Why bother waiting for the Republicans to lose (again)???

Well, incredibly, my reader was RIGHT – the document states that the date for the lead content rules to become effective is August 10, 2010, a “date certain”:

“With regard to lead content, the Commission has determined that testing of children’s products for lead content by a third party conformity assessment body and certification based upon that testing should begin on products manufactured after August 10, 2010 to allow component testing to form the basis for certifications for lead content and permit the staff to complete an interpretative rule on the meaning of the term ‘children’s product.’ An interpretative rule on the meaning of the term ‘children’s product’ would provide firms with additional guidance on when testing for lead content will be required by the Commission.”

Apparently, no one updated this FR notice for this morning’s motion to docket this decision for ballot vote tomorrow. Oops!

Remember the part in the hearing today where they discussed market disruptions and the need for businesses to have time to absorb and adjust to the new rules? Does anyone wonder why we have confusion in the market after you read this document? Please be honest. Myself, I experience shortness of breath when I read dense prose like this. I think the works of David Hume seem more accessible than this kind of thing – so why does the Commission delude itself that anyone undersands the mountains of rules and rulings it spews out? Market confusion is all but certain when implementation is handled this insensitively.

One reason is that some Commissioners hear what they want to hear, and ignore the rest. This is called “selective hearing”; I know all about this topic, as there is at least one person who lives in my house who has been regularly accused of this malady. [No names, please.] For instance, yours truly pointed out serious errors in the presentations by CPSC professional staff during last week’s workshop as well as in the preceding December 2 hearing to a Commission staffer. I don’t blame the CPSC staff nor do I consider these errors to mean much . . . other than the fact that the CPSC staff is supposed to know these rules better than anyone else, and if they make errors (understandable), what do they honestly expect of the regulated community??? If we make these errors, we get whacked with high fines or possibly, if the CPSC is riled up enough, go to the pokey. Isn’t the occurrence of serious errors by CPSC staff an indication of over-complexity? This was all known to the Commission before today’s hearing. Get this – the Emperor has no clothes.

Still not convinced? Try this passage on for size, and then TRY to imagine running a normal business catering to children and in your spare time attempting to comply with this law. Imagine trying to master this law as implemented by the CPSC, given that you are not a lawyer, can’t afford a lawyer or a legal department, and don’t have a few unoccupied months to study the mountains of paper the CPSC emits. It’s something you have to do in between everything else you do in your job. And the CPSC says:

“In the months after the Commission issued the stay of enforcement, the regulatory environment has changed significantly [No problemo!], and both the CPSC and interested parties have increased their understanding of the CPSIA and its requirements. [Yes, bring it, baby!] For example, between February 9, 2009 and the date of publication of this notice, the Commission issued more than 20 FEDERAL REGISTER notices, statements of policy, guidance documents, proposed rules, interim final rules, and final rules pertaining to the CPSIA, and most of these documents pertained to testing and certification issues. [This is not a joke. I didn't write this part, either.] These FEDERAL REGISTER documents include:

• “Third Party Testing for Certain Children’s Products; Notice of Requirements for the Accreditation of Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies to Assess Conformity with the Limits on Total Lead in Children’s Products,” 74 FR 55820 (October 29, 2009);
• “Notice of Availability of a Statement of Policy: Testing and Certification of Lead Content in Children’s Products,” 74 FR 55820 (October 29, 2009);
• Proposed Rule on “Safety Standard for Infant Walkers,” 74 FR 45704 (September 3, 2009);
• Proposed Rule on “Safety Standard for Bath Seats,” 74 FR 45719 (September 3, 2009);
• “Third Party Testing for Certain Children’s Products; Notice of Requirements for Accreditation of Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies to Assess Conformity with Parts 1203,1510,1512, and/or 1513 and Section 1500.86(a)(7) and/or (a)(8) of Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations,” 74 FR 45428 (September 2,2009);
• Final Rule on “Children’s Products Containing Lead; Determinations Regarding Lead Content Limits on Certain Materials or Products,” 74 FR 43031 (Aug. 26, 2009);
• “Notice of Availability of a Statement of Policy: Testing of Component Parts With Respect to Section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act,” 74 FR 41400 (August 17,2009);
• Final Rule on “Children’s Products Containing Lead; Interpretative Rule on Inaccessible Component Parts,” 74 FR 39535 (August 7, 2009);
• Proposed Rule on Requirements for Consumer Registration of Durable Infant or Toddler Products, 74 FR 30983 (June 29, 2009);
• Final Rule on “Children’s Products Containing Lead; Final Rule; Procedures and Requirements for a Commission Determination of Exclusion,” 74 FR 10475 (Mar. 11,2009);
• Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance Regarding Which Children’s Products are Subject to the Requirements of CPSIA Section 108; Request for Comments and Information, 74 FR 8058 (Feb. 23, 2009); and
• Interim Final Rule on “Children’s Products Containing Lead; Exemptions for Certain Electronic Devices; Interim Final Rule,” 74 FR 6990 (Feb. 12, 2009).

Additionally, the Commission has met with numerous parties to discuss various aspects of the CPSIA or educate interested parties about the CPSIA’s requirements, and, on December 10, and 11, 2009, it held a two-day workshop to discuss issues relating to the testing, certification, and labeling of certain consumer products pursuant to section 14 of the CPSA (see 74 FR 58611 (November 13, 2009). [You know, the one last Thursday and Friday with simultaneous panels going on all day on both days. There has been no time to review or consider the data gathered at the workshop, or the written comments which will continue to come in for the next 25 days.] Given the issuance of many rules and other FEDERAL REGISTER documents, statements of policy, and guidance documents [OMG, there were other documents besides these?!], as well as increased understanding of the CPSIA’s requirements, the Commission believes it is appropriate to phase in the testing and certification requirements as described in more detail below.” [This passage is followed by pages of details of stays lifted, extended, partially extended, whathaveyou. It also includes the errant language on the lead content stay.]

I find myself scratching my head in wonder. What is going on here? Is this being staged for effect, or are they SERIOUSLY trying to regulate this way? Is ANYONE accountable over at the CPSC? Can they get away with anything and everything?

It is sickening that a discussion is even necessary for the extension of the stay on lead content. The Commission should hang its head in shame for foisting this mess off on an innocent manufacturing community. What on earth did we do to deserve this treatment? I am tired of this Commission bowing down to Henry Waxman and a howling pack of fear mongering consumer groups. Those people have never worked for actual operating companies and know nothing about the realities of the marketplace or manufacturing itself. It’s time to stop sticking it to the manufacturing community.

The WSJ noted tonight that Congress and Mr. Obama have hit new lows in popularity. I particularly found interesting that 81% of the participants in the new poll considered this “a period of division where the parties held fast to their positions and showed little willingness to compromise” in Congress. Do we really want this export at the CPSC? As a member of the regulated community, I vote no!

Tomorrow’s vote is going to tell us all a lot about this Commission and its leadership. Watch this space for news.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Eyes Glaze Over . . . .

CPSIA – CPSC Clears Zhu Zhu Pets . . . But The Damage Can’t Be Repaired

Last week, in the heat of the post-Thanksgiving holiday buying crush, yet another unscrupulous or incompetent consumer group, so the so-called “GoodGuide” out of San Francisco chose to launch an attack on a high-profile toy, the “Zhu Zhu Pet”, specifically “Mr. Squiggles”. The Zhu Zhu Pet product line is this year’s Must-Have Toy, a perfect target for selling papers and promoting fear. Mr. Squiggles’ “crime” was purportedly the presence of microscopic amounts of tin and antimony above the absurdly cautious CPSIA standards for those elements. GoodGuide (for purposes of this blogpost, let’s call them “MisleadingGuide”) cited Mr. Squiggles for having “elevated levels” of the elements in its hair and on its cute little nose. The offending levels: tin (I can’t find the data anywhere) and antimony, 93 ppm on the hair and 103 ppm on the nose. The federal limits under the CPSIA is 60 ppm.

The MisleadingGuide report was issued on Saturday Dec. 5, and to the CPSC’s credit, it acted promptly today by announcing its intention to swiftly investigate, and later (on the same day), cleared the toys. In response to the storm over its accusations, MisleadingGuide acknowledged that it used a XRF gun to test the surface and did not use the federal wet test methods. Oopsie-daisy! MisleadingGuide apparently regrets its error. Interestingly, the retraction/correction of MisleadingGuide is nowhere to be found on its review of Mr. Squiggles. The MisleadingGuide rating is also unchanged as are the misleading results that MisleadingGuide says it “regrets” but hasn’t gotten around to correcting. Notably, in the small print of one of its disclaimers, MisleadingGuide notes that much of its data comes from consumer group luminaries regularly heralded in this space such as HealthyToys.org and the ever-present Center for Environmental Health. Now that’s some fine company!

This very sorry and sickening episode is the latest instance of consumer group terrorism playing up to an easily panicked and understandably rattled American public. Using the imprimatur granted by their self-appointed role as protectors of public welfare, consumer groups nowadays shoot first and ask questions later. An unskeptical media republishes their garbage without comment, other than to whip up the flames of fear. The cost and the consequence is the random devastation of businesses for “crimes” that are very often imaginary. In this case, the tiny company responsible for this monster hit has only 16 employees. Not exactly a Mattel with a large in-house legal department or the other resources of a mega-company accustomed to being kneecapped by Naderites. A real U.S. success story – brought low by consumer group incompetence and irresponsibility. As everyone knows, there is no recourse for these entrepreneurs as their franchise is damaged mid-Christmas selling season. Dreams dashed, and the consumer groups hardly even blink. Of course, MisleadingGuide does “regret” its error. A bit of cold comfort for the 16 employees at Cepia as they examine the lumps of coal in their Xmas stockings.

Part of the consumer group M.O. is to stoke fear by tossing around figures that no one understands. In this case, they chose some new, unfamiliar elements to create the illusion of irresponsibility by a toy company. Tin? Antimony? I thought the culprits these days were lead and phthalates? No, when those items fade, new threats are manufactured to spread fear and distrust. I should point out that MisleadingGuide is arguing about being 33 and 43 PARTS PER MILLION over the new federal limit.

Tin and antimony are not radioactive, these ultra-amounts are basically undetectable. There is no indication anywhere that exposure to an incremental amount of these elements at this level would be dangerous. However, the new standard is misleadingly portrayed by these unscrupulous or unsophisticated consumer groups as a human health exposure limit, reasoning that anything above the limit is a sign of DANGER. The press is all too willing to make their claims seem legitimate: “Tests in animals have attributed a series of ailments large-scale consumption of antimony, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease says. Yet the DHHS also says it does not ‘know what other health effects would occur to people who swallow antimony.’” Ah, the seeds of doubt! Notably, unless you gorge on Zhu Zhu Pets regularly, large-scale consumption of antimony is irrelevant in this case. This kind of reporting hands a “win” to the consumer groups. The losers outnumber the winners by a wide margin.

I think there are many damaged parties in this pathetic episode. Let me list them:

• You. The American consumer loses EVERY TIME as confidence in our neighbors and in our stream of commerce is nicked again and again by nincompoops who spread salacious gossip and commercial slander without a full and thoughtful investigation.
• Science. The abuse of science will eventually lead to a mistrust of science. Science misused for the purposes of raising contributions or gathering proceeds from fines or contingent legal fees discredits it as a source of understanding of our world. Our country will lose out to countries not as obsessed with small-minded paranoia.
• Specialty Markets and Small Business Interests. What kind of crazies want to do business in this environment where consumer group terrorists rule the planet? Business people read these articles and feel an injury to themselves. We all know we could be next. It’s random and unpredictable, since junk science can be deployed anywhere and anytime by the evil tandem of an unquestioning press and unscrupulous consumer advocates.
• Our National Competitiveness. By allowing consumer groups to pick innocent victims without recourse for the tortious devastation they cause, the incentive to innovate or even trade is sharply curtailed. Businesses seek exits, not growth – some jobs program, huh? The costs imposed on healthy businesses to stay ahead of the maniacs will further cripple competitiveness. As a nation, we will gradually sink into an abyss of irrelevance.

How long must we tolerate consumer group terrorists? I think it’s time for Congress to create a new cause of action against this kind of irresponsible behavior. Someone needs to be accountable for the spreading of misinformation, damaging innocent and honest American businesses trying to create jobs and provide needed products and services to American families and schools. The torts of the consumer group creeps need a remedy. Let’s turn the tables on these fronts for plaintiff’s attorneys and take back our country.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC Clears Zhu Zhu Pets . . . But The Damage Can’t Be Repaired

« Previous Page — Next Page »