CPSIA – Latest Developments in Waxman Amendment

In a meeting between various business representatives and the Waxmanis yesterday, the Dems set the parameters for moving forward on the Waxman Amendment.

The Dems have established three “goals” for this amendment. The current draft reflects this “vision”.

1. “Targeted” fixes to the CPSIA
2. A “bipartisan” bill supported by consumer groups, business and Democrats and Republicans alike.
3. Do NOT open up the CPSIA for reconsideration.

As I have previously noted, the Dems constrain the discussion by limiting what may and may not be discussed and then ask their “bipartisan partners” to make the best of it. This makes bipartisan support quite difficult to achieve because when the Dems present their draft, they indicate that all “compromises” have already been incorporated. This also allows the Dems to portray anyone who disagrees as an obstacle. Bring to mind anything . . . like health care?

In this case, the Waxmanis are saying that the bill basically is where they want it to be, and offer that clarifications can be made in the report language to accompany the bill. [Something new to read, more traps for the unwary.] This strategy will lead inevitably to continuing arguements long into the future about things that used to be simple. This legislative strategy also means that many problems will need to be resolved by litigation – which is a VERY anti-small business approach to legislation. Can you afford to take a case clarifying safety law to the Supreme Court? We are all toast if this how our “community leaders” choose to govern.

Let’s think about the situation we find ourselves in. The first circulated draft, according to Waxman staffers, is basically FINAL but clarifications may be made in the report language behind the legislation. Hmmm. That sounds like “take it or leave it”. Why would they take that approach? I doubt this is anything more than a political calculation. They put TWO terms in the bill that many companies really, really want and need, namely the modification of the phthalates ban and prospective application of the terrible 100 ppm lead standard. The message is clear – the rest of the bill, riddled with serious problems and provisions that gut existing CPSC practice and protections, would have to be tolerated to get that relief. It’s pure Machiavellian politics.

The “take it or leave it” approach is backed up with the implied threat that the bill will be rammed through the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the back of the Dem majority. There is no commitment to a hearing, and besides, Mr. Waxman has a practice of staging hearings in order to control the message.

How “bipartisan”!

The gutting of Section 6(b) and the rejiggering of voluntary recall disclosures is apparently not a reopening of the CPSIA in the view of the Dems. Why? Because they want to make those changes, spurred on by the Consumer Federation of America (Rachel Weintraub) and other consumer groups. Rumorville has it that senior Dem CPSC leaders are also pushing to completely revise these decades-old protections. Push back by the regulated community is being rebuffed, including requests for definitions of terms like “practicable” – why? Because it’s not “appropriate” to put “numbers” into the law – they might change in the future. The other numbers already in the CPSIA apparently do not undercut this argument, according to the Dems. Business risk that stems from that kind of uncertainty is of no apparent interest to the Waxmanis.

Makes you wonder how much they really want to help, doesn’t it? Is this possibly a sham process to enable them to get a second bite at the apple?

The terrible choice being forced on the business community is to accept some really bad provisions and terrible omissions in order to get two needed changes. The dominance of Waxman in this process has turned the children’s product industry into beggars. What a great way to govern . . . .

Under the imperious rule of Henry Waxman, you will get what he wants you to get. I hope you will remember this feeling for years to come. The treatment of the business community here is par for the course for this generation of Democrats. Remember, we are about to get the $1 trillion dollar health care bill WITHOUT A VOTE. They apparently interpret the 2008 national election results as a coronation and are acting accordingly.

I think your views matter. Express them!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Latest Developments in Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – Phthalates and Lead Limits in Waxman Amendment

Two minor but important points in the new Waxman Amendment relate to the ban on phthalates and the 100 ppm lead standard looming in August 2011.

Phthalates: The phthalates ban has been clarified to exclude “inaccessible” components, thus reducing the cost of testing for victims of this poorly-conceived law. The definition of “inaccessible” is based on foreseeable use and abuse by children. The term “reasonably foreseeable use and abuse” is defined, lest anyone misconstrue what the Waxmanis want it to mean, and hence new concepts have been incorporated: “breaking” as well as “the aging of the product”. In the past, “reasonably foreseeable use and abuse” has been interpreted to exclude intentional misuse. The term did not typically include aging since most worn-out products are either handled differently or discarded. The changes wrought by this amendment fundamentally alter the common meaning of “reasonably foreseeable” in quirky ways, making a confusing law all the more difficult to understand or apply.

If “reasonably foreseeable use and abuse” includes breaking the toy, it’s hard to know which parts will ever be considered “inaccessible”. Reading this language by its plain English meaning, I cannot imagine what might survive this legislative test. Worthless. I sense another rulemaking process for the long-suffering CPSC.

The amendment also clarifies that the CPSC can revoke this exception to protect the public health and safety. Remember, we are talking about a rule affecting mandatory testing of internal components that may or may not contain phthalates. Can anyone tell me what threats to the public health and safety could POSSIBLY result from an internal component made with phthalates? Phthalates have been in use in this country for more than 50 years – wouldn’t we know about “leaping phthalates” by now? Oh yeah, I’m sorry, i forgot that reasoning and science don’t matter anymore. . . .

Perhaps concerned that the CPSC was running out of things to do, the authors added yet another rulemaking on “inaccessibility” for this new exception. They are free to adopt the definition already set for lead. It’s up to them. Study up, guys! Can’t wait to give comments . . . .

Can you say . . . mania?

It is worth noting that in taking this route to “resolve” the pain points on phthalates, the Dems have chosen to NOT address a pending issue between the CPSC and California. Attorney General Jerry Brown of California sent a hot letter to the CPSC last year indicating his unwillingness to accept testing of the entire product for phthalates ban purposes. In the wake of his letter, the agency reversed course and rescinded its rule permitting a single test on the entire product. This would have been inexpensive for manufacturers.

It is pure fantasy that the Dems would take on Jerry Brown since our Congressional overlords are largely from CA (Waxman, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein) and are busy trying to California-ize the rest of the country. Henry Waxman would certainly never preempt Jerry Brown for the national good. Hence the half-a-loaf approach here.

Lead: The Waxman Amendment makes the pending 100 ppm lead standard prospective. This is a tiny bone thrown in our direction. You may consider it a nod of acknowledgement of your pain from the retroactive application of the lead standards and phthalates ban. Nonetheless, this is all you will get.

Again, this is only half-a-loaf. A more thoughtful and helpful change would have been to draw a FIRM LINE under the 300 ppm standard, eliminating the 100 ppm standard altogether as well as the rule ratcheting down the lead standard in the future (forgot about that one, right?). They could have said that the CPSC would be free to lower the lead standard in the future if necessary to protect public health and safety (taking into account the cost and benefit of any such new rules). But they didn’t.

The Waxmanis have no interest in such concessions. Whether out of zealotry or pride of authorship, no amendments will emerge if they reflect any concession of error or misjudgment in the Perfect Legislative Process. Thus, the 100 ppm standard can’t be removed because they put it there for a reason. We must live with it . . . so they say.

Rumorville has it that the Waxmanis are about to deliver a message to leaders of the business community to fall in line behind this “wonderful” amendment or else . . . they’ll get NOTHING. Don’t you love this? And I used to think THEY worked for US. What an idiot I am!

And on that note, I encourage you to read ONE more blogpost about this toxic amendment. I still need to show you how the authors are trying to deceive you and gut the system that regulates safety of safeguards against governmental abuse. That is, abuse of the interests of your businesses. It’s really something to see.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Phthalates and Lead Limits in Waxman Amendment

CPSIA – Redesign the Dog!

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

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

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

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

Read more here:
CPSIA – Redesign the Dog!

CPSIA – Redesign the Dog!

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

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

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

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

Read more here:
CPSIA – Redesign the Dog!