CPSIA – Good News! Little Mattel Gets Much NEEDED Relief.

Wipe away those tears and cancel the bake sale, little Mattel (last quarter’s revenue: $880 million) received more relief from the CPSC. Suffering under the burden of only seven certified in-house labs to do its safety testing, Mattel this week received CPSC approval for two more firewalled internal labs to do its testing at a fraction of the cost of using pesky independent labs. The newly-approved labs, one more in China and one in Thailand, promise to make things much easier for Mattel. Imagine the crippling overhead they might incur sending samples from one factory to another if they didn’t have these new approved labs. Read all about the celebrations over the CPSC’s well-timed beneficence!

Mattel, the generous sponsor of a record $2.3 million CPSC honorarium (that’s what we call fines now), lobbied for the provision in the law giving it the right to opt out of independent laboratory safety testing during the drafting of the CPSIA. As Mattel is such a sympathetic supplicant, having recalled more than 20 million toys in 2007 alone, Congress was all ears and gave them what they wanted. [Search this link for "Mattel" and "Fisher-Price" and you will find 19 recalls between November 2006 and today, totalling more than 16.5 million units in the U.S. plus many millions more outside the U.S.]

This is the signal the children’s market was waiting for: a forgive-and-forget approach by the CPSC. As a small business operator, I sure am glad to know that the CPSC is big-hearted enough to overlook a long track record of serious legal violations. Shame they hadn’t adopted this generous spirit when Daiso pissed them off.

Oh, did I forget to mention that Mattel ALSO funded another $1.1 million CPSC honorarium (fine) for failing to report 116 FIRES caused by one of its products? According to Ann Brown, then Chairman of the CPSC, Mattel knew about these fires for “years” before reporting them. Oopsie! [Check out the WSJ article on Mattel's little problem with safety disclosures. I am sure you will cherish the pictures of the burned-out garage.] Don’t worry, the CPSC has decided everything’s in order for Mattel to handle safety all by itself. Sleep well, America.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

And for the rest of us who can’t afford to set up or manage our own “firewalled” laboratories? We can enjoy the bounty of the small batch manufacturer’s relief in the Waxman Amendment, or just hire outside labs. You know, like Mattel doesn’t want to do . . . hey, what’s going on here?!

At least we know Mr. Waxman cares about somebody.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Good News! Little Mattel Gets Much NEEDED Relief.

CPSIA – I Will Appear as a Witness in Thursday’s House Hearing on CPSIA

I have been invited to appear as a witness at Thursday’s hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. The hearing on the “Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act of 2010″ (the Waxman Amendment 2.0 in its latest form) will take place at 10 AM EST on Thursday, April 29 at 2322 Rayburn House Office Building.

The hearing will be streamed live, but I don’t have the link to give you yet. You may be able to find it at this link on Thursday or on the home page of the committee. I will try to get the link posted in my blog before showtime.

I intend to tell my story and your story to the committee and look forward to exploring the bedeviling issues of the CPSIA in the open air. If you have any ideas or suggestions for my testimony, please feel free to share them here, or send me an email. Thanks.

Read more here:
CPSIA – I Will Appear as a Witness in Thursday’s House Hearing on CPSIA

CPSIA – Hearing Scheduled for the Waxman Amendment!

In an amazing development, Henry Waxman has noticed up a hearing for next Thursday to go over the issues bedeviling the CPSIA. Waxman staffers had routinely dismissed any possibility of a hearing for some time now, asserting that we had all “jawboned” enough and that they had heard it all already. That’s right, already heard it all.

Hmmm, it appears someone must have disagreed with that assessment. There promises to be a bit more time for jawboning after all!

This morning’s meeting between Mr. Waxman and Mr. Barton apparently included a third participant, Rep. John Dingell. Mr. Dingell (currently the longest-serving Congressman) is the ex-Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. He is also the original sponsor of the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972, the act which created the CPSC 38 years ago. Mr. Dingell cares a great deal about this agency and the CPSIA, and according to my sources, stood with Mr. Barton in asking for a hearing to air out implementation and other issues under the CPSIA. This is why the mark-up was cancelled today. The agreement of the three leaders to hold this hearing means that it is likely to actually happen . . . unlike several prior proposed or scheduled hearings on the CPSIA.

The hearing is said to be for the purpose of testimony by regulated companies and trade associations about the problems under the law. This is a fabulous opportunity to Let the Sun Shine In. By going on the official record, witnesses to this debacle will make it much harder for the zealots to deny the seriousness of the CPSIA’s problems.

Some people fear that reworking the Waxman Amendment after this hearing may open the door for the return of the hated “sneaky” provisions in the original draft of the bill. While I suppose that could happen, it doesn’t strike me as likely. Those provisions caused howls of protests from many quarters and were removed. Perhaps they were tossed into the original draft to create something to give away. In any event, there is good reason for those provisions to be gone. I think it’s a risk worth bearing.

More importantly, it seems unlikely that much-needed structural repairs of our federal safety law would ever become part of the amendment in the absence of a hearing. After all, our “jawboning” didn’t do the trick. I think there was strong sentiment among influential members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that a fix should be done “right” and that the Waxman Amendment failed to address the fundamental issues. Their fear was that the problems wouldn’t go away in the wake of the Waxman Amendment, and therefore, the issue would end up back in committee in due course. Maybe they’ve had enough of this issue and want it fixed, once and for all.

Hey, a real fix sounds good to me. We can all look forward to a true airing of the issues in a week’s time.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Hearing Scheduled for the Waxman Amendment!

CPSIA – New Waxman Amendment Draft Issued Tonight, Mark-up Set for Wednesday Morning

The third draft of the Waxman Amendment 2.0 was released this evening. I have attached a clean copy of the legislation, as well as a redline for your convenience. The powers-that-be also released a draft of their “report language“. The report language is interpretative language and is not included in the law mainly to keep future law clerks busy doing research. It should also give us something new to argue about.

This is the Committee Briefing Memo accompanying the draft legislation.

Consistent with past practice, this draft was issued with the usual coercion. A mark-up has been scheduled for Wednesday AM 10:00 a.m. in Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building BUT the Dems will decide tomorrow if they will proceed with that process. All talk of a hearing to vet this legislation has been quashed by the Dems who are scrupulous in managing the record. [I will never get to testify, that's for sure.] There will be a meeting on Tuesday at 4 PM to discuss this draft, at which point the Dems will either pull the plug or move forward. Presumably, this depends on the enthusiastic response to this draft. The Dems say they want a bipartisan bill and further want to send it to the Senate with the news that the bill is “supported by industry”. In other words, Mr. Waxman is not interested in negotiating with the Senate, just wants their rubber stamp. He’s not big on “jawboning” if that means he has to listen to others and make concessions . . . .

You are right to consider this another patented Waxman “take it or leave it” offer.

In response to complaints that this bill ignores the many legitimate concerns of the small business community, Waxman staff has advised that they “can’t help everyone”. That means you, guys.

Changes in this Draft:

a. Functional Purpose “Exception” – Minimal changes, mainly reverting back to the “public health or safety” test formulation. References to “all foreseeable users” is gone now. The “town hall” provision allowing “interested parties” to intervene in every proceeding has been eliminated. The “Previously Denied Petitions” provision is unchanged and still makes no sense.

The report language clarifies the meaning of “practicable”, noting that excessive or unreasonable costs should be considered not “practicable”. Specifically, they note: “The Committee does not consider a mere increase in the cost of manufacture or production, in itself, to be excessive. The Committee does expect that the Commission will consider compliance to be impracticable where compliance would place the viability and continuation of a class of products or materials in jeopardy, such as youth All Terrain Vehicles or youth bicycles made with recycled steel.” [Emphasis added]

In case you were wondering about the purpose of the functional purpose exception, it is a gift to the noted industries. It’s not for you. Remember, this relief is only available to those who are capable of mounting an exception application. Not a small undertaking.

Remember that the applicant for a functional purpose exception must apply for relief for a “specific product or material”. You must also PROVE that your costs are not “practicable”. Can you see some wiggle room there? A true believer Commission might have very little incentive to interpret these terms permissively. [You can count on that one with the Dems in charge.] This will be a costly and technical process. Think of this in the context of your business – is this realistic? With our 1500 products, it’s just inconceivable. Too bad for us. Let’s also not forget the stringency of the three-prong test.

The report language specifies that a “measurable adverse effect” on public health or safety refers to changes in blood lead levels. The language is pretty specific and will require a toxicologist’s report to justify any exemption. Here are the magic words: “Given that there is no current blood level at which the scientific community considers lead exposure to be ‘safe,’ the Committee understands that a very small adverse effect may theoretically occur at any level of exposure. The Committee intends, however, for the Commission to deny requests for exception under this section as having a ‘measurable adverse effect’ on health or safety only in the case of those adverse effects that the Commission determines to be empirically, as opposed to theoretically, measurable. At present, the Committee understands that there is scientific consensus to interpret the phrase ‘measurable adverse effect’ from lead exposure to mean a measurable increase in blood lead levels.“

This is a form of legislative filter to make sure that the exception is only for the chosen industries or companies. Again, this isn’t meant for small fry, just big business. That’s equity these days, I guess.

Anyone remember how hotly the Dems defended the inclusion of ATVs and bikes in this law back in ’08 and ’09? It was intentional, they insisted, necessary to protect the public against deadly lead. There’s no safe level of lead, blah blah blah. Guess they got over that one . . . after they received 170,000 emails from ATV’rs.

b. Thrift Store Relief: Virtually no change, other than minor clarifications.

Not unlike the workings of other parts of the CPSIA, this new provision will be good for large scale thrift organizations like Goodwill or Salvation Army who are presumably able to centrally evaluate complex laws and implement system-wide responses to changes in law. i wonder how the smaller independent Mom-and-Pops will react to this provision. In any event, the provision tacitly bans resale of children’s jewelry, painted toys and vinyl children’s products. Stores will have to keep straight which items are in and which are out. With many resale stores staffed with minimum wage workers, I question how effectively most owners can prevent violations without just avoiding the category (at least in part).

Resale of childcare articles, including cribs, seems unaffected. The real gotcha is the risk the stores will bear from recalls. For that reason, I think many stores will stay away from reselling this category of goods. Clothing may make a reappearance in resale shops, finally.

It is uncredible that the Democrats let this industry flap in the wind for almost two years before acting to save them from CPSIA oblivion. Think of the economic devastation these insensitive legislators wrought on small businesses all America, not to mention the patrons of this important industry – through two cold winters. This is just inexcusable, a true demonstration of stubbornness or being completely out of touch. Those who suffered at the hands of the Dem inaction have no recourse, either. Shame, shame.

c. Relief for Small Batch Manufacturers: The sham of this “relief” is perpetuated in this new draft. The definitions of “covered products” and “Small Batch Manufacturer” were left structurally intact but the thresholds were tweaked upward meaninglessly to 7500 units or $50,000 sold per item per (calendar) year, with an overall cap of company sales of $1 million. “Covered Products” oddly continues to refer only to manufactured items but Small Batch Manufacturers are defined by sales of manufactured OR imported goods. Go figure.

As I pointed out earlier today, Mattell and Hasbro have quarterly revenues of $880 million and $672 million, respectively. The so-called relief here is for companies with annual revenue of under $1 million. If these little companies pop over that revenue hurdle, they will be held to the same standard as Mattel and Hasbro. Don’t worry, the CPSC plans to coach the little guys! Now if only they could provide non-recourse financing . . . .

Even if you are salivating over this pathetic crumb of “relief”, I encourage you to reread what goodies Mr. Waxman is giving you. Here’s the meat of it: “Any such alternative requirements shall provide for reasonable testing methods to assure compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards.” The reasonable TESTING METHODS must ASSURE COMPLIANCE. You tell me what this English sentence means. I think it means the small fry will be testing. I know the rest of us will, too. Testing and testing and testing and testing. It’s time to buy stock in Intertek, I think. Later on, the bill instructs the Commission to work “cooperatively” with the little guys to “impose the least burdensome testing requirements . . . consistent with goals of statute.” And those goals are, what exactly? Comprehensive, prophylactic testing.

Oh, the bounty of this relief!

d. Phthlates and Inaccessible Components: No material changes.

e. Subpoena Power: No changes whatsoever. Somebody’s going to be sorry someday that this procedural speed bump was removed. Unfettered power of government was always un-American . . . until we met these Democrats.

Conclusion:

I wish I could recommend this bill. It has some good stuff in it. Unfortunately, it is utterly ineffective to arrest the damage being inflicted by the CPSIA. It is a gift to large industries but leaves the hammerlock on American small businesses catering children’s markets. It sustains the fantastic notion that those of us in this business have somehow been poisoning kids for years or decades. That’s a slanderous notion, something deeply offensive to me, but for the Dems to admit otherwise would mean a mea culpa. And there’s no chance of that.

If the Dems manage to tempt enough corporate entities to sell out for this low price, it will be the biggest gift ever given by the corporate community to Mr. Waxman. He should host a champagne party for himself if he buys off the resistance. There will be no remaining organized opposition to the bulk of his CPSIA handiwork, and the focus will shift to surviving a manic CPSC bent on enforcing voluminous but ineffective safety rules and ladling out massive penalties for infractions without injuries. And once the action moves permanently to Bethesda, we’ll see finally how much Cassandra got right.

I’m not looking forward to finding out. Vote NO on Waxman.

Read more here:
CPSIA – New Waxman Amendment Draft Issued Tonight, Mark-up Set for Wednesday Morning

CPSIA – "Anchoring" in the Waxman Amendment

The concept of “anchoring” is well-known to experienced negotiators. Make an outlandish initial proposal, and afterwards, all further negotiation is relative to that initial offer. The context of the negotiation is reset by its starting point notwithstanding the nature of the problem being negotiated. This clever technique is a great way to engineer a favorable outcome in a negotiation by “compromise”, all while leaving your negotiating partner totally in the dark that they have been snookered.

Mr. Waxman wasn’t born yesterday and is playing the disorganized corporate community like a maestro. The Waxman Amendment 2.0 is a classic case of anchoring. As his staff slowly compromises away most (but not all) of the legislation’s obnoxious provisions, the corporate community seems to be forgetting what is really at stake and how low a price it would be accepting to go away.

Rumors are that this amendment could go to a vote as soon as this week. Forget the idea of a hearing – that was just another head fake by Waxman staffers trying to lull us all to sleep. We hold our fate in our hands as this amendment may essentially kill off resistance to the CPSIA.

The Waxman Amendment offers slight and attenuated relief on some relatively insignificant provisions of the underlying bill, namely elimination of the cost of testing internal components for phthalates and prospective application of the proposed August 2011 100 ppm lead-in-substrate limit (which must first clear OTHER hurdles before it becomes law). The total cost of the internal component phthalates testing is trivial in the context of testing costs imposed by the law. The impact of prospective application of the 100 ppm limit, with its long lead time, seems to be virtually nil in reality. What did Warren Buffett say about picking up nickels in front of a steamroller???

By selling out for the measly offerings of the Waxman Amendment, we would be setting quite a low price for the misery and years of pain that the CPSIA is certain inflict. Is that all it takes to buy us off?

Don’t bite at Mr. Waxman’s bait. Stand strong, demand real hearings, and if he won’t act, wait him out. What price for your kingdom? The Waxman Amendment isn’t that price, whatever it is.

Read more here:
CPSIA – "Anchoring" in the Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – Why the Waxman Amendment MUST BE REJECTED

As we face the dilemma of what to do about the Waxman Amendment 2.0, I want to point out recent quotes by Sam Zell, a Chicago-based real estate entrepreneur. At a recent panel discussion of the Urban Land Institute, Mr. Zell bemoaned how our federal government governs these days: “[What's] going on now is frightening . . . Up until this administration, you knew the rules and had a very stable environment . . . If the current situation is indicative of the next half century, I think we’re screwed.”

Screwed. Mr. Zell’s words ring in my ears.

In the wake of Friday’s contentious meeting with the Waxmanis on Capitol Hill, the Dems announced that a new draft of the Waxman Amendment 2.0 would be released on Monday. In their usual bullying style, Waxman staff issued yet another ultimatum, advising this time that after release of that next draft, we all must “decide” whether or not to support the amendment. If we won’t support it, they say they have better things to do.

The meeting produced no breakthroughs. The fundamental flaws in the law remain unaddressed, and meager goodies meant to partially salve the wounds of a limited number of companies remain the focus of the legislation. The goal of this legislation is to split the group protesting this law, peeling off the ATV’rs, the book industry, the crafters and mass market retailers. None of these groups is a clear winner, either. The rest of us, namely the Small Business community, will be left as roadkill.

A request by the ranking Republican for hearings was rejected on the grounds that there has been too much “jawboning” already. We are apparently all Chatty Cathies. Shame on us.

This reasoning behind the limited intent of the legislation was on display at this week’s Senate Appropriations Committee hearing attended by Illinois’ own Senator Dick Durbin and Maine’s Senator Susan Collins with only one witness, CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. Don’t watch the hearing on a full stomach . . . . Among other things confirmed by this hearing was that the functional purpose exemption embedded in Waxman Amendment is supposed to benefit a “narrow class” of products (in the words of Ms. Tenenbaum), namely bikes, ATVs and books. Lucky them.

Sadly, the hearing also confirmed the bizarre impression held by members of Congress that the small business issues are limited to crafters, for some reason a particular source of angst. Our company happens to also be a small business, although we no longer operate out of a bedroom or a garage – and we face major issues caused by this law. While I share concern for the tiniest of enterprises, the economic problems don’t end there. In the words of the Chicago City Treasurer Stephanie Neely: “We are truly an economy of small businesses. And it’s important that they thrive. They do a lot of employing. . . on a day-to-day basis, these are people who are employing one, ten, thirty people, and and it’s important that we help them.” Oh yeah, jobs.

The Waxman Amendment should be REJECTED until comprehensive legislation to fix the law is brought to the floor. If we let them pass this law, organized resistance to this law will be greatly diminished, and any opportunity to restore a sensible rule of law may be lost . . . permanently.

Consider the consequences if this amendment is passed:

- Our national safety law has changed from risk-based to standards-based. Mindlessly focused on lines in the sand, the new law’s definition of safety has been completely rubbed out. Without this compass, the world of safety has become an unpredictable, unstable random walk. The Senate hearing included (incredibly) a rehashing of the “dangers” posed by Zhu Zhu Pets, the need for BPA recalls, the potential risk posed by triclosan and the CPSC’s ability and interest in initiating recalls for these “dangers”. Given that we no longer can figure out what’s safe and what’s not, every possible threat brings up discussion of recalls.

Try to run a business under conditions like that.

The risk of this reactive form of government CANNOT BE OVERSTATED. On April 13, Representative Edward Markey proudly sent out letters to 13 companies demanding that they stop using the antibacterial compound triclosan. The list of targets was almost certainly supplied to him by consumer groups. Mr. Markey, for all his power, is not a regulatory agency and does not have authority, resources or expertise to act as a regulator and his consumer group buddies are also not empowered to regulate our markets (thankfully). He is only a Congressman (up for reelection in November, btw). However, nowadays, that’s apparently enough to regulate. I would not want to receive such a letter. I also do not cotton to this style of government.

- The complexity and volume of safety law being spewed out is truly breathtaking and overwhelming. I literally cannot keep up anymore. i can’t read it all, watch it all, digest it all or even write comment letters. [Unfortunately, I still have job responsibilities, too.] On a recent Friday, the CPSC expelled almost 600 pages of new rules – and they were IMPORTANT. They included the new so-called 15 Month Rule – have you read it yet? This 100+ page rule has been written to control children’s products as though we were merchants of death. We are not. The April 15 hearing to review this regulatory morsel was a mere five hours long, so lengthy that the CPSC has only posted one hour of the fun so far. Ironically, this hearing wasn’t broadcast live, as it conflicted with broadcast of the first meeting of phthalates CHAP. Can’t broadcast two mega-hearings at once.

Do you get it yet?

By my reckoning, the rules applicable to generic children’s products is now nearing 2500 pages. If you take into account childcare items and other ancillary matters, the number of pages is probably well in excess of 3000 pages. We are clearly heading to a place where the rules total many thousands of pages. And WHY are there so many rules? It has nothing to do with actual safety. The injuries (one) and deaths (one) from lead in 2007/8, the highest outbreak of recalls in our history, were simply nominal for a country 300 million people.

In any event, you are going to have to know and bear the risk of ALL of those rules. And the new rules keep coming, very often overruling the rules you already mastered. For those you who are tempted to support Mr. Waxman’s Amendment, please THINK about this.

- When the CPSC is done with its rulemaking, it is going into enforcement mode. That was a clear message of Ms. Tenenbaum’s testimony in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Her Compliance initiative will feature another 41 employees at a cost of $4,7 million to catch you violating rules. In addition, the resources of the existing agency will also shift to catching you. If you have read any of my writings about penalties, perhaps you can figure out what that means.

Bottom line, having divorced their mission from common sense or any notion of risk, the CPSC built an ornate and truly incomprehensible set of safety rules that even mega-corporations have admitted exceeds their capacity to manage. For small businesses, not merely the home crafters, compliance will be simply impossible. If those businesses are unable to understand the rules or afford to comply (while staying in business), they won’t be able to follow them, and if the agency is bent on catching them, well, the results will be grim.

If you can’t see this coming – my friend, you are blind.

The Testing and Certification stay ends on February 10, 2010. Don’t expect this Commission to extend it again. The meter is running.

IF you support the Waxman Amendment because you really want the meager relief they are dangling, you will be conceding that you are prepared to endure what I have described. You are not ready for that, and you know it. Support for revising the bill comprehensibly will be greatly diminished at the same time, and even our most steadfast supporters in Congress will give up on us.

As painful as it may seem, you MUST decline to support this legislation. We must, as a community, insist on a true fix, one that addresses the real problems caused by the CPSIA. Nothing short of a total fix will suffice. The ornate rules needs to be simplified and refocused on real issues. The needless self-destructive imposition of blinding costs needs to be reversed. Excessive bureaucratic processes and exemptions only for big industries and big companies must end.

NOTHING that I am suggesting will or should amount to a retrenchment in safety for children or anyone else. It is no “free pass” for industry, whatever that might mean. It is simply means a return to sanity.

That may be too much to ask for this Congress or this Commission. I am not optimistic. Make me a believer this week – REJECT THE WAXMAN AMENDMENT.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Why the Waxman Amendment MUST BE REJECTED

CPSIA – Waxman Amendment New Draft

There is a new draft of the Waxman Amendment circulating. Here is a redlined version to help you see the Democrats’ changes. This came out about three hours ago.

Notwithstanding that we have endured this torture since August 8, 2008, the Democrats in their infinite wisdom and kindness have set up a meeting tomorrow at 10:30 AM EST in Waxman’s offices to take “final” comments from a bipartisan group including certain representatives of regulated companies. The comments will be solicited in the context of a warning that the revised bill already incorporates “the comments of industry” and represents the “best” the Democrats can do. In other words, an ultimatum.

So we are facing a key deadline less than 24 hours after receiving this critical language, notwithstanding that this “final” meeting was not pre-announced or that this issue has been festering for almost two years.

The meeting was also scheduled notwithstanding that some of us have actual jobs in actual companies and may not be sitting around waiting to do our federal government’s work.

But to heck with people like me. Whiners! We should be happy with all the government our taxes and deficit can buy. Indeed. I can’t make tomorrow’s meeting. Guess I need to content myself with being excluded.

Another shining example of Open, Participatory Government . . . of the Waxman, by the Waxman, for the Waxman. [The Dems certainly are trying hard to make sure it won't perish from this Earth, too.]

Is that how it goes? I can’t remember. . . .

I will try to provide some comments on the bill later tonight.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Waxman Amendment New Draft

CPSIA – What does "Any" Mean, Anyhow? Waxman Staff Weighs in.

The Waxman Amendment 2.0 is still percolating but with Congress on its Spring break, progress has stopped briefly. That does not mean, however, that discussions have ended or that the Amendment is “dead”. It will likely spring back to life shortly as Congress wakes up again next week.

Those of you who savor fractiousness and gridlock in your government will no doubt be pleased to know that the usual bickering and stubborn disputes over the awful CPSIA continues unabated.

In a meeting last week about the Waxman Amendment, senior Waxman staff again rejected the concept of allowing the CPSC to assess risk. [Given the extraordinary conservatism of this CPSC Commission, I can't imagine what Waxman is worried about . . . .]

The position of the Waxmanis has significant implications for the controversy over the word “any” in the lead exemption provision. Some commentators have argued that “any” does not mean none and that if “any” is accorded that meaning, then the exemption process would never yield any exemptions. [CPSC staff have reached similar conclusions, hence their universal rejection of exemption requests. This also explains their puzzling approval of nuclear waste for inclusion in children's products.] Resolution of this issue might not only crack the door for exemptions but might also help narrow the scope of CPSC responsibilities by eliminating obviously safe products from the lead rules. This would be good, to restate the obvious.

According to Waxman staff, the CPSC got it exactly right – the word “any” is meant to prevent exemptions if ANY lead could pass from the subject item into the human body. No matter that this means that there will never be any exemptions possible under the exemption process (!). No matter that there are many other environmental sources of lead which pose a far greater hazard in a child’s life than almost all children’s products. No matter that many useful products might be banned (see my latest casualty post). In the Waxmanis’ estimable view, Congress “wanted” ZERO lead in the communal toy box. Otherwise, there might be a “perverse” effect on safety. Or so they say.

This is exceptionally unlikely to be true. Interviews with MANY members of Congress over the past two years confirms that “Congress” believed that the CPSIA included a real and workable mechanism for sensible exemptions. Not that anyone thought about the details of this bill for more than a few micro-seconds, but if they did, they thought there was a viable exemption process. Actually, it takes virtually no effort these days to find members of Congress who assert that the CPSIA was a toy bill. Gotta keep ‘em guessing, I suppose.

It must be nice to be able to project your own views onto an entire institution. This is a good way to defect blame. What did Congress “want”? No one can know what that amorphous institution wanted or wants. At this point, the Waxmanis are self-appointed interpreters of the Congressional psyche. In reality, it only matters what “House baron Henry Waxman” wants. In this case, an impotent exemption process is exactly what he wants. The sham also provides him with cover against more skeptical members of Congress. That you can see through it hardly matters – do you actually expect members of Congress to read the law and figure out how it works? Come on!

That’s participatory government for you. Unfortunately, you only think you are participating. Mr. Waxman will let you know when he needs your input. . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – What does "Any" Mean, Anyhow? Waxman Staff Weighs in.

CPSIA – Tenenbaum/Adler Comments Revealed

A little birdie dropped off what are purportedly the comments of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Bob Adler on the Waxman Amendment. This is one interesting document. First of all, it’s quite secret (but not anymore). You can’t find it on the CPSC website. Other members of the CPSC community haven’t seen it and have been refused a copy. It also doesn’t have Tenenbaum’s or Adler’s name on it so it has appropriate deniability. Oddly, it speaks in sentence fragments. Hmmm. In an era of greater “transparency”, this secrecy is something of a shock. Perhaps the Prince of Darkness is at work here.

Among the “highlights”:

• The comments recommend incorporation in the legislative report of the consumer group belief system assertion that there is no safe level of lead. If enacted, this change would enable, if not instruct, the Commission to reason from this “principle” and presumably ban many safe products. The hypocrisy of this position (or its obliviousness) in light of the permitted lead in our air, water and food is part and parcel of the CPSIA.
• The suggested report language clarifying the “no measurable adverse effect on public health and safety” will perpetuate the exemption morass confronting the Commission and regulated community. The comments state explicitly that anything that can be empirically measured will be impermissible, the exemption process will remain a hollow shell, a phantom provision. Why not just delete the exemption process and save everyone a lot of time, money and aggravation?
• Tenenbaum and Adler seem to miss the point that requiring a warning label for a product deemed safe is fatally inconsistent. Why warn for something determined to be safe in an exemption process? They ask for more discretion – to do what? What exactly is the risk here?
• The Commissioners note an openness to using a different term than “low volume manufacturer”, such as “small batch manufacturer”. This is apparently important to the HTA but seems to connote nothing of substance as both phrases are just terms or labels. I am stumped.
• The Commissioners basically go along with the definition of “low volume manufacturer”. As if to dispel any notion that they favor relief for small business, they note simply that the $200,000 revenue limit should be restricted to manufacturing or importing revenue. The fact that this revenue level is both absurdly low and that the provision itself is designed to be useless to almost everyone did not garner comment from Tenenbaum and Adler.
• Their comment about the need to “assure” compliance by LVMs confirms my reading of the Waxman Amendment that it is NOT designed to change testing requirements on small companies – they must ALL “assure” compliance through a reasonable testing program. The “assurance” will require third party testing. Here is the comment offered by Tenenbaum and Adler: “At this time, CPSC staff believe that reasonable testing methodologies meeting this criterion could be developed for only a few of the CPSIA testing requirements and that third party testing will still be required in many instances. However, this provision could provide greater relief in the future as new technologies develop that the agency may be able to recognize as capable of ensuring compliance through reasonable testing methodologies.” I guess LVMs can lump it . . . .
• The comments clarify that “imminently hazardous consumer products” incorporate the definition in Section 12 of the CPSA. Here is the definition from the CPSA: “[The] term ‘‘imminently hazardous consumer product’’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” The comments simply remove any reference to “being made aware of” – perhaps to avoid the implication that the CPSC has to act before it has “identified” the risk, whatever that may mean. Remember, current law requires going to court – the new language merely requires that the agency “identify” the risk. That’s quite a change – especially if you are on the receiving end. Think baby slings.

The comments by Tenenbaum and Adler did not comment on the perils of the “technical” provisions in the Waxman Amendment previously documented in this space. As I have noted, Rumorville has it that some or all of these changes appeared on a mysterious and secret document sent by Tenenbaum to the Hill with her 20 requests for changes to the CPSA and CPSIA. This secret document has not been revealed yet. It is therefore no surprise that her comments would endorse the approach of the Waxman Amendment (as in the foregoing tweaks). Perhaps Rumorville is right that these changes were made at her request or with her consent.

Consider the noxious changes to Section 6(b) of the CPSA – Tenenbaum and Adler apparently see nothing to comment on. Did you realize that the Waxman changes permit release of information based on a phone call? Say you make a Section 15 report, the CPSC does some interviews, creates internal documents, sends letters and emails back and forth to you – and a plaintiff’s attorney calls for disclosure of these confidential exchanges and papers. The CPSC may simply ask how quickly the lawyer needs them. Did you also know that this release can be done without notice or even the knowledge of the parties affected by the information release? Did you know that the new language even permits the CPSC to release information it knows to be FALSE? Due process doesn’t matter when you are protecting kids!

Can you believe that Tenenbaum and Adler had no comments on this terrible provision?

Or, how about the problems associated with damage to physical evidence subpoenaed by the CPSC which are also the subject of a civil suit? There is apparently substantial risk that this would be held against the defendant (you) under a principal called “spoliation of evidence“. What might happen? If the evidence is damaged, “[the] finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.” Ouch – that means you lose, big.

To judge by their comments, it appears that Tenenbaum and Adler don’t believe we deserve any procedural protections here.

It would appear that the “governing principle” demonstrated by yesterday’s passage of the health care bill applies here. There is little need for Democrats to try to build a consensus. They have control, so bipartisan support will only be achieved when those with opposing views capitulate or are outvoted. Brave New World, I feel so safe now. . . .

Very disappointing.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Tenenbaum/Adler Comments Revealed

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

Next Page »