CPSIA – Response to Questions by Nancy Nord (100 ppm Hearing February 16th)

This is my Response for the Record to a supplemental question posed by Commissioner Nancy Nord to the CPSC’s February 16th Hearing on the pending 100 ppm Lead Standards:

Response to Commissioner Nancy Nord’s Request
for Comment in the Federal Register

1. You stated reduction from 300 ppm in substrate to 100 ppm in substrate removes the margin of error for low tech manufacturers. Would you elaborate on this with some of your own testing experience?

When we consider the impact of the lower standard, we first ask how we would manage a failure. As (presumably) rational business people, we want to allocate our capital to maximize our returns, and thus, risks to those returns must be weighed and addressed as appropriate. We have tried to understand our risks under the new lower lead standard – and the results are not encouraging. Once a failure (failed test) is discovered, it is often incurable. A failed test on a completed item including an integrated failed component (e.g., a zipper) likely means a total loss under the CPSIA. Failures of components already subject to valid passing component tests cannot be ruled out and in fact, are likely to occur. Our inability to solve this problem for even trivial violations introduces a new and significant risk of random (unpredictable and uncontrollable) losses to our business.

The agency’s stance on re-testing is not encouraging either. The draft rules on re-testing in the “15 Month Rule” are best described as unworkable. The doubt raised over the consequences of a failed test under pending rules only elevates our concern over how we might deal with a failed test. At present, there seems to be few options. For this reason alone, the proposed reduction of lead standards to 100 ppm is extremely threatening.

Given the dire consequences of a failed test, we must assess whether we can control our supply chains and raw materials/components to always comply with the new lower standard. In my testimony before the Commission, I noted that 98.3% of our passing test reports in a two-year period (2701 CPSIA test reports) were compliant with the new standard. Unfortunately the 1.7% in the range of 100-300 ppm scatters randomly across our many products and components. Thus, we don’t know how to predict which components are prone to risk of non-compliance and the consequences of finding them at the wrong time can be devastating. [It goes without saying that 2701 tests in a two-year period is a strong demonstration of both the devotion of resources and the huge expenditures required by the CPSIA to obtain passing tests reports – continual clean bills of health, over and over and over again.]

Our testing results reveal two troubling trends. First, we have found a material number of our items with one or more components that fall into the 100-300 ppm zone, sometimes just barely above 100 ppm. For a “miss” of as little as 5 ppm of lead entombed permanently in a substrate, an entire lot can be relegated to the garbage heap. Failed components might be as insignificant as a label or a lens cap. We also know from experience that retesting the same unit or units from the same lot may result in a passing test report but do not anticipate that we will be afforded this option to “comply”. In any event, retesting to obtain a clean passing test report does not change the product. If this law is truly about safety, I fail to see what is being accomplished by piling up the test reports to the profit of the test labs. The occurrence of failures under the new standard for a few ppm of lead will raise our costs significantly.

Second, we have encountered significant variability in our testing results. I have attached three test reports as examples of the variability problem. The first report (submitted with my comments on the 100 ppm standard) shows the test results on a single piece of string from a mesh bag holding dominoes. We cut the string into ten pieces and then tested each segment. The lead content results ranged from 239 – 275 ppm. A representative of the bicycle industry gave similar evidence (wide variability in multiple tests on different parts of a single component) at the 100 ppm hearing on February 16th. In the attached test report on tape measures, we found lead levels in coatings in the same tape measure lot ranging from 79-97 ppm, which is more than a 20% variability range. Finally, I have attached three test reports showing yellow plastic substrate from the same lot of educational products at 23, 88 and 139 ppm lead levels. Our success in obtaining passing test reports will apparently depend on LUCK when lead levels are near the 100 ppm concentration. We don’t have a solution to this problem. In our experience, this problem strikes randomly and often absurdly. We have found, for instance, lead levels between 100-300 ppm on zipper housings on the inside of a sewn bag. Lizard tongues might be able to reach it but fortunately, none of our customers are lizards.

None of this randomness or massive expense can be tied to safety – just to the enrichment of testing companies and lawyers. I am hopeful that the Commission will see that action is needed to stop the reduction of the lead standard to 100 ppm to help preserve the value our company brings to schools and families throughout the United States.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Response to Questions by Nancy Nord (100 ppm Hearing February 16th)

CPSIA – WSJ’s 8th Editorial Against the CPSIA

Eight WSJ editorials on the same topic. Is it time to get Congress’ hearing checked???

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
MARCH 11, 2011

Get the Lead Out, Sir
Nutty test standards give Obama a real chance to help business.

President Obama has been on a campaign to shake his antibusiness reputation, so a good place to start would be to revisit the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a mess of a law that has put new burdens on small businesses.

In 2008, Congress passed the law in a rush to do something after a scare over lead in toys imported from China. Its problems were quickly apparent, sweeping products from books to bicycles into the dragnet for lead standards. But while businesses pleaded, Democrats stood behind it as a pinnacle of consumer protection while blaming the Consumer Product Safety Commission for any enforcement problems.

The CPSC has done what it can to allay the fiasco of unintended costs and disruptions for small businesses, including staying large portions of the law. But as Commissioner Nancy Nord told House Democrats last year, the language of the bill is drafted in such a way that fixing all the problems is impossible because the “exclusions and exemptions process is not workable.”

Instead of being able to focus energy on products that present real risks to kids, the CPSC’s staff has had to regulate products that pose no harm. The likelihood of a toddler swallowing an all-terrain vehicle, for instance, didn’t stop that product from being swept into the maw.

The law also requires the CPSC to propose the parameters of a third-party lead testing regime, but the issue is so mired in complexity that the commission has yet to set those standards. Under the proposed version of this so-called “15 Month Rule,” Learning Resources Chairman Rick Woldenberg has estimated that supplying multiple testing samples on each of his company’s toys and products will cost his company some $15 million per year.

It gets worse. In August, the lead standard is set to go down to 100 parts per million from the current level of 300 parts per million. Like the earlier step down, the new standard is supposed to be retroactive when it goes into effect, meaning that it will apply to toys and children’s products manufactured before that date, which were perfectly legal when they were made. All five CPSC commissioners have said they don’t believe the new standards should be retroactive when they go into effect this summer.

At a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee in February, California Democrat Henry Waxman defended the law as “necessary to protect kids and families across the country.” We wonder how he figures that, since the incidence of lead poisoning from toys made by domestic manufacturers is nil.

Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and Subcommittee Chair Mary Bono-Mack have said they will soon introduce a bill that would finally end a regime that has clobbered small businesses with ill-conceived regulations. If Mr. Obama wants to help small business job creation, he could agree that the government doesn’t need to mandate a lead testing protocol for every product known to man.

Read more here:
CPSIA – WSJ’s 8th Editorial Against the CPSIA

CPSIA – House Hearings Clips of Questions for Both Panels

A few select clips for you from last week’s House Subcommittee hearings. I will provide just a bit of commentary to accompany the clips. I will also be posting two other clips in a separate blogpost to follow.

Questions by Rep. John Dingell for Inez Tenenbaum and Anne Northup:

This clip features John Dingell trashing the CPSIA and pushing HARD for change. Listen to him BASH the Senate for mucking up his law!

Clip of Inez Tenenbaum and Anne Northup arguing about what the public injury/incident database cost – $3 million or $29 million.

The bickering over this critical point reflects a real misunderstanding on the CPSC Commission. What explains this? Not sure, really. Jennifer Kerr wrote about this topic today for the AP and noted that she had previously been quoted at $20 million by the CPSC. Oops. . . .

Clip of Inez Tenenbaum admitting that the CPSC will likely post INACCURATE information into the database . . . .

Shocked?! She also admits that only 723 companies have registered in the “soft launch” of the new database. Is that a lot? We registered seven brand names, so count me for 1% myself. I cannot say we control 1% of the economy. Draw your own conclusions . . . .

Clip of Rep. Jan Schakowsky questioning me!

Smackdown! I ran the Finance Committee for Ms. Schakowsky’s opponent in the 2010 midterm elections. She gave the quote above to the Wall Street Journal in a profile of my role in that campaign. Have fun!

Clip of Rep. Olson questioning me about the 15 Month Rule and destructive testing.

Check out how many units the CPSC wants me to destroy in testing EVERY year!

Clip of Rep. Marsha Blackburn questioning Nancy Cowles of Kids in Danger on the sources of lead poisoning in America.

Clip of Rep. Blackburn questioning me about our testing costs.

Clip of Rep. Harper questioning me about testing standards.

Read more here:
CPSIA – House Hearings Clips of Questions for Both Panels

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on CPSC Hazard ID and Reduction Efforts

Breakout session with Jay Howell and DeWane Ray.

Has 19 team members in ports of entry. Dedicated to working with Customs to ensure compliance with regulation. Looking over manifests and are focusing on problems products and “problem importers”.

Jay’s and DeWane’s department also accredits labs. This is mandated by the CPSIA. Working on rules on how to get accreditation recognition and how you can lose that accreditation. Likewise, they are starting an audit function.

RW: It’s amazing that we lived without all this until 2008. Has a single incident been revealed that justify this use of government funds? Not to my knowledge.

JH: Have 90 days to start using labs and if there are not enough labs within 90 days, the CPSC MAY stay the requirement until there are insufficient labs. Don’t want to shut down an industry.

There are more lead-in-paint labs than anything else (more than 200).

New lab update: Located in Rockville, anticipating a Spring 2010 move-in.

Heavy metals work is focused on the eight metals mentioned in ASTM F963, Looking at it from a risk-assessment standpoint. [RW: That's somewhat odd these days. One wonders what constitutes a risk now. We can only hope that professional staff will exercise the same care as in the pre-looney era to assess real risks. Otherwise, your Toxic Metals Substitution Committee better stop substituting selenium for lead. I heard about you guys!]

JH: Reminded the group that 100 ppm lead standard is mandated by law unless deemed technologically infeasible [Brace for it . . . .]

Commission is not sure there is a real phenomenon of “recall exhaustion”, meaning that the deluge of recalls has numbed consumers. Voluntary recalls are often driven entirely by the CPSC and that the CPSC doesn’t even see the product.

RW: Then again . . . .

Again, Jay seemed the voice of reasonableness. It would be great to return to an era of trust with this agency. But when?

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on CPSC Hazard ID and Reduction Efforts

CPSIA – Unpublished Article Highlights CPSIA Benefits Felt by Testing Companies

Intertek Presses Toy Rules as U.S. Scrutiny Aids Testing Firms

2011-02-02 05:00:02.1 GMT

By Mark Drajem

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) — When the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission last May proposed rules on how toymakers must test their products, Toys R Us Inc., Lego A/S and retail groups urged
the regulators to ease off.

One company took a different tack.

London-based Intertek Group Plc, the world’s largest consumer-goods testing company, argued that the rules should be expanded to require manufacturers to submit to further “engineering, chemical and biological analysis,” to ensure that the design of any toy is safe.

The filing demonstrates one consequence of increased government scrutiny of product safety: For Intertek and other testing companies such as Bureau Veritas SA and SGS SA the very rules that manufacturers and retailers say burden them with undue costs and paperwork mean more business.

“It’s just another opportunity to test,” said Larry Lynn, compliance manager at Learning Resources Inc., a Vernon Hills, Illinois-based maker of educational toys such as the Zoomy handheld microscope. The company estimates its testing costs jumped 10-fold since 2006.

“All the labs have seen a significant increase in the business because of the requirements of the CPSC,” said Rick Locker, a lawyer for the Toy Industry Association in New York. In the first months after a previous law went into effect in 2009, testing costs tripled, he said. While the expenses and
delays have receded, pending new requirements mean “you could see that issue come back again,” he said in an interview.

Back to Edison

Intertek, which traces its corporate heritage to Thomas Edison’s Lamp Testing Bureau, has more than 1,000 labs in 100 countries. In addition to analyzing consumer products such as apparel and toys, it tests or certifies chemicals, foods and minerals. It earned 103.7 million pounds ($167.3 million) on revenue of 652.6 million pounds in the first half of 2010, its most recent published results.

The U.S. testing requirements followed a rash of recalls in 2007 of Chinese-made toys, sold by companies such as Mattel Inc., which were found to contain lead paint. In response, Congress passed legislation in 2008 mandating that all toymakers curb lead and other harmful materials in their products and redouble testing.

While the rules apply to toys sold in the U.S., much of the testing takes place in China and Hong Kong, where many U.S. toys are made. The U.S. imported $25 billion in toys from China in 2009, making it the third-largest category of imports from the country, behind computers and household goods such as clocks.

European Testers

The largest consumer-testing companies are based in Europe. Among the bigger ones in the U.S. are Northbrook, Illinois-based Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and Consumer Testing Laboratories
Inc. in Bentonville, Arkansas. Both are closely held.

Intertek, Bureau Veritas and SGS, the world’s three largest testing companies, all say their revenue jumped after the new toy requirements began in January 2009. Intertek’s revenue from consumer-goods testing in the first six months of that year climbed more than 20 percent, almost double the overall company revenue growth, to 162.5 million pounds.

Its profit margin in consumer products was 33 percent, double that of the company as a whole. Intertek has more than doubled in London trading since the U.S. law took effect, and has risen 45 percent in the past 12 months.

Both Bureau Veritas, based in Neuilly-sur-Seine near Paris, and Geneva-based SGS are bigger than Intertek in revenue from all testing. Bureau Veritas shares have increased 54 percent in the last year. SGS, the world’s biggest overall product inspector, is up 15 percent.

Growth Ahead

While Intertek’s consumer-testing revenue fell 0.4 percent to 161.9 million pounds in the first half of 2010, the company predicts a U.S. requirement that a government-certified, outside testing company examine each children’s product will boost profits again over the next two years.

The new U.S. rule, as well as a European Union initiative in toy safety, “present further opportunities for growth in 2011 and 2012,” the company said in a presentation to investors in August. The Consumer Product Safety Commission voted yesterday to delay the next round of testing requirements until 2012 from later this year as initially planned.

Anticipating an increased need for testing, Intertek has introduced computer software for sale to manufacturers so they can meet the analytical and paperwork requirements the consumer-safety agency is scheduled to implement.

Intertek also is making sure its voice is heard in Washington. It hired former CPSC chief of staff Joseph Mohorovic as a vice president, and paid the firm of former CPSC chairman Hal Stratton $240,000 last year to lobby on its behalf, according to government records.

No Regrets

Gene Rider, president of Oak Brook, Illinois-based Intertek Consumer Goods in North America, said a combination of increased consumer awareness and growing global outsourcing is sparking
demand for Intertek’s testing services.

“One of the misconceptions is that regulation drives our revenues,” Rider said in an interview. “All the rules are asking manufacturers to do is to demonstrate good manufacturing practice.”

As for its petition to the CPSC, Rider said he has no regrets. Most recalls are caused by design flaws, not faulty materials such as lead paint, and those won’t be found without new government requirements, he said.

“It’s all about designing the product to avoid injuries or fatalities,” Rider said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at +1-202-624-1964 or mdrajem@bloomberg.net.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Unpublished Article Highlights CPSIA Benefits Felt by Testing Companies

Next Page »