CPSIA – Consumer Groups and the CPSIA

Walter Lippmann, founding editor of The New Republic and winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964, once cited the components of wartime mythmaking as “the casual fact, the creative imagination, the will to believe, and out of these three elements, a counterfeit of reality.” Hmmm. He might have been talking about lead in children’s products. Mr. Lippmann explained: “Men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities [and] in many cases they help to create the very fictions to which they respond.”

Last week, a number of interested stakeholders met with the staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to discuss what to do about the CPSIA. Do I need to explain why the situation is urgent? The list is long, and the victims are basically defenseless. Mass market companies are inconvenienced but not hobbled; small businesses are crushed, confused and scattering into other markets. Consumers, unaware that the federal government has meddled in an unprecedented way with a market upon which they depend, are oblivious to the threat posed by the weakening or departure of their suppliers. And the Dems just smile and tell us this is all for our own good. Don’t worry, they know what’s best!

Various stakeholders tried to explain the many ways this law has caused harm and the reasons why it is appropriate to loosen the noose around the business community’s neck. Scan my remarks, the HTA’s presentation or the words of the AAFA as an example, and you will see how high the stakes are.

No meeting on the CPSIA would be complete without consumer groups chiming in to defend this “perfect” regulatory scheme. In this case, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics all touted the triumph that is CPSIA. CU spent a fair amount of time asserting that the public database rules adequately protect manufacturers and that the perceived defects in the proposed database plan had already been addressed by the Commission. [See Nord's blog and Northup's blog on this topic.] What, me worry?! CU also noted that there WAS broad support for the CPSIA (back in 2008), as if that were sufficient justification to stick with a clearly defective law. This was nothing more than the Waxmanis’ argument that no further discussion is merited because of the Perfect Legislative Process. Ah, the infallible Congress, how could I forget?

My special friend Rachel Weintraub of CFA took the opportunity to reassure the gathered crowd that the law has done us all a lot of good. [She was careful to not put anything in writing. Given that limitation, I must work off my notes and apologize for any inaccuracies.] Her reasoning relied on the assertion that consumers “thought” that someone issued a “stamp of approval” for children’s products being sold in U.S. markets. This strikes me as “transference”, meaning that this may be how Rachel feels herself or how she feels we the general public OUGHT to feel. In any event, there are a lot of consumers out there, and I rather doubt Rachel is able to know how they all felt. She went on to assert that consumers lost faith int he regulatory system. Ditto. After recounting the many wondrous things the law has engendered, she asked that the law be given more “time to work”.

More time to work? To what end, to finish the job and put everyone out of business . . . other than CFA? OMG.

And then there is my personal favorite, the AAP through their Washington representative Cindy Pelligrini. Ms. Pelligrini has been making trouble over lead for many years. I first encountered her when the 2007 testimony she ghosted for Dr. Dana Best was used to justify the Illinois lead labeling law (see below). For last week’s meeting, the AAP submitted a position paper announcing its unwillingness to support any change to age limits, lead limits or even the consideration of risk by the CPSC. Why do you suppose the AAP cannot support the consideration of risk? Ms. Pelligrini explained in her oral remarks that the AAP felt consideration of risk would be too BURDENSOME ON THE AGENCY. What a heartbreaking scenario, the terrible burden! The AAP is so considerate to think of the quality of life of CPSC Commissioners.

The AAP was able to muster support for tightening the lead limits in the CPSIA to 40 ppm, however. Perish the thought of dropping the 100 ppm standard! When I questioned the process by which this position paper was created by the AAP, Ms. Pelligrini wrote me to explain that it is old news, derived from their January 21, 2009 letter to Henry Waxman. So, apparently, nothing has happened in the last 24 months nor any additional data developed to merit reconsidering their recommendations. I see.

Of course, I recognize that the metabolic impact of lead has not changed because of the development of injury statistics (or, more accurately, the development of no-injury statistics), and in this sense, I suppose, the AAP position need never change. On the other hand, I have previously addressed the issue of science being used as a bludgeon to “prove” preconceived notions. In my post of December 14, I discussed an article entitled “The Truth Wears Off”. It could have been about the story the AAP tells about lead.

Without going into the arguments about the falsity of the AAP’s claims (or at least their fatally misleading nature), I would like to draw your attention to the “detached from reality” position they take on lead limits. They want to establish a limit of 40 ppm for lead. Anyone remember that Mr. Obama’s vegetable garden at the White House was at 93 ppm? The AAP points to research they conducted with the U.S. Geological Survey to come up with this limit. In other words, it is their estimate (however faulty) of background lead “contamination” in our environment. [As if the natural presence of an atomic element constitutes "contamination".]

AAP’s suggested lead limit of 40 ppm is basically below the reliably measurable limit and imposes uncontrollable economic risks on manufacturers. By uncontrollable, I mean that the odds of finding a part or component with lead levels in excess of 40 ppm are pretty good in almost any manufacturing setting – given the disorder, irregularities and complexities of the real world, defects of this nature are not really preventable, at least in a prophylactic way. [This is different than saying anyone is likely to be injured, please note.] Even a Six Sigma company would find this a major challenge. Remember, if you find such a part or component, the entire lot becomes a liability and may have to be discarded, a total loss. The imposition of this kind of manufacturing risk will cause many market departures and other bad economic impacts. You will only have to discard one big lot to get the message – find something less regulated to do.

My word against hers, right? Well, perhaps not. My home state of Illinois is running a test on this point. Illinois has a new law that requires labeling toys (you know, a warning label that Scott Wolfson doesn’t think matters) if they have paint with lead over 40 ppm. Actually, since lead-in-paint is now illegal under federal law at 90 ppm, the Illinois law effectively requires labeling for paint on toys BETWEEN 40 and 90 ppm. Feel safer already? Not everyone does. See the coverage in the Akron Beacon-Journal on such labeling. The headlines of the article says it all: “Label on doll shoes made by Toys R Us subsidiary worries parents. Warning about lead is cause for concern. Company says product is safe, but some experts say children shouldn’t be exposed to even small levels of metal in toys.” The AAP thinks this would be a jolly good rule for the entire economy.

I could go on. [If you are bored, you are welcome to consult my response to the "no safe level of lead" argument in response to Bob Adler's attempt to "prove" this point.] In point of fact, the consumer groups are just trying to gum up the works. There are apparently still some members of Congress (I am not ready to name names) who are “true believers” and according to rumor, are ready to block any sensible effort to fix this law. I guess it’s tough for some people to admit a big screw-up. Keep this in mind the next time you hear the media blame Republicans for “gridlock”.

In any event, you should not feel particularly comfortable just because the Republicans are running the show in the House. The Republicans are in fact very aware of the issues and the details of the problems under the CPSIA and at the CPSC, and are motivated to do something about it. They have the votes and the intent to move something useful forward. However, the Senate is still controlled by populist Democrats who just seem deaf to reason, argument or data. As long as they (or even just one of them) stands in the way of putting this part of the economy back on track, we are stuck. Even with the grudging cooperation of Senate Democrats, we also need the White House to sign the law. And then there’s the persistent zealotry on the CPSC Commission. Many variables and risks remain.

Despite the odds and the death march aspect of this “war”, we must carry on. We must keep fighting, we must keep calling, we must keep protesting. The words of Ronald Reagan ring in my ears:

“I do not believe in a fate that will befall us no matter what we do. . . .

I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”

We are the People, this is our country. We do not need to be held hostage by a small group of zealots. The task of taking back America did not end at the 2010 midterm elections. If the Dems will not help us, and if the consumer groups are going to be obstructionist to the very last, then we must fight and we must fight with vigor and intensity. No one is going save you . . . but you.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Consumer Groups and the CPSIA

CPSIA – Canada Tries to "Out-Stupid" Us – Is that EVEN Possible?

When I went to Toronto one year ago to attend the international ICPHSO conference, I came away impressed with the sensibility of the Health Canada folks. They were grounded, they were calm and reflective, they seemed to understand that the CPSIA went too far and was not needed as the basis for Canadian law. I left with a sense of admiration and confidence in them.

And one year later – they are showing troubling signs of declining IQ points, a possible sign of lead poisoning! In a stunning turn of events, Canada apparently has decided to play one-upsmanship with the United States. Not satisfied at losing in the international arena of regulatory lunacy, Canada proceeded to tighten up our oh-so-loose CPSIA lead standards.

Editorial Pause Here – Someday I want to see governments everywhere refer to INJURY STATISTICS when they call for new laws to make people safer. To figure out if people are “unsafe”, one must certainly know if they are being injured . . . right? You’d really want to be able to measure that, wouldn’t you? Please tell me you understand this point . . . . Soooo, if one chooses to argue that we are harming children with “too much” lead in children’s products, isn’t incumbent on the accuser to demonstrate in some meaningful way that the harm we will spend zillions to “eliminate” actually exists, you know, at a bare minimum? Shouldn’t we demand a higher standard of justification than “it stands to reason”?

Back to Canada – Canada announced on November 29th “the most stringent rules in the world” on lead. The Canadians have decided that lead limits should be 90 ppm for toys and any product other than a kitchen utensil intended to come in contact with the mouth for children three years old and under. They will also join us at 90 ppm for lead-in-paint.

Please recall that the dirt in Mr. Obama’s backyard tested for lead at higher levels than 90 ppm. His DIRT. So now we know he won’t be able make toys or teething rings out of his dirt and sell those products in Canada. Finally, the menace is contained!

So why did they do this? “Health Canada says the new limits are needed because while reputable companies do their best to ensure lead has not been added intentionally to their products, companies can still run into trouble with quality control when importing huge volumes of goods in complex supply chains.”

Oh, I see – it’s the fault of darkest China! Good Canadians wouldn’t do this but those evil people in their complex supply chains – they can’t be trusted.

I would toss this off as some kind of joke other than the fact that this creates a massive business problem for us. And, of course, after the cynical and ignorant politicians get past congratulating themselves on saving the populace (from what?), there will be great mystery about what happened to variety of playthings in Canada or why educational products are much harder to find. What a mystery that will be!

As an American supplier of many Canadian school supply dealers and Canadian schools (we make Canada-specific educational products), I want to note that we have never had a single accusation of injury in Canada from any of our products since we were founded in 1984. I do not relish attempting to meet this asinine standard, lower than the loathsome U.S. standard of 100 ppm due to come into being in August for no particular reason other than to kill jobs. Will anyone feel sorry for me when we get our first test report showing lead levels of 93 ppm on a single part in an assembled toy? In other words, compliant with the U.S., but 3 parts-per-million above the arbitrary trace standards of Canada? Nah, it will be ours to savor – no one will care. We have to make children safe, safe, safe and who could put a price of the safety of our children?!

I don’t know how long we will sell products for kids under three in Canada if this law goes forward. Perhaps the Canadians figure the kids can start to be educated after three.

Maybe Canada really has a chance to out-stupid us if they keep this up. Bully for you, Canada! And I thought it couldn’t be done . . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Canada Tries to "Out-Stupid" Us – Is that EVEN Possible?

CPSIA – My Written Testimony at Senate Hearing 12-2-10

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Written Testimony at Senate Hearing 12-2-10

CPSIA – Let’s Keep Sucking Our Thumbs . . . .

803 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 7 days left until Election Day.

Seven days to go! Go, baby, go!

I just found this article documenting the pain of some Illinois toy craftsmen owing to the CPSIA. Imagine, these guys are being held up by the noxious CPSIA and are essentially shut down. I have been reading these articles for almost three years now. Ho-hum.

Have any of you heard of Mattel or Hasbro going out of business because of this law? Me, neither.

Articles of this type are discouraging on several levels, not least of which is the lack of comprehension of almost everyone who gives a quote. The scale of the problem for small business, even the very nature of the problem presented by the law is unclear, apparently. No one asks the right questions like – why are we doing this? What are we achieving? Is it worth the cost? Can we even measure what we have accomplished?

Of course, the answers to these questions are all negative. No one knows why we’re doing this, other than a general love of children. Don’t know about you but a “general love of children” is a rather flimsy justification for killing off an entire industry (other than mass market companies like Mattel). Given that we have many fine universities here and train the occasional engineer in this country (I am one of them), I would think we could be a just a little more “science-y” in our analysis. So, if we can put our “general love of children” on the shelf for just a moment, why indeed are we doing this? To improve the health of children, right? That sounds good to me.

To assess whether we have had any impact on the health of children, presumably we would need to be able to describe what is WRONG with the health of children now. The zealots assure us that there is no safe level of lead. They also assure us that lead harms children “silently”, in other words, the harm cannot be measured accurately, but trust us, it’s there. In other words, there is no way to differentiate between lead “poisoning” in children not presenting symptoms – and a purely imaginary condition in those same children. The “real” problem and the imaginary problem present exactly the same way – no symptoms. Contrast banning pixie dust with banning lead-in-substrate – the issues are the same.

[Ed. Note: Apparently there ARE safe levels of lead in musical instruments made of brass if they are full-sized, but not if they are under-sized. This is part of the new interpretative rule on the definition of "Children's Products". Therefore, if you had a small trumpet (dangerous, subject to regulation) and you stretched it, making it into a full-sized trumpet with thinner walls of brass, it would become safe (no regulation)! Hmmm. This is not magic, this is the CPSIA!]

And if you want to measure your impact on this dreaded problem, how would you do it? The health statistics are purely made up, because there are no symptoms. The reasoning goes – since there is “no safe level” for lead, then we must consider anything that could possibly cause a blip in blood lead levels as a causative agent, therefore, we must ban everything that COULD POSSIBLY make blood lead levels rise.

Given that blood lead levels are declining these days and are not considered a health risk by the EPA, FDA, NIH or CDC except in connection with certain specific hazards (leaded house paint, residual pollution from leaded gasoline, or other environmental factors like air pollution), we cannot measure any improvement in health. It’s literally impossible (remember, the “real” problem and the purely imaginary problem present exactly the same way). Thus, it will be impossible to measure how much we have achieved for our investment. We must cling to our assertion that there is “no safe level” for lead to assure ourselves that we have accomplished something. This is a logical argument, but there’s no evidence to support it.

So the entire exercise is speculative? The benefits cannot be measured. The problem can’t be measured or even described accurately. There weren’t any victims before, there aren’t any victims now. Seems like nothing has changed. Uh-oh.

Ah, thumb suckers, THAT isn’t true. Something fundamental has changed, thank you Congress. Safety hasn’t improved . . . but a few things have changed substantially:

1. Our regulator is no longer capable of exercising a judgment about what is and what is not safe. Consider the musical instrument example above. The CPSC has also become quite aggressive, perhaps to justify its existence and its new jumbo budget. Not pretty.
2. The cost of compliance has already skyrocketed. Those dollars are coming out of activities that would otherwise be used to grow our businesses.
3. You ain’t seen nothing yet on costs – wait for the CPSC to approve the 15 Month Rule on testing frequency and reasonable testing programs. Costs will rise by 10-100x for many companies if the rule is adopted as presently drafted. I’m not kidding.
4. Complexity and risk have skyrocketed. What do people do when they can’t figure out the rules or they get scared about the consequences of failure? They exit.

   [Here's another pre-Xmas threat by the ever-lovable Inez Tenenbaum: "'We will continue to recall their products and it will damage the brand. There will be penalties, there will be lost customers,' she said in an interview." She's quite a charmer, isn't she? Does this sound good to you? Want to enter the Children's Product market? Want all your family's wealth dependent on the health of a business in this market, being regulated by Ms. Tenenbaum? Hmmm, the line's out the door, everyone wants in!!!]

5. Products and markets are being dropped, or aren’t being entered in the first place. Profits are being lost (profit prevention) and jobs are being shredded. Lots of jobs . . . .
6. It’s not fun anymore to be in this business.

As for the Illinois wood toymakers, it’s a shame for them. We read about this kind of thing all the time. Maybe it will go away on its own. Maybe it’s all their imagination. Small businessmen are often so unsophisticated, they probably don’t know what they’re talking about. The U.S. government is just too smart to get something this wrong. If they really screwed up, they’ll fix it – the government’s not the enemy, you know. Something this big and stupid can’t be true. Somebody big and important, like a trade association, will save us. No, no, 60 Minutes or John Stossel will do an embarrassing story and that will break the logjam. [Ed. Note: been there, done that.] I’m too busy running my business to address this. You can’t fight City Hall. It will get fixed, don’t worry! Nothing this ridiculous lasts very long.

Boy, that thumb must be yummy! But at your age, thumb-sucking seems so inappropriate.

Don’t forget to vote on November 2nd. Even if this scourge won’t go away and has become entrenched, you can still strike a note for capitalism and for sanity by voting against the idiots and the venal people who want to destroy your businesses and deprive you of valuable products that you prize. You can defend yourself – and you MUST.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Let’s Keep Sucking Our Thumbs . . . .

CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

787 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 23 days left until Election Day.

Sean Oberle published a lengthy contemplation of the issue raised in my last post on the relationship between compliance and safety as objectives for regulators and for industry. Mr. Oberle’s essay speaks for itself, so I will not attempt to summarize it. He concludes with the following message: “Therein lies the frustrating and frightening aspect of product safety. Those of you tasked with ensuring product safety – industry rep, consumerist, and regulator alike – are trying to quantify ambiguity amid a chaos of demands … all of them in flux … I don’t envy you.”

Sean, boy are you right!

I think it’s worth discussing a few issues on compliance versus safety since Mr. Oberle devoted so much ink (or electrons) to the topic.

1. The law defines what the CPSC can and cannot do. It’s a shame no one told them . . . .

First and foremost, the CPSC exists because of the CPSA and its activities are governed by the CPSA. Recall authority is governed by Section 15 which limits the agency’s recall authority to “substantial product hazards”, namely a product that “. . . creates a substantial risk of injury to the public”. [Section 12 gives the agency additional powers to seek a court order for "imminent hazards".] In other words, the CPSC does not have the legislative authority to tilt at windmills – it cannot demand recalls for anything unless it presents a “substantial risk of injury to the public”.

Consider recalling 12 million glasses that the CPSC acknowledges in writing are SAFE. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than seven million trikes sold over 14 years that caused six children to cut themselves. Children who were under three years of age and should have been under the care of attentive adults. Substantial risk of injury?

Consider recalling more than 400,000 Sarge cars because the little yellow dot on the wheel hubcap violated the lead-in-paint ban, and those dots were produced from two cans of paint. Substantial risk of injury?

One must distinguish between legerdemain and reality, between policy and what the law intended. It is a little focused-upon responsibility of the agency to exercise this judgment. Is it even possible for everything that happens to be a “substantial” risk? We know of cases where a single broken toy without an injury provoked an official investigation at the agency. Fair? Is this an activity that the CPSA authorizes? It is . . . if you are running the agency and you say it is. Arguably, the recall of the 480,000 Mattel Wheelies on September 30 was just such a case. Consumers apparently reported two broken cars with wheels that fell off, and no injuries were reported or implied. Substantial risk of injury? I question that.

2. The notion that we need all this supervision flies in the face of injury statistics. But it sure makes the CPSC look irreplaceable, doesn’t it?

I have already published and discussed ad nauseum the historical injury statistics from lead based on CPSC recall notices – ONE DEATH and THREE UNVERIFIED INJURIES over 11 years (1999-2010). If we were facing such a dire public health crisis, why weren’t kids dropping like flies from lead poisoning over such a long time period of “lax regulation”? If the harm was so widespread and so devastating, why aren’t any of these actual victims known? Names, addresses, photos, case histories?

A friend replied to me recently reasoning that there is no safe level of lead. Okay, I concede that lead can be dangerous but it is absolutely true that lead in present throughout our environment and in the air, food and water that we consume every minute of every day. So since we take in lead from several sources all the time, we know we are building up lead and this leads to several questions. If lead is so harmful at all levels, why aren’t we ALL showing the effect of our cumulative build-up of lead? How can you demonstrate that children’s products contribute meaningfully to the asserted “problem”? How can you prove that “fixing” children’s products will meaningfully change lead blood levels? And if you could prove those things (which cannot be done), how can you measure the return on investment of our multi-billion dollar annual investment? Remember, we can only spend those dollars one time – so is flushing them down the toilet on test reports REALLY our best use of scarce and irreplaceable dollars? How would you measure that?

But the more that the CPSC enforces the law against “bad” corporations, the more they scam the public into thinking they needed the help all along. They talk about recall statistics but never put them in the context of injury statistics. The proponents never compare lead injury statistics to other injury statistics like swimming pools.

[Is a child injured by lead "worse" that a child killed in a pool? It better be - because we are spending billions to prophylactically eliminate the possibility of purported lead injuries while leaving swimming pools open to continue a continuing skein of killings of more than one child each day. That's okay according to our Democrat-run Congress. Tell that to the family of drowning victim - they can take comfort in knowing that their child didn't have lead poisoning thanks to the relentless and remorseless enforcement of the CPSIA . . . .]

So as the regulators abuse and confuse the definition of hazard, they create an atmosphere of dependence. Oh thank you Mother Government for saving me! What would I do without you?!

3. Mr. Oberle reminds us that “Lack of incidents may not mean a product is safe.” And just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they AREN’T out to get you.

Mr. Oberle does not take an offensive stance on this topic, btw. He is right, you can sometimes catch something dangerous before it creates harm. Presumably a quicker recognition of the hazard in Magnetix might have prevented injuries. Responsible companies need to always keep a lookout for insights that reveal latent hazards.

On the other hand, injury statistics are a useful tool. If, as is the case for lead, the assertion is that the hazard is widespread and present over a lengthy period of time, injury statistics become QUITE relevant. So, if lead was such a terrible problem in children’s products (putting lead-in-paint aside, long ago banned), injury statistics over many years would reveal a latent problem. Think of the breadth of the definition of “Children’s Products” and think of the years of recall data available for study. We are looking at TRILLIONS of interactions with children every year in the United States alone. Where are all the lead victims? We cannot say that we don’t know the scale of this problem. We have apparently been running an “experiment” on the U.S. public for decades in the period the zealots label as “lax regulations” or “lax enforcement”. If lead-in-substrate were so dangerous, wouldn’t you expect to see SOME evidence of it?

If we must imagine the scale of the danger, can we spend imaginary dollars to deal with it?

4. The compliance hawks want to frame this as a financial question – how much is your safety worth? I think that’s the wrong question – I think the question is “how long do you want to have a job?”

I have already reported that our compliance group is currently up to six people from a historical one or two, and of course, our products are no safer today than in the past. They were always safe and still are, but it costs us a lot more to operate. That’s not good for you or for me.

So how do we pay for all this new bureaucracy? We have not raised prices, that’s impossible these days. We are lucky to have customers and cannot spit in their faces with a price increase. Think of your business – it won’t fly.

We also need to hit profitability targets because we need to remain financable. We do not get money from “money fairies” – we have to deal with a bank, just like you. Our bank prefers to see that we make money. I know that doesn’t seem very civic-minded but I can’t fault them for their POV. In any event, I think it’s elementary that a business needs to make a profit to have the model sustain itself. Therefore, we cannot commit ourselves to ever-eroding profitability. When our costs rise, we cut elsewhere . . . just like you do.

Needless to say, we have skinnied up a lot since 2007. We have a much-reduced headcount and operate far more efficiently. This is how everyone behaved during the financial crisis and the jobs have not returned, in part because the economy remains sluggish. With our rising overhead relating to pointless regulations, what can we do? We must recover the money from activities that are focused on raising revenues. In effect, we are discontinuing activities that create growth to fund activities that are pure costs.

What’s the math behind this? Consider how we recover a dollar of bureaucratic cost from productive activities. If you are already operating efficiently and cannot wring out big productivity gains (as may be the case post-financial crisis cost reductions), then how do you pay for an additional dollar of overhead cost? When you eliminate a “productive” dollar of cost to pay for an unproductive dollar of cost (e.g., you trade a dollar of marketing promotion for a dollar of test costs), it’s not an even trade. No, because your dollar of productive cost creates gross margin whereas your overhead produces no profit whatsoever. Your productive dollar of cost produces gross profit which defrays your operating costs and produces marginal net profit on top of that. Wiping out the dollar of productive cost also wipes out the contribution to operating costs, so effectively, only the associated marginal net profit can defray the unproductive cost. Since profit percentages are generally low for most of us, the ratio of productive cost dollars needed to be sacrificed to cover unproductive costs is probably on the order of 2:1 or 3:1. Hire another QC person and fire the equivalent of two people elsewhere. In our case, we do it by attrition. We just shrink away.

As if this weren’t bad enough, it’s also a recipe for disaster or business death in a worst case. The continued erosion of productive spending to finance unproductive spending has a dramatic impact on growth. Revenue flattens out or stays in a downward trend. It’s no surprise – you are starving your company of investment dollars as you spend at constant levels. You have simply shifted your spending from productive uses favoring growth to unproductive uses that will not create growth. Presumably, those of you with children have discussed the merits of eating fruits and vegetables versus eating potato chips. It’s no different for a business and how it consumes dollars. We will never grow up to be big and strong if Mother Government restricts our financial diet this way.

Sean’s right. I don’t envy you . . . or me. This makes me very pessimistic about the future.

I hope you are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore. In 23 days, you will get to vote. DO IT!

Read more here:
CPSIA – What Are We Trying Achieve?

CPSIA – Something’s Cooking on "Children’s Product" Definition

763 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 47 days left until Election Day.

I have written in this space about the recent shocking release by the CPSC of the final rule on the interpretation of the term “Children’s Product” under the CPSIA. The agency’s official interpretation of this defined term will dictate the creeping scope of the awful CPSIA and likewise has the potential to trim its sails. Many people gave detailed comments on the agency’s troubling initial draft of the interpretative rule, including me. I bashed the rule for its many problematic flaws.

The release of the final rule was stunning because, as I have noted again and again, the agency basically ignored or dismissed ALL comments on its draft rule and more or less installed the draft law as “final”. I interpreted this move as signalling the end of the CPSC’s rulemaking phase under the CPSIA. I assert that this came about as a result of a directive “from the top” to stop dithering and finalize the rules NOW, damn the consequences.

Why stop writing rules now? The CPSIA rulemaking process has left the agency and its Dem leadership exhausted and impatient. The Dems do not want to spend any more time writing rules – it wants to start catching “crooks”. The remarkably small number of consumer injuries by products regulated under the CPSIA is no deterrent to these people – the Dems were given their jobs to catch bad guys, and catch (and perhaps manufacture) bad guys they will. As Ms. Tenenbaum has promised time and again, 2011 will be the year of enforcement. This promise implies a couple things: CPSIA rules need to be finalized quickly AND the testing stay must be lifted in February 2011. Oh yeah, the testing stay, almost forgot about that little guy . . . . Thus, time is running out on rulemaking and hence the agency’s need to ignore our comments – no matter that their rules are shamelessly fouled-up and defective.

Congress “wants” it this way, or at least Mr. Waxman and his staffers insist on it. The Dems on the Commission are there to play ball.

In case you doubt my “paranoid” theory, check out the CPSC website today. Anyone notice that something is missing? Where’s the CPSIA banner today? The law is now listed below in small type. The CPSIA is over, it’s so yesterday . . . .

And if you buy the foregoing, then the pending rulemakings on component testing and reasonable testing programs/testing frequency should have you fouling your pants. Those two “bad boys” have pushed me into politics. I am trying to stave off disaster – I believe the agency will turn those deadly draft rules into final rules simply to avoid extending the testing stay and further to avoid delivering a very unwelcome message to Mr. Waxman that his masterwork law is thoroughly defective. And if the Dems rush it, they can inflict all this damage before Republicans can save the day after retaking the House and Senate. Tea Partiers, please take note.

But wait . . . there’s something up at the CPSC. The rule on Children’s Product was originally scheduled for a rubber stamp vote on September 9th. Then it was rescheduled for September 15 and then pushed forward to September 22. What’s up with this?

Normally, the delay of a rubber stamp action means there is a big disagreement behind closed doors and Commissioners are duking it out in private shuttle diplomacy between staffers. [Sunshine Act rules prohibit a meeting of more than two Commissioners without holding a public meeting that you can witness - so disputes are resolved using intermediaries. Just like in the Middle East, working through third parties is a great way to work out disputes . . . .] In other words, somebody on the Commission may actually know how shameless it is to ignore legitimate and fair comments in a public rulemaking process, even if those darned comments are so inconvenient. And, ouch!, if they must remodel the rule, they might have to release it subject to another comment period. Another comment period could pose BIG problems for the testing stay, creating a real dilemma for our Dem friends. If they push out the stay AGAIN, that more or less seals it – they clearly need infinite years to implement the CPSIA, which confirms that it is a thoroughly defective law.

And there is also the looming possibility of a Commission quorum problem. What?! Well, Commissioner Thomas Moore’s term ends in late October and he can only serve until year end. Then things get very complicated. If he is not replaced promptly, OMG, it’s a deadlocked Commission again! Tenenbaum and Adler won’t be able to get their way anymore – AW SHUCKS! – they MIGHT actually have to listen to Nord and Northup at least until another Obama puppet is put in place. And if the Senate goes to the Republicans, it might be pretty hard to confirm the usual zealot. Hmmm.

See the reason for the urgency yet???

The whole situation makes me want to tear my hair out. I have a business to run – can you IMAGINE being held hostage by this kind of idiocy in your own government? Well, we ARE being held hostage by our own dysfunctional government.

Tea Partiers, and anyone with a reawakened sense of OUTRAGE, take note. Election day is November 2nd, in case you didn’t hear. . . .

Read more here:
CPSIA – Something’s Cooking on "Children’s Product" Definition

CPSIA – The Great Set-Up

For those who had better things to do than wade through my comment letters last week, I want to highlight a few points.

The two CPSC rulemakings up for comment on August 3rd were on component testing and on the so-called “15 Month Rule”. Both are very important rules and both have been long discussed. The “15 Month Rule” relates to testing frequency and defines a “reasonable testing program”. The long controversy over these rules relates to their acknowledged potential to be TERMINAL to small businesses. This was the principal reason that Inez Tenenbaum delayed issuing these rules on time in November 2009 as required by law (they can vary from law when it suits their purposes, please note). She called a two-day workshop for December 2009 for the purpose of gathering the feedback of stakeholders. I was asked to appear as a panelist, as were two of my colleagues. These sessions were taped (they were able to hear all the feedback and digest it).

So here’s a few things you should know:

a. Component testing will not be useful except for the largest companies and for those rare situations when everything falls neatly into place. The rules as written are too complex, too demanding (full traceability of all components is REQUIRED, which is delusional and completely unnecessary for such simple, innocuous products) and far too risky. The liability risk associated with these very challenging rules will scare off all but the most foolhardy or ignorant companies.

b. Component testing relies on a fantastic assumption, namely that component tests (if desired) will even be available. Why don’t we assume they will be available for every paint and for every plastic pellet on the planet? Does that solve the problem? I dare say not. There are many convenient examples of likely missing test reports – think of aluminum foil in a science kit, for instance. If you are missing only a few component certificates, any benefit from the rule is lost.

c. The “15 Month Rule” was apparently NOT CHANGED from the draft discussed in December 2009. In other words, despite the agency’s “misgivings” about the rule way back then, and even after two days of comments by more than 200 stakeholders, the agency ended up in the same problematic place – and put the rule out for comment now. Of course, they filled in some holes (see below). In my opinion, this means either that the “feedback” process was a complete sham (the agency gave the appearance of “listening” but did as it pleased anyhow) or else that the agency lacks the temerity to tell Congress that the CPSIA is simply screwed up. Having ducked that punch, the CPSC instead opted to put you and me out of business.

If they were unable or unwilling to listen in the last nine months, I have absolutely no confidence they will listen this time. That bodes badly for me and for you. Consider the following . . . .

d. Using the numbers from the CPSC’s rulemaking, I derived that the agency wants me to spend $10,000 per item per year in testing costs (all-in). We have 1,500 items. Do the math – that’s $15 million per year in testing. This is for a company with ONE RECALL OF 130 PIECES TO ITS NAME IN 26 YEARS. This is also the rule regulating a “risk” that killed ONE CHILD and MAY HAVE INJURED THREE CHILDREN . . . in 11 years. [You can review the math in my comment letter. It's their numbers, not mine.] Do you think this might be a touch excessive? No matter, that’s our problem to resolve.

I can’t get this $15 million number out of my head. Do you realize that this rule could become the law shortly? Hey, HTA members, do you get it yet? All that nuzzling up to the CPSC, all their tears over your plight – this rule shuts your doors. If they push forward on this rule (as I anticipate), we will all face a very daunting choice – do we close our doors, sell our companies, go into another business or, breath deep, knowingly break the law by ignoring this rule? Is this a surprise to anyone? This has to be the world’s stupidest rule – and we are left with the ultimate Hobson’s Choice. Thanks CPSC.

Let’s not forget that Bob Adler spoke in stern tones last February when he said he would not vote to extend the stay on the testing and certification rules again. In the absence of further Commission action, the testing stay lapses on February 11, 2011. This rulemaking is intended to put the agency in position to let the stay expire. The next step would be enforcement of this new rule. Ms. Tenenbaum has publicly announced that 2011 will be all about enforcement – you have been warned, the pogroms are coming.

Do you get it . . . yet? IF the agency cannot wrap up this rulemaking in time, it will need to extend the stay. Arguably, that problem is on its doorstep right now. Even they understand that businesses need time to plan, and without final rules, no planning or preparation can take place. IF they cannot get this done in time (soon), they will have to extend the stay AGAIN. This would be incredibly damning of the agency, as it would be an apparent concession that the awful CPSIA cannot be implemented, perhaps ever. Of course, that only confirms what you and I have known for a long time – the law can’t be fixed by this agency and is fatally flawed. In the absence of dynamic Congressional action, we’re all toast (this is old news).

I urge you to take this battle to the political arena. The CPSC and the Dem-controlled Congress have shown that they just won’t listen. They don’t care about our problems. I say that if they are intent in putting us out of business, all of our productive businesses making contributions to our community and our markets every day, then it’s time to return the favor. We need to put THEM out of business first.

Time’s a-wastin’.

Read more here:
CPSIA – The Great Set-Up

CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

August 3, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 820
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0038 Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification.

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0038) published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (the “Proposed Rule”).

The End of (Business) Life As We Know It:

As I sit down to record my comments on this rule, I take comfort in knowing that the CPSC admits what it is doing here. In a section entitled “Caveats and Possible Market Reactions to Third Party Testing Requirements”, the agency acknowledges the severe impact of its new rule on manufacturers:

a. Significantly increased costs,
b. Incentive to redesign (presumably successful) products,
c. Incentive to reduce features on products,
d. Incentive to eliminate (presumably useful) components in finished goods,
e. Incentive to reduce product lines,
f. Exit the market altogether,
g. Go out of business,
h. Create barriers to entry for future business expansion, especially in specialty markets (non-mass market),
i. Devastate niche markets (noting particularly the “special needs” educational market – sorry, blind kids!), and
j. Incentive to delay or forgo product or manufacturing process improvements (to avoid testing costs).

Quite a stimulus program! Of course, the CPSC knows we can’t meet this challenge alone. In “The Potential Effects of the Proposed Rule”, the agency advises us to hire a few helpers:

a. Lawyers to review CPSC regulations,
b. Engineers and chemists to develop product specifications, conduct tests and design a program for production testing,
c. Statisticians or consultants to determine the frequency, sample size and collection method for production testing, and
d. Technicians, “perhaps working under the supervision of an engineer, chemist or similar professional”, to perform production tests.

This certainly is a Brave New World for us. Luckily we have the CPSC to tell us what to do. Unfortunately, we can’t afford an in-house legal department or teams of engineers, chemists or statisticians. We don’t even have technicians. Incredibly, somehow we bumble on in our blissful, almost charming ignorance, having had only one recall of 130 pieces (we recovered every unit) out of perhaps 1,000,000,000 units sold in the last 26 years. No doubt all the pain the CPSC is promising us will be worth it . . . gotta keep everyone so safe.

Seriously, Is Anyone Listening?

On page 28338 of the Federal Register, the Proposed Rule reproduces the “reasonable testing program” as it stood before the December 10-11, 2009 workshop at the CPSC. The workshop (which we attended with three people who were each asked to appear as a panelist) was ostensibly for the purpose of giving “stakeholder feedback” on the so-called “15 Month Rule” (the Proposed Rule) and the component testing rule (also up for comment today, posted under separate cover). We gave detailed feedback on these rules – none positive – yet the Proposed Rule seems to have preserved the original, deeply-flawed concepts intact.

It is difficult not to conclude that the process of providing feedback to this CPSC is a sham. While Chairman Tenenbaum has long touted her “policy” of seeking feedback from all stakeholders including industry, judging from this rule, the commitment to seeking feedback does not involve maintaining an open mind. It appears that the most likely feedback to be well-received is feedback that ratifies what the agency already plans to do. Other feedback is “wrong”, I guess. I doubt you will find this letter useful.

As time ebbs on and as the drumbeat of a CPSC bent on our destruction becomes more and more clear, the incentive to waste a few days preparing detailed comments also ebbs. Nevertheless, owing to the importance of this Proposed Rule, I am hereby submitting comments. I have no reason to be optimistic that you will consider my point of view with an open mind. This rule has all the earmarks of a fait accompli.

Deeply Flawed Economic Analysis.

The Proposed Rule devotes pages and pages to a tortured analysis of its purported compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). This section of the Proposed Rule is a virtual admission of how unworkable the rule is (and the CPSIA testing scheme in general). As a starting point, the rule states: “The objective of the rule is to reduce the risk of injury from consumer products, especially from products intended for children aged 12 years and younger.” In my recent study of CPSC recall data posted on its website, I have found exactly ONE DEATH and THREE ASSERTED INJURIES from lead or lead-in-paint from 1999-2010. Please keep this statistic in mind as I review the economics of your “injury reduction” effort.

The flaws in the RFA analysis are clear in its discussion of testing costs for toys. The analysis acknowledges that it only accounts for out-of-pocket testing costs, nothing else. Significant additional (and ignored) costs include samples destroyed or damaged in testing, transportation of samples, administrative costs for managing testing, administration costs for managing the testing data, administrative costs for managing recordkeeping, an allocation of general management time, legal expenses relating to testing and so on. Depending on the scale of the business, I estimate that these costs (and distractions) will add 15%-50% to the out-of-pocket testing costs.

The RFA analysis concludes that testing a typical toy will cost $1,262 per product. As an average, this might be a good number for our business. I would note, however, that the Proposed Rule posits that we will test multiple samples, sending in perhaps four separate samples per item to satisfy the bizarre “required high degree of assurance” standard. [The rule states clearly that testing one sample is never enough. Interestingly, we have never had the experience in the last 20 years that multiple safety tests of the same product reveals anything useful other than rapidly approaching poverty.] The rule’s four-sample regime takes the testing cost per toy up to $4,848 (by the calculation in the document) plus another $2,500 for mechanical tests (because the rule posits that we will submit FIFTY samples for mechanical tests). That brings us up to $7,348 per item, plus 54 destroyed samples. This implies a rough “all-in” cost of $10,000 per item. We have 1,500 catalog items in our product line. Without a “reasonable testing program” in place (see below), we will have to test each item annually. This is a cost of $15 million for our company EVERY YEAR. [We also sell custom items, a business that would presumably be terminated by this testing rule. That’s several jobs down the drain.]

Does it surprise you to know that $15 million in testing costs exceeds our annual profit? By far?

The RFA analysis is deeply flawed in other ways, too. The rule duly reports that “[a]ccording to a representative of a trade association, there are an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 individual toys on the market.” Oh, really? Perhaps the CPSC shouldn’t have consulted the International Hubcap Manufacturers Association for this information. A quick visit to the Amazon.com website reveals listings of 808,465 toys and games on August 3rd (http://amzn.to/djtTVX). Amazon is a customer of ours – I estimate that they list about one-third of all toys and games sold in the consumer market. Call it 2.5 million toys and games available to consumers in the U.S. But that’s not all – the category also includes specialty items not present on consumer sites. For instance, our industry, the education industry, is largely invisible on consumer sites. I estimate that about one million SKUs are available to purchase at the annual convention of the International Reading Association. Millions of other SKUs are displayed at the national math show, the national science show and the national early childhood show. Add in special needs and other sub-markets – and you get well in excess of 4-5 million toys and games. So the RFA analysis might be off by 100x in its assessment of the toy market ALONE. That’s not close. . . .

The RFA analysis goes on to conclude that the ENTIRE MARKET of products affected by the rule is 100,000–150,000 products. This includes “wearing apparel, accessories, jewelry, juvenile products, children’s furniture, etc.”, plus non-children’s products and other children’s products like ATVs, bikes, bunk beds and so on. It is hard to dignify this ridiculous data with a retort, except to note that it is absurd on its face. The apparel industry ALONE offers as many as 8,000,000 different children’s SKUs for sale. The RFA analysis is fatally flawed.

At $10,000 per SKU, the projected children’s product testing costs will easily exceed $50 billion per year. Remember the 11-year CPSC statistic on lead deaths and injuries – one death and three ASSERTED injuries? [There are no recorded injuries from phthalates or cadmium, by the way.] The 11-year compliance cost will exceed $550 billion (in 2010 dollars), expended by U.S. companies to “reduce” this risk of injury. It would cost a lot less to wrap every American child in bubble wrap.

Small Businesses CANNOT SURVIVE THIS RULE.

Assuming we are supposed to take this rule seriously, the Proposed Rule is perhaps the best friend of the mass market yet invented by an agency seemingly bent on the destruction of the small business community. This letter documents again and again the unrealistic expectations and assumptions made by the authors of this rule with respect to businesses in general and small businesses in particular. Thousands of small businesses of every stripe and color will be affected by this rule. Are you seriously thinking that they will all hire statisticians, chemists and engineers to prepare the reams of data, plans and reports the CPSC expects? Once this massive, herculean effort is completed, who will be safer anyhow? I can think of someone – mass market companies who have been handed a game-ending cost advantage on a silver platter by the CPSC. This, combined with mass market companies’ ability to create certified firewalled in-house labs, favors the big guy dramatically. No wonder the rule states again and again how prejudicial this rule is to small business. The CPSC knows what it’s doing.

Small businesses will strain to even understand what is expected of them. The rule is obtuse, long-winded and full of arcania. Small business people may not have the time or skills to master this complex rule. When the CPSC turns to its attention to enforcement (as promised for 2011) and selects a few small businesses to whip into shape, the market will take note of the pain and a mass exit will result. I realize, however, that Cassandra-like predictions haven’t influenced the CPSC in recent times. One of the Commissioners has even been quoted as saying that “anecdotes aren’t evidence”. It feels like we have to die to prove we were right. A few small businesses might just do that, if the agency waits long enough.

The Commission has asked for feedback on how to address these issues. The complexity of the CPSIA safety rules proves that they are unworkable. To repair this damage, the Commission must ask Congress to restore its ability to assess risk. I am assuming that the Commission would exercise this discretion with more common sense than is embodied in this rule. CPSC rules should be trimmed back to things that MATTER, only. Second, the agency should build its rules and its enforcement activity around DATA. Injury statistics tell the agency what is important. If a particular hazard generates ONE DEATH AND THREE ASSERTED INJURIES OVER 11 YEARS, you can safely relax your rules quite a bit (there are worse problems out there). Education might make a difference, however.

Finally, the Commission should NOT take ANY step if there is EVEN A SHRED OF DOUBT about the impact on small business. Small business is the major jobs creator in America. When you promulgate rules that choke the life out of small business or sharply reduce their incentive to invest, you are killing our economy. You have a heavy responsibility to keep this place running, even if it’s an imperfect world. While it’s sad that a child ever dies, the pain and suffering imposed on countless families from lost jobs, lost capital, lost access to needed products, and so on likely far exceeds it.

Reasonable Testing Program – Busy Work to Keep Us From Running Our Businesses.

The “Reasonable Testing Program” (“RTP”) represents a choice presented to manufacturers of children’s products under this rule. If we endure the expense and disruption of a RTP, we can cut our testing frequency (read, testing costs) in half. A very tempting prospect but the cost of a RTP seems too high, leaving us with a Hobson’s Choice. We can’t afford annual testing and we cannot afford a RTP. What should we do? What will anyone do?

Owing to the burden and complexity of RTPs, I predict EVERY REGULATED COMPANY will violate these rules. Since Ms. Tenenbaum has promised to turn to enforcement in 2011, the CPSC regulators should have a pretty easy time finding juicy targets. Every company will provide wonderful enforcement opportunities.

Although our testing program has been highly-effective over the last 26 years, our program would never meet these standards. We do not maintain the volume of paperwork that the new CPSC rule now requires. We know what we’re doing, but we have not organized our files into a how-to manual. Perhaps the agency thinks every company in the country is an ISO 9001 company. They’re not, and this kind of documentation is rare and breathtakingly expensive to prepare.

Having endured the CPSIA spectacle for two years now, I do not trust the seemingly flexible definition of necessary documentation. The pattern is that these seemingly open-ended terms (which may or may not describe our current recordkeeping) will mature into something rigid down the line. Even if they don’t, we still face the risk that we will not measure up to the expectations of the CPSC enforcement officer at the time of reckoning. The feeling that we are being set up is inescapable. As noted above, given our record of performance, the agency should have NO concerns about how we go about our business. Nonetheless, I feel certain that these rules will bite me in the future.

Sample selection under the rule should not be based on any statistical formula (per the baffling presentation of Dr. Michael Greene at the December 2009 workshop). If the overall safety results of the company are strong, the choice of samples by the company or factories should be presumed compliant without further inquiry. Random selection (taking one off the shelf . . . without the assistance of a statistician) works just fine in our experience, and there is no evidence that testing multiple samples will accomplish anything but will certainly raise costs. Better sampling won’t lower injury rates that already approach zero.

We currently do not use production testing and have zero production testing plans in place. With one recall in 26 years, I would assert this kind of testing is superfluous in our business and basically useless from a safety standpoint. It will significantly raise costs, however. The tedious exercise of preparing a pallet load of production testing plans to meet the new requirements is just plain busy work. One must ask what the CPSC was thinking when it penned this description of a production testing plan: “A production testing plan may include recurring testing or the use of process management techniques such as control charts, statistical process control programs, or failure modes and effects analysis (FMEAs) designed to control potential variations in product manufacturing that could affect the product’s ability to comply with the applicable rules, bans, standards or regulations.” Fancy words but . . . what planet are they from?

The requirement to list all the tests applicable to our items, again and again, to satisfy the RTP requirements is typical of mindless busy work asked of us. Does the CPSC think this will make ANY difference? Most businesses confirm safety tests with their testing lab partners anyhow. More bureaucracy, taken to new heights.

We don’t have any remedial plans in place either. We are quite familiar with how to appropriately resolve compliance and quality issues, and have never had a problem with regulators in the exercise of our business judgment. The requirement to prepare a detailed written plan, just in case we have another recall in the next 26 years, is pure officiousness. This is yet another waste of our time, our money, our resources and our intellect.

The recordkeeping requirements of a RTP is well beyond our ability or interest to preserve for 1500 products produced in thousands of lots over the course of a year. Taking a “Dear Diary” approach to how we source, test, move, remediate, repair, investigate and otherwise manage children’s products is completely unreasonable. This is especially ridiculous given our track record.

The Commission has asked what a RTP might cost us. I have a hard time estimating it because all the fun in our business would be gone. If we had to endure the bureaucratic nightmare this rule envisions, if anyone actually expects us to do all this to make simple plastic toys for schools, I would have to seriously consider our alternatives. So it might cost us our entire company. That’s the whole enchilada, guys.

Remember, we don’t have to make children’s products, nor do we have to stick around for the next act of this tragedy. If the CPSC persists in ruining what was once a rather safe industry with a strong track record, the cost will be the entire market for children’s products.

Is that a high enough price to give you pause? I know, I know, more anecdotes . . . .

The Requirement to Document Procedures against Undue Influence is Unreasonable.

The “Undue Influence Procedures” requirement (“UIP”) is essentially a requirement to document efforts to avoid fraud. If you’re not inclined to commit fraud, there’s little reason to set out your plan to not commit fraud. Here’s our current policy – “Don’t break the law or commit fraud”. This has worked well for us, as we have never exerted undue influence in the last 26 years and have no plans to start now.

I am really sorry that there are bad people in the world, some small number of which may have at one time attempted to exert undue influence over one or more test labs. Perhaps the CPSC should concern themselves with the bad guys and leave the rest of us alone.

Material Change Rules Place Too Much Risk on Manufacturers.

The CPSC’s rule on when to test after a “material change” is sufficiently open-ended to render the judgment on when to test fairly obvious – ALWAYS TEST. Deep within the Proposed Rule, Section 1107.10(b)(2)(ii) instructs “A material change is any change in the product’s design, manufacturing process, or sourcing of component parts that a manufacturer exercising due care knows, or should know, could affect the product’s ability to comply with the rules . . . .” “Due care” is defined as “the degree of care that a prudent and competent person engaged in the same line of business or endeavor would exercise under similar circumstances.”

In other words, the agency’s 20-20 hindsight can construct a case for testing for a material change for just about anything that “might” or “could” affect results or that a hypothetical “prudent person” might think of investigating. Of course, this issue only comes up in the context of an injury or a recall, so what are the odds that any judgment to NOT test would withstand inquiry by an angry CPSC? Zilch. So either you always test or you take a big risk. This is completely unfair and unreasonable.

Testing Frequency Must Be Left to the Manufacturer and to the Market.

A rule requiring manufacturers to test according to these standards every year is going to kill us and many other businesses. No one can afford the testing scheme outlined above, we least of all. If we must test according to these standards, we will be out of business quickly. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that testing cost savings from maintaining a RTP will hold much appeal since that project is so wasteful and gargantuan. Of course, a firewalled in-house lab would be nice for all of us small businesses, but that’s unrealistic, too (not to mention undesirable). We have no realistic way to moderate these costs. Please see my other August 3 comment letter for an explanation of why I believe component and composite testing will likewise provide no relief.

Testing is supposed to assure product quality and compliance. If we have a good, long term record of safety, why can’t we just carry on as we have, and deal with issues as they arise? That worked for 26 years. The new way is just unaffordable.

The “High Degree of Assurance” Standard is Unreasonable and Not Derived from the CPSIA.

The rule seems to conclude that a “high degree of assurance” is a necessary element of any “reasonable testing program”. The importance of the “reasonable testing program” which was incorporated into the CPSIA as an alternative to third party testing for non-children’s products, has been imputed to the children’s product area as a way to reduce testing frequency, and with it, the “high degree of assurance” standard (“HDA”) was likewise imputed. Thus, sliding down this slippery slope, the HDA standard has become part and parcel of the “15 Month Rule”. Abracadabra.

The Commission has requested feedback on the meaning of the definition of HDA in Section 1107.2. Happily, the agency has rejected a strict statistical interpretation requiring “95% probability” of compliance. What should the definition be interpreted to mean? The “high degree of assurance” should be based on an overall assessment of the safety record of the company. It should NOT be based on the results of an individual product, even if recalled or deemed dangerous. In our case, we have done business for 26 years, had one recall of 130 pieces of out of about 1,000,000,000 pieces sold. All of these units were recovered. Thus, we believe there is zero probability that a recalled product is in the market. Our historical recall rate is approximately 130/1,000,000,000 or 0.00001% over a 26-year period.

With this record over so many years, our company should be deemed to have satisfied this HDA requirement and be endorsed as having a reasonable testing program without further inquiry. And if we DON’T deserve the HDA designation, then the CPSC should articulate what level of safety achievement would earn the designation.

Notably, the entire children’s product industry also meets this requirement. Of the 899 recalls of children’s products from 1999-2010, only one death and three asserted injuries from lead were recorded by the CPSC. Thus, the probability of being injured from lead by a children’s product is nearly zero, given that literally billions of children’s products are sold every year. [The apparel and footwear industry claims annual sales of about 4 billion units ALONE.] Industry recall rates are likewise well under 1% per annum. With injury statistics and recall rates in hand, the CPSC should GREATLY loosen the strictures of the “high degree of assurance” standard to focus its resources on activities that might actually injure someone.

One-to-One Product Testing Will Punish the Smallest Companies.

The prophylactic approach to testing adopted by the CPSC will inevitably put many small or micro businesses into bankruptcy, or drive them into unregulated markets to avoid the CPSIA’s wasteful bureaucratic costs. If the law does not permit the agency to adopt sensible rules that allow businesses to manage their compliance risk as best they can (where the standards remain in place, but the government stops trying to tell businesses HOW to comply), then the Commission must finally tell Mr. Waxman what he doesn’t want to hear – that his law is broken and can’t be fixed. [Notably, these mini businesses most at risk have an exemplary record of safety and very low recall rates. NOTHING is gained by rules that crush the little guy.]

We in the small business community have suffered for two solid years while regulators have sought any possible way to avoid delivering this “unpleasant” message. I get the impression that the demise of our businesses would not be too great a cost for the agency to incur to avoid telling Congress what it doesn’t want to hear. If the Commission is genuinely interested in a fix, it must take action with Congress. I do not believe the agency can devise sensible regulations to fix this problem short of a legislative change.

Ban on Retesting Will Unnecessarily Create Crises at Small Businesses.

In our experience, test labs are neither infallible nor definitive in their understanding of U.S. safety laws and regulations. It is not unusual to experience failed test reports for reasons besides safety problems. In addition, children’s products are not so pure and perfect in their composition that every test produces the same result. The CPSC itself instructed manufacturers to audit their test labs in the ironically-dated April 1, 2010 version of the Proposed Rule in response to industry complaints that test results varied from test lab to test lab. By forbidding retesting, the Proposed Rule removes discretion and appropriate problem resolution techniques from a commonplace quality event. You don’t need to manage a very large portfolio of products before the probability of an ordinary course testing problem rises exponentially. This is a matter of mathematics. If retesting is banned, the CPSC is legislating a crisis of the week.

Again, CPSC injury data informs us that the nature of the problem is extremely modest. Historical injury rates are VERY low. This retesting rule is completely unnecessary and penal to all companies except perhaps mass market companies with greater resources. Small businesses won’t have teams of engineers or statisticians around to save the day. Many small businesses will naively call the CPSC for “help”, only to find out that they have created a worse crisis. Some small businesses may miss this point in the Proposed Rule and continue to retest, only to be punished later when the CPSC finds evidence of retesting at the time of a recall. Is this really how you want to regulate?

I would note that the justification for all this is bad acts: “[Retesting] may tempt unscrupulous parties to attempt to ‘test the product into compliance’. . . .” To my knowledge, this behavior has little precedence and even so, it is an abuse that can be dealt with other ways. If honorable and law-abiding companies use retesting to resolve honest problems, no harm is being done. Punishing good guys because you are afraid that otherwise bad guys might benefit is excessive and inappropriately harsh.

The 10,000 Piece Limit for One-Time Testing is Arbitrary and Unfair.

The CPSC has failed to persuade that the 10,000 limit is an appropriate break point for testing. First of all, the limit is cumulative, not related to sales in a period or per annum. Second, the threshold bears no relationship to risk of injury. In other words, it’s completely arbitrary. Why 10,000? Why not? In my view, that’s not enough to justify this rule. Many of the micro businesses that might benefit from this rule have NEVER had a recall. These are the people this rule will restrict. And the logic of this is . . . what, exactly?

Even more remarkable is the rule’s insistence that these low volume items be tested annually after passing the 10,000 piece threshold. Small companies will never have a RTP so annual testing (or more frequently, if for instance the item is hand-assembled) will be mandated. Consider a product selling 2,000 piece per year. Under these rules, the incentive to drop it once it crosses the 10,000 threshold will be powerful. This reminds me of the incentive on small businesses to not hire a 26th employee to avoid an onslaught of Obamacare obligations. A tacit cap on sales will be imposed by this rule. Nice!

The solution to this problem is to require one-time testing before sale, and thereafter according to the business judgment of the manufacturer. Remember, the retailers that buy from the manufacturer will also have something to say about testing frequency, too. Not all solutions are better if imposed by the government.

Alternative Testing Technologies.

The ability to test at low cost with XRF is attractive. For our business, it is tempting to use an XRF gun but for two reasons: (a) cost, and (b) health risk. XRF guns cost $30,000 each and have high annual maintenance costs (several thousand dollars a year). We might need several guns to manage our inventory volumes, a very costly prospect. XRF guns are portable x-ray machines. Notwithstanding the assurance of XRF gun manufacturers, I am quite reluctant to place an x-ray machine in the hands of a warehouse worker in our facility. This is an invitation to disaster. We likewise have no interest in hiring a highly-paid technician to wield the gun, or technicians to wield the guns. In any event, we cannot expose our employees to a possible risk of x-ray genetic damage. I am surprised that the CPSC doesn’t take this risk more seriously. Is lead a worse problem than x-rays?

In any event, I fail to understand what would be accomplished by a XRF solution for small businesses. The process of XRF testing may be inexpensive, but would be disruptive. In any event, I don’t see a connection to safety so I prefer a solution that restores sanity to our safety practices. Burning in a wasteful and disruptive process will only bog down our economy and our competitiveness. Until the CPSC can point to a risk factor relating to the little guys, one cannot rationally conclude that XRF makes this regulation better, just somewhat less worse.

In sum, the Proposed Rule is a dangerous rule with the acknowledged prospect of doing severe market damage. The CPSC knows this, having admitted it in writing in the text of the rule. There is no excuse to push forward with a defective rule on this scale. The Commission must talk honestly with Congress . . . before it’s too late.

Thank you for considering my views on this important subject.

Sincerely,

Richard Woldenberg
Chairman
Learning Resources, Inc.
380 North Fairway Drive
Vernon Hills, IL 60061

Read more here:
CPSIA – Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

CPSIA – McDonald’s Shrek Glasses Weren’t an "Imminent Hazard"

Some people apparently think I contend that product recalls can only take place if the CSPC insists. I have certainly argued that the CPSC has no authority to demand or even ask for a recall unless certain specific conditions are met. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but there are limits to the agency’s legal authority. Companies themselves can recall products for any reason. There need not be a safety reason – you can recall something from the market because the color’s wrong, the material is somehow less than expected, wrong size, wrong instructions, wrong packaging, whatever. A company’s ability to recall its own products is not limited by law.

In the case of the McDonald’s Shrek glasses, yes, McDonald’s declared a voluntary recall. That’s not unusual – the vast majority of recalls are voluntary. Only a tiny handful of recalls every year are “mandatory”. In any event, the critical issue here is NOT that McDonald’s made this choice. As we have discussed, the publicity from this event forced McDonald’s hand – they had to protect their brand at all costs. The issue here is that the CPSC apparently “urged” the company to “do the right thing”. [These words come from the OnSafety blog, the official blog of the CPSC, believed to be written by Scott Wolfson, Director of Public Affairs.] It was apparently the “right thing” to do although the agency conceded that the glasses were “not toxic”, in other words SAFE.

While companies are allowed to choose to recall safe products at their pleasure, the CPSC does not have the unlimited legal authority to reach out to American companies and tell them to take this kind of voluntary action.

The power to recall emanates from certain provisions of the CPSA and FHSA. Notably, Section 12(a) of the CPSA, the agency can’t go to court unless there is an “imminent hazard”. What might that be? “As used in this section, and hereinafter in this Act, the term ‘imminently hazardous consumer product’ means a consumer product which presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury.” Given that the glasses have been acknowledged to be “non-toxic”, this standard is impossible to meet.

The relevant term in the FHSA is “banned hazardous substance”. In Section 2(q)(1)(A), it is defined as “any toy, or other article intended for use by children, which is a hazardous substance, or which bears or contains a hazardous substance in such manner as to be susceptible of access by a child to whom such toy or other article is entrusted”. [If a ban is done pursuant to subsection (B) of this clause as a "household item" because it is chemical in nature, it must be done by rule, subject to comment and so on. There was no rulemaking process involved in this case.]

“Hazardous material” is defined in Section 2(f)(1)(D) in relevant part as “Any toy or other article intended for use by children which the Commission by regulation determines, in accordance with section 3(e) of this Act, presents an electrical, mechanical, or thermal hazard.” And Section 3(e) refers only to electrical, mechanical or thermal hazards, clearly inapplicable here.

Bottom line, the McDonald’s glasses are outside the reach of the CPSC . . . if the wording of its principal empowering laws matter anymore.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonald’s Shrek Glasses Weren’t an "Imminent Hazard"

CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

The spectacle of the McDonald’s cadmium “scare” continued to unfold today.

Let’s not forget that this recall was “urged” by the CPSC although the CPSC admits in writing that the glasses are “non-toxic”. In other words, the glasses are safe. As the manufacturer notes: “‘It could have been any glass company,’ said Ron Biagi, an executive with Arc International, which made the glasses. ‘We all do the same thing using materials from the same suppliers.’” McDonald’s clearly had no choice in the matter, suffering a terrible loss of prestige no matter what the outcome. So the CPSC, Rep. Jackie Speier, one anonymous tipster and a hyperbolic press forced a highly wasteful and destructive recall.

The tumult, chaos and confusion thoughtlessly spawned by the CPSC continues to unfurl in almost predictable fashion: “But the returns [to McDonald's] are just the beginning of the next chapter in the cadmium debate, with the CPSC poised to set new limits on the metal even as it downplays the McDonald’s recall and environmental advocates aim to use the episode to build momentum for reform of federal toxics law.”

A terrible move deserves an even worse follow-up.

What’s the cause for alarm here? The glasses are safe, so says the CPSC . . . as it dramatically lowers the standard for cadmium. Yeah, nobody’s worried.

The consumer group talking heads can’t resist chiming in: “Don Mays, senior director of product safety for Consumer Reports, said cadmium was being used in some manufactured goods to replace lead, which has been eliminated from many products in response to heavy regulation and widespread health concerns. Many of those goods were once commonly associated with lead, like paint and inexpensive jewelry. ‘We’re just starting to see this,’ Mr. Mays said. ‘It’s starting to creep into a lot of consumer products that never had it before.’”

Does anyone care that the CPSC SAYS THIS ISN’T TRUE? “After an Associated Press investigation first uncovered the high cadmium levels in some children’s jewelry, CPSC Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum publicly warned manufacturers in Hong Kong not to replace lead with cadmium or other toxic metals. Tenenbaum told senators in April that ‘we really don’t think’ companies are deliberately swapping out lead for other hazardous chemicals, ‘but we think they’re being careless and not realizing that you cannot use these metals in children’s products.’” [Emphasis added]

Some in the press aren’t persuaded. After all, urban myths are true . . . aren’t they? “[David Lazarus of the LA Times] notes that Cadmium has probably stayed off the radar for so long because people weren’t widely aware of its use. The focus has primarily been on the danger of lead products, and lead product replacements weren’t a primary concern. Chinese manufacturers began using Cadmium insted [sic] of lead to get the same vivid pigments in product colors.” Right. David Lazarus knows all about this.

And then there are our Democratic leaders in Congress. It’s election season so there’s little incentive to be a calming influence. “Congresswoman Jackie Spear [sic], who first received the anonymous tip about the Shrek cups, doubts Europe is the Cadmium culprit due to its strict manufacturing rules. Spear [sic] suspects either a subcontractor or ingredient provider in China; China is one of the leading Cadmium producers in the world. . . . Spear [sic] says she has legislation in the works that would expand the Cadmium ban in U.S., specifying removing its use in any product for children.”

And the basis for Rep. Speier’s hunch is . . . what, exactly? The glasses were made in a U.S. factory: “In contrast to the Chinese-made children’s jewelry recalled earlier in the year, the drinking glasses were manufactured in the United States, by the Millville, N.J.-based company ARC International. Ron Biagi, vice president for North American sales at ARC, said he was surprised by the recall and vouched for the safety of the glasses. While environmental and consumer groups pointed to the importance of identifying the producer of the cadmium-tainted enamel used on the McDonald’s glasses, Biagi declined to name ARC’s supplier. ‘It’s not fair for me to pull them in,’ he said.” OMG, somebody decent is left in the world! I had about given up hope.

Having set off the blaze, CPSC Director of Public Affairs Scott Wolfson again spewed more of his patented mixed signals sure to sow seeds of doubt: “‘What’s so important is for parents to understand the difference. … Children are not at an acute risk; the glasses are not toxic,’ Wolfson said, adding that ‘there are no signs we’re looking at a wave here of cadmium becoming the next lead.’” Which is why, Scott, you and your agency acted so promptly to push for a recall of this non-toxic product made of common materials in wide distribution in this country for years without any detectable adverse health effect? Which is why you told America to stop using the oh-so-safe glasses “immediately” in your OnSafety blog? Do I have this wrong? Clear as mud. Very believable, too.

There are terms for this that are too crass for a family publication like my blog. Let your imagination run. How will all this resolve itself? Of course, not very well. Justified by fear of “bone softening” (that sounds HORRIBLE, doesn’t it?) and other bizarre maladies that supposedly COULD befall us from unspecified exposure to cadmium, we will get many new and ineffective regulations imposing yet more devastating costs and devastating risk on the children’s product industry.

While hatred of government is a necessary by-product of the massive self-inflicted injury of the CPSIA, we will more pertinently be faced with the difficult challenge of protecting our life’s work – our businesses. The livelihoods of our friends and associates at our company, the economic well-being of our customers and suppliers (often our close friends, too) and in our case, the economic future prospects of the kids who are being educated with our products, all hang in the balance. I don’t know what stops this freight train before it tragically collides with reality. Certainly not leadership or a show of character from our government.

I hate to close these essays sounding like a Tea Bagger (not that I resent the label). I don’t wish to be marginalized for having strong views about an abdication of leadership and judgment by our government leaders. Say what you will, the McDonald’s fiasco was fomented by politicians with agendas. Many companies and people – and our economy – will be severely damaged as a result.

There’s nothing to be proud of here.

Read more here:
CPSIA – McDonald’s Fallout Continues

« Previous Page — Next Page »