CPSIA – ICPHSO Keynote Speech by Inez Tenenbaum

This speech will no doubt be posted on the CPSC website shortly. I will add the link later, please forgive any errors in these notes.

Reviewed 2010 efforts and achievements.

1. New crib standards (“vastly improved”).
2. Baby bath seats and walker rules
3. Cadmium in jewelry and children’s products (held off what might have been a repeat of the lead recall fiasco). Turned back some shipments at the port. Are now screening for cadmium when they find low lead levels in children’s products. Looking at cadmium in substrate in toys and in children’s products generally. Technical staff has made their position on these issues “abundantly clear”.
4. Toy safety improved. Recalls reduced from 172 in 2008 to 50 in 2009 to 44 in 2010. Lead recalls in 2010 were THREE. [RW: Obviously, lead is a huge issue.] This has helped to “restore” consumer confidence in toys.
5. Drywall initiative with HUD. Warnings about sleep positioners and baby slings.

As for 2011,

1. Looking forward to a “civil discussion” of the issues in 2011. The Commissioners go out to lunch together and aren’t like the Sopranos. The Commission is not fractious. 85% of our votes are unanimous. We do disagree from time to time, but “hope to do so without personal or disparaging attacks”.
2. 2010 was the year of the Consumer and 2011 will be “the year to get connected with the CPSC”. [RW: Last year she promised us that 2011 would be the year of enforcement. I guess that lays ahead . . . .]
3. Will implement the Five Year Strategic Plan
4. Wants to use Neal Cohen’s office
5. Launch the new database, assuming the government is “still open”.
6. Continuing new Section 104 rules, Pool Safely initiative, educating consumers about safe sleep.

“Knocking on the door” on being the global leader in consumer product safety. Looking for an “even more rigorous” identification process for product hazards. Will turn hazard identification into injury reduction. Want “safety built into the products intended for our store shelves.”

Touts her agency’s agreement with the Chinese government on toy safety. Sampling and testing in China will help assure safety.

Touts Neal Cohen’s efforts, and the efforts of the CPSC Beijing office. Re Small Business Ombudsman, it is dedicated “touch point” for small business for education. Many manufacturers might not know where to turn for information or to fully implement the new rules. Not trying to take away business from outside counsel. [She really said this.] Wants to facilitate the transfer of knowledge across industries.

[No mention of SBO advocating for small business or playing an active role in RESOLVING rules disputes or problems. Hmmm. A shoulder to cry on?]

Looking at a shifting supply base, bringing other countries into play. We’re looking to prevent a repeat of the China problems.

Re toxic metals, lead and cadmium requirements are intended to create safeguards for the future. Need to expand our vision beyond lead and cadmium. She’s got a nice long list of new things to be scared of. We want to be “leaders” in preventing harm from these metals. Need to avoid exposure from the substrate of toys or other products.

[RW: I think a few more tests will do us ALL a lot of good! I am CRAZY to stick around in this industry.]

Back to new crib standards. Cribs must be replaced by end of 2012 to come into compliance with the new rules. [RW: Stimulus plan!] Cribs compliant with the new rules will be available by June, we hope. Lots new rules in “safe sleep” and other juvenile products.

Database ready to roll in two weeks. Don’t forget to ask CF “more questions” today at 4 PM. ["More" questions?] She respectfully disagrees with objections to the database. Her pledge is that they will educate consumers that the report should be accurate and safety-based. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of the good. Data warehouse will promote greater efficiency. Consumers will be more “empowered”. If consumers withdraw products while the CPSC is working behind the scenes to issue a recall, that’s a good thing in her view.

[RW: Is it a "good thing" if they withdraw from using products that are safe or are not subject to recall? Hmmm. That question was unaddressed.]

Recounts her advice on how to amend the CPSIA (functional purpose exception, should get the lead out if it’s “practical” to be removed, 100 ppm should be prospective only, and small businesses and small batch manufacturers deserve some relief). Will work with Congress on other changes.

She says, change it but don’t end it. Hmmm. Certainly remains open to making old suggested changes to the law.

Finally, pleased to share that starting on March 1, will launch the Chairman’s Commendation Circle Program. There will be more details about the nomination process. Wants to highlight innovators and those who are working to prevent injuries every day. [Hmmm.]

Have the right team in place, willing to take action against those who don’t follow the law. Forging a new regulatory approach with predictability and consumer confidence. If all of us can be partners in this effort, can build on the progress made in recent years.

RW: This is BY FAR the least threatening speech by Ms. Tenenbaum since she ascended to her chairmanship. Let’s hope this signals a significant shift in tone and direction.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Keynote Speech by Inez Tenenbaum

CPSIA – Save "Lost Souls", Vote for the Slanderbase!

The semi-religious mission of the safety zealots was on full display in today’s New York Times. In an article entitled “Deep Divisions as Vote Nears on Product Safety Database“, the Times profiled the controversy of the pending public database final rule approval (due on November 24th in a rubber stamp Commission session), highlighting on the idealist objectives of the database supporters. As per its typical leftist slant, the Times article gives scant credence to the legitimate concerns of manufacturers or the demonstrable consequences of the unrealistic Utopian vision underlying the CPSIA. After all, we manufacturers only care about money, right?

Every drama needs a hero, villain and victim. The public database controversy has all the right elements – manufacturers and Republicans as “villains”, consumer groups and Democrats as “heroes” and consumers as “victims”. Positioned this way, why would anyone ever support manufacturers? Who would want to even listen to the black hats? Hmmm. Good strategy, Naderites!

Consider the illustration used in the article – Michele Witte suffered the unspeakable horror of losing her child in a crib death. She asserts that the database might have saved her child. Perhaps that is true, perhaps it is not. Nothing can salve the wounds she has suffered . . . but that does not make the database a good idea. [I might feel differently about the database if, for instance, it was limited to deaths.]

The implication that the database is necessary to protect consumers is not a well-examined assertion. There is already a lot of data available to consumers. For instance, the CPSC maintains a massive national injury database called NEISS. A search of crib injuries on the NEISS database for 2009 (classes 1543-1545) reveals 572 reports which extrapolates into a national injury estimate (for 2009 ALONE) of 16,537 incidents.

Here are a few representative NEISS entries (the first five in the above sample):

- CHILD FELL 3 FEET OUT OF CRIB AND LANDED ON TILE FLOOR. CRIED IMMEDIATELY. D:CHI, FOREHEAD HEMATOMA.
- PT FELL WHILE TRYING TO CLIMB FROM HIS CRIB. LANDED ON L SHOULDER ON THE FLOOR. FELL 4 FT. CRIES WHEN PICKED UP UNDER ARM.
- PT FELL OUT OF HER CRIB AND STRUCK HER HEAD. NO LOC. CRIED IMMED. NOW ACTING NORMALLY.
- FELL OUT OF CRIB. DX HEAD INJURY
- PT STANDING UP IN CRIB, FELL BACKWARD AND HIT HEAD ON CRIB, NO LOC BUT MOM STATES PT HAD DAZED LOOK AND HAS BEEN LETHARGIC; HEAD INJURY

Did you learn a lot from this information? Can you verify that it’s true? Can you see ANY issues with attaching (unverified) product identities to this unverified and uninvestigated data? Are you a plaintiff’s attorney?

What are the zealots saying to justify their support of the database in the face of persistent and rational criticism of its design? Commissioner Bob Adler, former Henry Waxman staffer and longtime board member of Consumers Union, sums it up:

“Some folks are worried more about lost sales and not worried enough about lost souls.“

So, in other words, Adler condescendingly asserts that people like me are only concerned with MONEY. Instead, he claims that what’s really at stake here are “lost souls”. What is Adler talking about? Here’s what Wikipedia says about “souls”:

“A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing. Many philosophical and spiritual systems teach that humans are souls; some attribute souls to all living things and even to inanimate objects (such as rivers); this belief is commonly called animism. The soul is often believed to exit the body and live on after a person’s death, and some religions posit that God creates souls.” [Emphasis added]

Mr. Adler’s POV makes the question of having a federal database a moral imperative. Wow, now that’s a heavy decision – souls are at stake! Furthermore, Mr. Adler positions those who support the database as moral people and those who oppose it as immoral money-grubbers who prize financial well-being over the safety of consumers. Ugh. I would hate to be a Republican Commissioner voting against the final public database rule with Mr. Adler’s curse hanging over my head! Ouch.

Catching on to the theme, Ami Gadhia of Consumers Union, chimes in: “It’s a slow death . . . . [The] information never gets out in the public.” [Emphasis added] Death . . . souls . . . database! Do I hear a new slogan???

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, ever sensitive to criticism, archly defends the agency’s effort to dialogue with people like me. Please recall that part of their “outreach” was to ask me to spend our company’s money to fly to Washington, D.C. to give testimony on the public database. Matt Howsare, Tenenbaum’s then Counsel and now Chief of Staff, told me that they needed more perspective from manufacturers and kindly asked me to prepare testimony. As previously noted, NOTHING that I said in my testimony was adopted or used in any way apparent to me. The NYT notes:

“The commission chairwoman, Inez Tenenbaum, disputed the idea that manufacturers’ concerns had not been properly considered. She said the agency offered numerous forums for comment and some of those ideas were incorporated into the final proposal. ‘We have been abundantly fair,’ Ms. Tenenbaum said.” [Emphasis added]

Apparently, testimony at a CPSC hearing is meant as an outlet for venting, not for listening. That’s “abundantly fair”, we are assured. Makes you wonder what “unfair” might look like . . . .

[A Senate Commerce Committee CPSC oversight hearing is said to be in the offing for next week. One fantasizes that they may take an interest in this issue, but the Senate is still a Dem stronghold. Don't hold your breath. Expect self-congratulatory positioning by the self-serving and deaf Dems.]

Consumer groups are portraying manufacturers demands for Constitutionally-guaranteed due process and other appropriate procedural safeguards as a grab for “advantage”. In other words, procedural safeguards for manufacturers are not legitimate protectible interests in light of the POSSIBILITY that consumers may glean some useful information among the garbage that will accumulate in the “post-it-and-forget-it” slanderbase being put up by the agency. Again, the NYT provides the bully pulpit for the zealots:

“Consumer advocates suggested the opponents were trying to weaken the database to protect business interests. ‘They have a great deal now, and I think they are trying to maintain the status quo by levying these unfounded arguments,’ said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety for the Consumer Federation of America.” [Emphasis added]

If ever-disingenuous Rachel Weintraub is saying that we Americans have a “great deal” because we enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protecting groups and individuals against persecution and excessive governmental power, I agree. I agree heartily – and don’t want to lose those essential legal protections that form an important basis for our investments. Please REMEMBER, everyone loses something when ANYONE loses their legitimate legal protections. Btw, Bob Adler is a lawyer and a former Scholar in Ethics and Law at the business school at UNC Chapel Hill . . . .

Mr. Adler plays a little fast and loose with his database concepts. Apparently, it’s okay to put garbage into the database because the government “disclaims” its accuracy:

“Mr. Adler, the Democratic commissioner, said the database was not meant to be a legal forum like a court but more like a catalog of consumer experiences. He noted that a disclaimer on the database said the commission did not guarantee its accuracy. ‘”I put my baby in a diaper and my baby developed a rash.” That goes up. It’s an early warning system to alert other consumers,’ Mr. Adler said.”

Ahem: “But Ms. Nord said the proposal remained far too vague. She cited the recent case of Pampers Dry Max, made by Procter & Gamble, in which thousands of parents asserted that the diapers were causing their babies to get a rash. A commission investigation found no link between the diapers and the rashes. ‘We would have posted all these complaints about them even though they proved to be wrong,’ Ms. Nord said.”

Any idea why the CPSC “must” put up such a controversial database? The zealots know that there is legal risk in hosting a database that may include erroneous information or information that might slander manufacturers or tortiously interfere with commerce. They know this might violate manufacturers’ legal rights and could lead to lawsuits – and don’t want the legal liability or the hassle. How to get the data and avoid the legal problems? Get the government to host the legally-dubious information! Clever – but not necessarily in the interests of consumers or American markets.

Is the CPSC supposed to provide Mr. Adler’s catalog of “consumer experiences”? Is that part of its mission? [Readers of my blog know that] I realize we have a right of Freedom of Speech (check out the Bill of Rights), but is the federal government really supposed to foster that Freedom of Speech? I appreciate that Mr. Adler thinks a consumer “experiences” database is a really good idea (I disagree) but since when do our tax dollars need to be used to provide it? Is that the only option that makes sense? And that goes double for such a dangerous proposal that presents the realistic prospect of discouraging investment and other economic activity.

So many words wasted on people who won’t listen. Expect a “spirited” debate on the database as foreplay followed by the 3-2 partisan screwing that masquerades as safety administration these days. The song plays on . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Save "Lost Souls", Vote for the Slanderbase!

CPSIA – The Text of Inez Tenenbaum’s Keynote Speech at ICPHSO

The CPSC has posted Ms. Tenenbaum’s fiery speech on their website. Here is the link. If you want to share the experience we had at ICPHSO, here is the video of the speech itself. Enjoy!

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Text of Inez Tenenbaum’s Keynote Speech at ICPHSO

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update -Remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum

Inez Tenenbaum gave a keynote address at lunch at ICPHSO today. I would have preferred to rely on the actual text of the speech before writing about it (not yet available online at the CPSC website), but wanted to give you my impressions quickly. If I took erroneous notes, I apologize and will correct errors, if any, later.

Critical points from the speech:

• The speech was tough and hostile to “uncooperative” businesses.
• She gave plugs to Consumers Union, PIRG and CEH. Draw your own conclusions. She balanced those plugs with a hearty pat on the back for RILA which she said has proposed its own uniform testing “problem”. Oops, Freudian slip . . . she corrected herself to clarify that it is actually a uniform testing program. Program, problem – these are synonyms at the new CPSC.
• She wants to dispel the “rumor” that the agency is overwhelmed by mandates and is distracted from its mission. Further to this point, with regard to Internet “rumors” like the foregoing, she recommends that you only believe websites that end in “dot gov”.

Let me repeat that last one: Tenenbaum says you should ONLY believe websites that end in “dot gov”. That means you shouldn’t believe me, just her. Don’t be cynical, guys. Speaking for myself, when a high public official tells me not to believe the media chatter, just to believe them, I always take the heartfelt advice. After all, they only mean to protect me from scurrilous gossip that I am too dumb to figure out for myself. For instance, I still believe everything John Edwards says . . . .

• Regarding recalls involving a death, Tenenbaum warned companies NOT to blame parents in the press even if they are involved in litigation with the family. If they do, Tenenbaum promised (in strong terms) to “call [them] out”. I was floored by this. Is she our mother now? Our mother government, perhaps.
• She urged us to “stop fighting old battles” and get prepared. She was referring to the new era of the Public Database. Hmmm. We are to stop fighting old battles. Okay, everyone, put down your arms!
• She reiterated that the CPSIA was the “most substantial and positive” development in the CPSC’s (recent) history. She noted her love of the tracking labels provision and the removal of lead from zippers. Apparently my many comments and objections to tracking labels were ALL wrong. Darn! I must learn to love tracking labels. Repeat five hundred times, I must learn to love . . . .
• On the subject of voluntary standards, she emphasized that if industry doesn’t move fast to do it the CPSC’s way, the agency will just put out mandatory standards more to its liking. She specifically cited the JPMA and ASTM on the crib standards. She sounds really open-minded on that one. Tenenbaum also recommends that industries proactively make their standards more stringent so the agency can make them MANDATORY. Or . . . the agency will just do it itself. Nice! I feel trust building, building, building.
• She noted that the law applies to big and small companies ALIKE “for good reason”. Hey, crafters, get the message – there will no free pass for you. Of course, this actually makes sense because product injuries should not be okay simply because the manufacturer is small. The way to fix things for small companies is to rework the definition of hazard to be limited to ACTUAL hazards only, which will focus safety efforts in a logical fashion, thereby helping out the small guys. The crafters are a victim not of fair rules that are blind to small business interests – but instead of a terrible law that is so fatally flawed that no business can deal with it.

Here’s the best part:

1. Chairman Tenenbaum said that she won’t tolerate resistance to recalls that the agency wants to make. If you do dare resist, the agency will use its many tools to force the “right” outcome. Chairman of the CPSC or Chairman of the Politburo? Individual rights and due process are apparently a secondary consideration now, to judge from Tenenbaum’s fiery speech. There’s a big incentive to invest, right?
2. Tenenbaum cited Toyota as an example of how “this government” will NOT tolerate slow recalls. Oh boy. Think of the Toyota food fight when you imagine the future of CPSIA enforcement. Recall first, ask questions later and let the media sort out the details. And be sure to bring the mighty down low. That sounds so fair!

There are many industries that are going to be victimized by this new enforcement regime. The list will be LONG.

Lots of tough talk, saber rattling and scare tactics. Of particular concern is the implicit erosion in corporate legal rights and the continuing demonization of businesses and business people. The Obamist populist rhetoric was quite recognizable, and one must wonder who Tenenbaum really intended to reach with the speech. Whoever they are, I hope they were happy. As for me, I got the willies and thought that whatever progress I sensed earlier today was an illusion.

Will the Dems ever learn?

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update -Remarks of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum

CPSIA – "Bad Optics" or Did Bob Adler Actually Learn His Lesson?

“Bad Optics”.

I was thinking of that phase today as I was pondering the astounding mental gymnastics employed by Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Bob Adler to justify keeping private the Commissioners’ debate over the agency’s recommendations to change the CPSIA until the report is delivered to Congress. Tenenbaum and Adler both asserted yesterday that the private deliberations currently going on were more than sufficient to create the necessary “vigorous debate” all of us Americans hope would occur on a five-person Commission.

You are probably scratching your head. What’s the big deal about the Commissioners sitting in one room and discussing an important issue? Well, there’s a legal problem here: the Government in the Sunshine Act prohibits meetings of more than two Commissioners without announcing the meeting publicly and making it available to the public. [You owe C-SPAN to this law.] Arguably, three Commissioners can’t take a taxi together or gather around the water cooler to resolve issues relating to the Cubs Spring Training line-up without an Internet camera firing away.

Here’s some background on the Sunshine Act:

“The Government in the Sunshine Act was passed by the Congress of the United States in 1976. It required for the first time that all multithreaded federal agencies (meaning those which have units that work independent of each other) hold their meetings regularly in public session. The bill explicitly defined meetings as essentially any gathering, formal or informal, of agency members, stretching so far as to include conference calls.

Many federal agencies, most notably the independent regulatory agencies, are headed by collegial bodies. A clear example of this setup can be found in the five commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission. These agencies make most of their decisions through discussions and voting by the board or commissions members. This law was created so that these meetings would be in the public domain for all of us to review, so that if we wish, we can investigate the procedures and decisions of any multithreaded federal agency.

This bill was conceived and passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal, when American mistrust of government was running very high. The government responded by creating various committees to open the meetings of the government, but without a legal backbone to stand on, these groups were wholly ineffective. After some pressure from the public, the act was passed in order to provide a legal backbone for the opening of meeting records to the public.”

So the Commissioners are not allowed to meet as a group unless you (the general public) are invited. As the above link attests, this means Commissioners may be constrained in what they choose to say – because you are peering in. Mr. Adler noted this issue yesterday and also expressed his frustration that as soon as he says something in a public meeting, “it’s all over the blogosphere”. You know, like in this column. Aside from the fact that the Sunshine Act is MEANT to facilitate precisely that, it also fosters accountability. I believe these same concepts underlie the Freedom of Speech, something we are all dependent on.

Ms. Nord pointed out that the purpose of a five-person Commission is to meet and work as a group. I would note (the obvious) that the debate proposed by Ms. Northup would occur AFTER all the private deliberations, and thus might occur at a very productive time. Whatever, Mr. Adler said he was satisfied with the current process, notwithstanding Ms. Northup’s point that if meetings involved more than two Commissioners or were exposed to the light of day, errors might get corrected.

Errors – that’s an interesting point, isn’t it? Correcting erroneous information, probably a good thing, right? Bad information could lead to bad decisions. . . .

This leads us back to “bad optics”. As you may recall, the Commission held a hearing on November 4th to decide the fate of Learning Curve and its famous brass bushings. Despite conceding that the brass bushings were perfectly safe, Mr. Adler voted against the exemption petition. Along the way (at about 25:00 in the video of the hearing), Mr. Adler launched into an unprompted and rather condescending bashing of Learning Curve, accusing them of “bad optics”. Why did he do this? As I explained in a blogpost on November 5, Mr. Adler had received erroneous information about the company’s sales practices from a member of another Commissioner’s staff. Taking this information as fact, he gratuitously offered the company some coaching on managing appearances in Washington: “If I had to give any advice to [Learning Curve] on ‘optics’, I don’t think it’s such a good idea to come in and say ‘We admit we’re breaking the law, we’d like an exclusion but oh, by the way, we’re going to continue selling this product during the pendency of the proceeding.’ I would urge them at least as a matter of courtesy to withhold sale and distribution during the pendency of this proceeding.” [Emphasis added] Of course, Learning Curve never said any of this.

You can imagine how Learning Curve must have felt about this – they were later to get whacked with a massive penalty for lead-in-paint, and those negotiations must have been going on at that very moment. When I wrote about this on November 4, Learning Curve’s lawyer read my blog and contacted Mr. Adler, who then urgently called me (as I sat down to dinner while on vacation) to ask that I publish his retraction right away. You will find the retraction in the November 5 blogpost above and on the CPSC website.

Presumably this kind of experience leaves scars but now two months later, Mr. Adler appears to have forgotten it all. In early November, he was left exposed and embarrassed by erroneous information passed along in a private meeting. He was not protected by checks-and-balances because the Commissioners are unable to meet in groups and as a result, laid an egg in a very important hearing. To judge by the urgency of his appeal in November (and his remarks in yesterday’s meeting), Mr. Adler does not like to be wrong nor be exposed as wrong. YET he now defends the very system that caused his own demise.

“Bad optics”, indeed. Mr. Adler, what is the message here?

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Bad Optics" or Did Bob Adler Actually Learn His Lesson?

CPSIA – ICPHSO Toronto Update

I attended this week’s ICPHSO meeting in Toronto. The meeting was located in Toronto and focused much attention on the proposed amendment to Canada’s 40-year-old Hazardous Products Act (the so-called Bill C-6). The meeting was attended by more than 250 people, largely comprised of Health Canada officials (the analog to the CPSC), CPSC staff, including Chairman Inez Tenenbaum directly from China, a variety of testing companies, mass market companies, Canadian companies, lawyers and other interested parties.

I thought I would share a few tidbits from the meeting:

Chairman Tenenbaum’s Keynote Speech: Chairman Tenenbaum addressed the conference on Wednesday morning. Her speech is posted on the CPSC website. The speech included a few hints of movement toward accommodation of businesses under the CPSIA, but unfortunately, it is only provides hints at this point. It is worth noting that sidebars at the conference suggest that there is more sensitivity to business concerns than CPSC public statements might suggest, but then again, we can only rely on real action, not just words. The next development to look for is a change in tone and a change in actions. When we can triangulate from words to actions, and see a real easing of the intense pressure on businesses, then we can take the off-line assurances more seriously.

Some highlights from the speech:

• The “good”: The “15 Month Rule” is due soon. Tenenbaum promised a special two-day workshop on this rulemaking IN ADDITION to normal public outreach. She emphasized that they want to “get it right”. [Ed. Note: Rumorville has it that this rulemaking will be delayed, and the two day workshop may precede the issuance of the draft rule. Likewise, there is growing suspicion that the testing stay may therefore have to be stayed. There are multiple reasons why this may have to happen.]
• She emphasized a need to minimize the burden on small businesses. [Minimize is a relative term, let's not get too giddy yet. Need to see what they have up their sleeves.]
• The CPSC is reaching out to SAGs to make them partners in the safety process. She wants to minimize competition between the CPSC and the SAGs. I consider this a major advancement in CPSC practice and a nice contribution by Ms. Tenenbaum in the early days of her administration. Arguably, the 2007-8 crush of State legislation and SAG grandstanding evidenced strong State feelings of isolation and legal impoverishment (in addition to a general desire of local politicians to appeal to the populace before elections). A proactive approach by the CPSC to working with the SAGs is the best chance for ANY OF US to neutralize or minimize the disruptive behavior of States and SAGs in the future.
• Ms. Tenenbaum announced a substantial change to the penalty factors when she said: “In cases where CPSC may impose a financial penalty on a U.S importer for violations, CPSC may to take into account whether the importer has safety or compliance programs in place and whether they conducted pre-market and production testing to minimize safety risks.” Gib Mullan also acknowledged that the penalty factors will be changing. This is another faint sign that we are being heard. The penalty factors were very harsh in the first draft. After a bit of an uproar, it appears now that the agency is going to moderate its approach somewhat. If this turns out to be a “real” shift, it is good news indeed.
• The “bad”: The overall tone of the speech remained harsh and somewhat threatening, at least that’s how it felt to me. Phrases such as the following were reminders that the CPSC has a big club and intends to use it:

- “Chinese suppliers and U.S. importers are now on notice from both governments that it is a mistake to depend on good intentions and a few final inspections to ensure compliance with safety requirements.”

- “We will enforce in a firm but a fair manner the new federal law that puts strict limits on lead and phthalates in children’s products and makes all toy requirements mandatory.” [The emphasis was hers in the live speech.]

- “As I have consistently stated, we intend to enforce this law that Congress put in place in a firm but fair manner. CPSC also has a federal rule making underway that puts U.S. importers on notice.”

- “Another area that we at CPSC are rethinking is the singular approach used in the past to identify risks and simply recall products when necessary. This is one aspect of enforcement that will not work if pursued alone.”

So Ms. Tenenbaum maintained the tough tone but gave hints of a coming thaw. We’ll see in due course if I am imagining things. Needless to say, I hope not!

Remarks of Gib Mullan: Gib Mullan, the CPSC chief enforcement officer, gave a short speech summarizing the CPSIA and recent events. I must say I found some of this speech positively chilling. For one thing, Mr. Mullan noted with apparent satisfaction the first recall of a toy for violations of the phthalates ban. I believe this refers to the recall of 40 inflatable toy baseball bats previously highlighted in this space. Aside from the fact that Mr. Mullan confirmed that the enforcement focus of the agency is (supposedly) bath squeeze toys, which certainly does not include inflatable baseball bats, this micro-recall of 40 bats is highly suggestive of a strict liability enforcement policy. If that is so, then what is the purpose of pointing out this recall to the crowd at ICPHSO? I would suggest that it is intended to scare the business community. Mission accomplished?!

Further to that mission, Mr. Mullan announced that the agency is attempting to be more “consistent” and “rigorous” in assessing penalties. Okay kids, think of Target’s $600,000 penalty – if the CPSC is going to be “consistent”, what does that precedent mean for the rest of us? If Target gets hit with a massive penalty after it performed preshipment testing, had no actual knowledge, was increasing its safety surveillance and turned itself in voluntarily after catching its own errors, what should we expect from a “consistent” penalty practice at the agency now? Mr. Mullan continued by noting (again, with a bit too much relish) the rising tide of penalties assessed by the agency in 2009, and further noted that they haven’t even cracked the 2007 lead-in-paint violations yet. He said larger penalties should be expected now, given the new powers allowed the agency under the CPSIA.

What is the purpose of this announcement? What else could it be, besides an intent to scare you and me? And, hats off to the chef, it succeeded. Among the many outrages of this new practice is the focus on retribution for old recalls with new penalties. Why is this a problem in my view? Well, for one thing, no one can do anything about the 2007 recalls at this point. Is the CPSC under the impression that the toy industry hasn’t “learned its lesson” yet? If that isn’t their view, then why lay on mega-penalties for matters that were apparently closed with significant expense now almost three years ago?

At what point is our penance complete? I can only supply a couple suggestions to explain this new penalty practice – (a) vindictiveness (as in CPSC meting out “justice”, rather than simply ensuring a safe marketplace), and (b) terrorizing the corporate community into “compliance”. Both rationales are wrongheaded and destructive. I continue to return to my original comment (December 17) on the penalty factors – CPSC penalties can only be consistent, rigorous, purposeful and (importantly) predictable if they are restricted to egregious conduct. Until the CPSC disciplines itself to a fairer penalty system, ALL OF US will assume we are next in line to get whacked like Target. After all, the CPSC has said publicly that they intend to be consistent and rigorous on penalties – in other words, they are telling us that we can and should learn from Target’s experience. That message unleashes a parade of horribles. The CPSC needs to take this on board.

One last observation about Mr. Mullan’s speech – he noted that recalls from China fell by 40% in 2009, the first fall in years. This is of course good news for everyone, most of all the children’s product industry. As we know, success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Many pundits point to the CPSIA as the reason that recalls have fallen. Mr. Mullan added another factor, the deep recession of 2009. Both of these factors contributed, but I think the real “father” of this success is that the notorious publicity of the new law and the new strict enforcement of the lead-in-paint rules (under the old law) led various companies and industry organizations to get mobilized to address safety practices. Who among us wasn’t shocked and horrified by the suicide of the owner of a Chinese factory that supplied Mattel with lead-in-paint toys? The horrors of the recall frenzy and everything it entailed led to changes in practice. The remaining hubbub of the new law is just a hang-over IMHO, and does not explain the good recent reduction in recalls. For this reason, I believe the focus of the CPSC and its enforcement activities can and should SHIFT toward maintaining these gains through industry outreach, education, targeted and focused enforcement, and development of new and modern systems appropriate to the changing marketplace. It even calls into question the value of the law’s kneejerk requirement of prophylactic testing, something I am on record opposing.

Health Canada and Bill C-6: Frankly, I have not had time to dig into the Bill C-6 yet but it got a lot of air-play at ICPHSO. Much of the brass at Health Canada was there, and I attended several talks by these professionals. I must say I left impressed with the Health Canada leadership. They were incredibly approachable and engaged. I was not made to feel like the “enemy”. Especially notable was their TONE. They don’t even imply that businesses are populated with bad or untrustworthy people. They repeatedly pledged to work cooperatively with businesses and noted that they have done well for 40 years with voluntary recalls and non-confrontational relationships. Hmmm, could it really be true that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?

They also stressed their interest in hearing about “lessons learned” and engaging in real dialogue as the new bill is crafted and refined. They noted some real gaps in their enforcement empowerment under the existing law, which they characterize as outmoded, but then again, they also stressed that these powers are intended to be used only if necessary. What a different tone they struck. They convinced me that they are nice people who mean to be partners in safety with industry. A refreshing change.

The contrast with the last year of CPSC hostility was palpable. It gave me reason to reflect on the course of my own relationship with the CPSC. Interestingly, I was a big fan of the agency until about two years ago. For 17 years I trusted them, I consulted with them, I had no reluctance to work with them and thought of them as partners, I advised friends to trust them, I did not see them as the ‘enemy”. The CPSIA and the feeding frenzy of the last two years sadly eroded that trust. Trust has to be earned, of course. I believe trust in the CPSC can be restored but not without real effort and real action. The Health Canada folks struck the right tone, and we can only hope that the CPSC was listening. Industry and the CPSC do not have to be at loggerheads, and there can be trust (there MUST BE trust). To get there, the “new” CPSC may need to make some concessions, but a path to this worthy karma level does exist. This detente does not need to involve endangering children, either. Health Canada implicitly recognizes that industry has no interest in harming children. Considerable efforts by industry are expended to avoid this terrible outcome. The presence of a few bad or incompetent actors in a massive marketplace of many thousands of companies and millions of different products does not make the rest of the market participants into bad guys, too. This is the notion that must be abandoned.

Final Thoughts: ICPHSO was a great event for networking, off-line conversations and sharing of perspectives. I feel that there is room for more dialogue. We can only hope that some barriers are being broken down, and that we may see some positive surprises (for a change). It is also clear, as Health Canada demonstrated, that a regulator can be effective and non-confrontational at the same time. We know the CPSC has a big stick, perhaps they can stop reminding us with harsh rhetoric and harsh actions (we won’t forget about the stick, trust me). Next on the agenda is a rationalizing of the rules to allow businesses to function economically. Unfortunately, I cannot conceive of this development without a change in the law. To do this, the CPSC must summon up its resolve and TELL Congress that changes are needed. I do not see any way to avoid this. Time has a value, too, so the CPSC leadership must weigh the consequences of waiting – costs are mounting rapidly as time goes by.

I hope I’m not dreaming. This can be done. The coming weeks will reveal a lot about the direction and resolution of the pending issues confronting the business community.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Toronto Update