CPSIA – Answers to Supplemental House Questions (Hearing of Feb. 17th)

This is my Response for the Record to questions posed by Rep. Mike Pompeo after the February 17th hearing held by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade:

February 17, 2011
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee:
“A Review of CPSIA and CPSC Resources”

Congressman Mike Pompeo

1. Did your company have to buy a copy of the F-963 standard? Why? How much did that cost?

Our company has purchased several copies of ASTM F963 over the years. According to the ASTM International website (http://www.astm.org/Standards/F963.htm), the current cost of F963 is $62, or $74 (redline version). [This means that the ASTM literally charges companies EXTRA to figure out what changed in this legally-mandated standard.] To my knowledge, this standard is only available from the ASTM. Ironically, even the CPSC is unable to provide access to this document (as acknowledged in this CPSC Powerpoint presentation http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/intl/toyweb2_en.pdf) which casts doubt on its ability to guide companies attempting to comply with the law. The lack of access and cost of access to this standard certainly makes compliance burdensome for small businesses.

The F963 standard has been updated regularly over the years, and we need to have access to the current version of the standard at all times. Until the CPSIA was enacted, the F963 standard was the tacit equivalent of a mandatory standard because the toy industry adopted it as a “voluntary” standard with the encouragement of the CPSC. At one time, voluntary standards were the preferred way the agency regulated many industries, including our industry. We have always used the F963 standard as a reference in product development and safety administration and frequently tested for compliance with the standard.

2. You’ve been dealing with all of the agency’s rules for the last few years. By my reckoning, an entrepreneur with, say, a good idea for a board game would have to pay to buy a copy of F-963 from ASTM (not a small price to pay for some small or start-up toymakers). Then, because the standard is literally dozens of pages long of densely spaced text, he’d have to hire a lawyer to tell which parts of the standard apply to his product. Then, he’d have to find a third-party test lab to test and certify a random sample of his actual production line for compliance with all of the F-963 requirements. And, if any product fails, you are basically back to the drawing board. And, of course, he’d have to do all this before ever selling a single toy. Do you think the next board game entrepreneur (e.g., Trivial Pursuit) might have a hard time getting off the ground under this regime? Has this agency effectively killed entrepreneurship in the toy market? Does a start-up company stand any chance of being able to navigate the CPSC’s new rules and regulations on its own?

The CPSIA has had the effective of creating new barriers of entry in the children’s product market, once one of America’s most entrepreneurial industries. The burdens are heavy in the toy industry but even worse in related industries like juvenile products. Large companies with steady cash flow enjoy considerable and valuable advantages over entrepreneurs who must put large sums of money at risk in their initial investment in compliance costs before receiving their first dollar of revenue. The effect of the CPSIA is one of picking winners and losers in affected markets. I question whether this is the appropriate role of the federal government in our markets.

We believe that these heavy costs will discourage investment in new products, by new entrants, by existing players and especially by small businesses. Recently, at the CPSC’s hearing on the looming 100 ppm lead standard, representatives of the bicycle industry noted that in the wake of the 300 ppm lead standard, many small bicycle manufacturers have already left the market and large companies cut their product lines considerably. I have long predicted a reduction in product diversity as a necessary consequence of the CPSIA. Other evidence of market contraction exists, as well. At this year’s ICPHSO, CPSC Acting Director of the Office of Compliance and Field Operations Robert (“Jay”) Howell noted the CPSC’s challenge in identifying a test lab that has or will agree to equip itself as a certified test lab for ATVs. Why? So many ATV manufacturers have stopped producing youth model ATVs under the effective ban by the CPSIA’s lead standards that testing labs can’t justify the capital investment to provide CPSIA compliance testing. Product diversity is declining all over the children’s product market.

Toymakers will experience the same depressing effect and yes, that means that the next Trivial Pursuit inventor may be washed out. We may never know because the absence of a new toy or novel game will be hard to detect in the ad-driven, promotional toy market. It is clear, however, that entrepreneurs are free to deploy their capital wherever they want – they are seeking returns on their capital – so the combination of high CPSIA compliance costs, high regulatory risk, high legal costs and a generally hostile regulatory environment seems unlikely to attract new entrants to the toy market. War stories will also discourage new entrants – the well-known experience of toymakers who have suffered under this regulatory regime.

As a practical matter, the rules and regulations put out by the CPSC to implement the CPSIA for toys are incomprehensible, not to mention incomplete. We are now 31 months into the CPSIA era, yet the CPSC has yet to promulgate a final phthalate standard or certify even one phthalates testing lab. EACH and EVERY toy must be “phthalate-free” but the CPSC has yet to tell us how to know it has achieved this goal. This means we are subject to the risk that they will invalidate all the work we have done since 2008. While this regulatory delay is simply outrageous, it is more likely proof of the defects in the CPSIA than a sign of failure by the CPSC. Even the largest companies have complained to the CPSC about the blizzard of rules and interpretations. One of great frustrations in attempting to comply with the new rules is that many CPSC legal interpretations have been given in private letters, orally in speeches or even in the form of voicemails. Access to such information may be critical but is obviously inaccessible to anyone not obsessively watching every minute of every video, reading every letter, attending every meeting or hearing and talking to every stakeholder in an attempt to master the breadth of this ever-morphing regulatory scheme.

3. Does the existence of a small business ombudsman at the agency solve the compliance problem?

The office of the Small Business Ombudsman serves a useful purpose as a friendly point of contact and possible advocate for small business within the agency. That said, there is no evidence that the office has power to make decisions, change policy or offer its own definitive interpretation of rules. For small businesses totally at a loss, the ombudsman is a good place to turn to for plain English answers to basic questions about rules. Notably, the office is not permitted to make decisions on behalf of the agency. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make problems “go away”. For this reason, the ombudsman function appears to be the regulatory equivalent of a shoulder to cry on. The current ombudsman, Neil Cohen, has been a good friend to the small business community, but unfortunately, he doesn’t write the rules.

4. What problems do you anticipate occurring as a result of the public database?

We know that the public database will be administered on a post-it-and-forget-it basis. Based on our dealings with the agency, I believe that the agency will post all incidents unless a mistaken identity can be proven. As a consequence, we anticipate that the database will be allowed to be filled up with “incidents” that are conjectural, misleading or even proven WRONG. In the first and only filing against our company, an anonymous complaint accused one of our products of posing a small parts hazard. That accusation was based on an image viewed on a website – there is no indication that the filer had ever handled our product. Consequently, the filer had no reasonable basis for the small parts claim. As a matter of fact, we routinely test for small parts and have done so for years, and when we presented a valid CPSIA test report under F963 (and EN71, the European standard), we were told by the General Counsel of the CPSC that the claim would nevertheless be eligible to be published under current rules. Thus, we KNOW that the false and misleading filings will KNOWINGLY be published by the CPSC even if PROVEN false. We believe this flagrantly violates our basic right to due process and creates the potential for damaging “feeding frenzies” that can consume our products and brands.

Other claims may relate to “hazards” which affect a wide swath of products already well-known by regulators and industry. This presents many risks to industry and to brands. What will a consumer make of a “report of harm” relating to a general hazard and only one particular product? Is this a minor incident or a harbinger of a real risk? Should they stop using the product? Should they stop using the particular model or brand which is subject of the complaint? Given that many products may present the same hazard (for instance, that an electrical cord could pose a strangulation hazard), how does this information help consumers? Will consumers actually understand the issue and be able to put it into some sort of perspective? And when incidents accumulate, as they are likely to do, presumably the brands and models with the largest numbers in distribution will have more incidents even though, ironically, they may be better constructed and “safer” than the alternatives. Will consumers falsely conclude that the models with more incidents are less safe and turn to something that really is?

Responding to this type of complaint obviously creates a new and terrible dilemma for manufacturers. Should they expend resources to respond? Do they need to lay out “a brief” about the nature of the failure and why their product is named? Will people just view whatever they say as unreliable, self-serving information or will they really be able to internalize the data? As noted above, most people will not be able to put these incidents in any kind of perspective. The only thing we know for certain is that brands and companies will be the losers.

The public portrayal of the database belies the unverified nature of the filings. Notwithstanding the disclaimers made by the agency, even esteemed media outlets like The New York Times refer to the database as a “database of unsafe products”. Unsafe? That label presumes some kind of judgment or filter prior to filing, which even The New York Times must assume is being provided by the CPSC. Ironically, the CPSC is doing everything possible to avoid providing that service. The result may be disastrous for American manufacturers, importers, private labelers and retailers of children’s products. It will be yet another self-inflicted economic injury.

5. What can Congress do to return the agency to one that regulates on the basis of risk?

Congress should mandate that the CPSC use principles of risk assessment to make all decisions relating to regulation of children’s products. The legislatively-mandated use of judgment and proportionality will likely lead to better rulemaking and more regulatory common sense. It is the legislative banishing of the exercise of judgment that led to the devastation of the bicycle industry, the elimination of youth model ATVs from the market (even though those products owe their very existence to a concerted effort by the CPSC to protect children from injury on adult-sized ATVs), the banning of all products made of brass, the senseless and almost neurotic banning of rhinestones as embellishments on children’s clothing, shoes and jewelry, and so on. NONE of these changes in rules have been tied to even ONE avoided injury.

Congress should also mandate the use of principles of cost-benefit analysis by the agency in its rulemaking processes. Under the CPSIA, all considerations of economics have flown out the window with predictably disastrous results. We can operate our government better according to basic common sense notions of cost-benefit analysis.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Answers to Supplemental House Questions (Hearing of Feb. 17th)

CPSIA – Consumer Group Testimony at CPSC 100 ppm Lead Standard Hearing 2-16-11

I have prepared some clips from the CPSC hearing on 100 ppm Lead Standard on February 16, 2011. I have not prepared comprehensive clips on every presentation. For instance, I omitted the testimony of the testing companies from the second panel (here’s a hint – guess what they are ready and willing to do?). If you want to see video that I have not delivered to you on a silver platter, check out the CPSC video of the Morning Session (consumer groups and testing companies) and Afternoon Session (industry representatives, including my testimony).

There is a lot of interesting testimony not in my clips, in particular in the afternoon. Although I think I am giving you a lot of relevant information in the clips I prepared, you are always welcome to check my work. I was quite impressed by the other presenters in the afternoon session, and the vigorous and interesting discussion that followed, but anticipated that you would not likely spend 4-5 hours watching the entire thing. If that floats your boat, please enjoy the links above.

In this post, I am embedding several clips from the morning session where the consumer groups stated their “case”. I hesitate to characterize the testimony as “tall tales” but watch for yourself and see what you think. I have come to believe that the consumer groups will say ANYTHING to prop up their beloved CPSIA. [Consider the laughable "consumer poll" prepared by the Consumers Union promoted by Henry Waxman on the eve of the House Hearings on February 17, 2011. CU shamed themselves with this pathetic effort to "win" the debate with garbage polling data.] This may include the remarkable hyperbole in the clips below. We can speculate among ourselves whether Don Mays really shakes with fear at the thought of his daughter playing a brass instrument (he says he would be “very concerned”).

Likewise, does Dr. Dana Best believe the nonsense statistics she flung around last week, like the one about ingesting an object with 300 ppm lead costing a child four IQ points? Please, dear G-d, that statistic is absurd on its face. The assertion that children are losing four IQ points from swallowing objects with trace levels of lead is irresponsible and misleading at a minimum, and something much worse if done with understanding or intent. The spectacle of Ms. Best’s testimony included calculations of the “cost” of 1 million injured children DESPITE the inability of any consumer group to produce the case history of a single child injured from lead-in-substrate in children’s product EVER. [I replied to Dana Best in my testimony.]

We must hold Dana Best responsible for the words that came from her mouth. Interestingly, Dr. Best was the only nominal author of the seminal testimony on lead in the CPSIA debacle. According to her colleague Cindy Pelligrini, Dr. Best didn’t write her 2007 Congressional testimony (Pelligrini told me in a phone interview in 2008 that she wrote it for Dr. Best to deliver). Did Dr. Best write last week’s testimony or was it another Cindy Pelligrini job? One can’t help but wonder, given the shocking assertions based on misleading and garbled data. The AAP should be ashamed.

Dr. Dana Best (AAP) on losing IQ points and “millions” of victims:

Dr. Dana Best worries about children licking their bicycles . . .

My 17 year old daughter came along on this adventure and at breakfast the next morning, asked me why a child would like their sibling’s bike rather than their parent’s? After all, the adult bike is not regulated. I thought that was a good point, and added that if we posit that the child was going to lick something inappropriately, why would they lick a bike – why not the family car, which is coated with lead paint? Of course, I got it wrong. I was later corrected by someone who, after listening to this story, reminded me that the two year old wouldn’t lick either bike or even the car – they would play in the pool of oil under the car. You can take it from there . . . .

Don Mays (Consumers Union) and Dana Best (AAP) on the frightening prospect of children playing in brass bands:

Read more here:
CPSIA – Consumer Group Testimony at CPSC 100 ppm Lead Standard Hearing 2-16-11

CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on the Database

Cheryl Falvey announced at the beginning of this overtime Q&A session that she wants to have a civilized discussion of the problems of the database, because they want to solve problems. That said, she said she’d cut it short if it turns into a gripe session about the database “because I know you hate the database”.

Nice, at least the General Counsel of the CPSC has an open mind! This reminds me of her aggressive and utterly unsympathetic suggestion at the November 2008 CPSC Lead Panel that we should all have a big “yard sale” of products that exceed the lead standard. Gave me a warm feeling then, gives me a warm feeling now.

I will try to craft some questions that she will find acceptable.

CF: Need to have your licensees register as part of the database. Licensors can also be listed as a “viewer” under the DB. They may not want that, because there could be liability issues.

[RW: Hmmm, I thought this database was all about empowering consumers. Liability? Empowering consumers to do WHAT?]

CF: More details given to licensors [aimed at Disney, who must have raised this question offline] plus some legal advice on how they should structure their licensing agreements “right now”.

CF: It’s a “complaint” database, not a “causation” database. [RW: This makes NO sense based on the stories they all tell about why they want the database implemented, especially the fantastic story told by Inez Tenenbaum in her keynote speech. She says she feels good when someone removes a product from use while the CPSC is working on a recall. This is CLEARLY all about making a JUDGMENT on the products - in other words, CAUSATION. It's a tall tale to contend that the general public will understand that this is a complaint database. Consume groups promote the database as a warehouse of the truth, not just a "blog". Cheryl Falvey is spinning yarns to justify her work on the database.]

CF: You are raising policy questions and this meeting is not about policy. We were dealt this hand and were told by the Commission to get the database up and running. If you disagree with the policy, you need to take it to the Hill. I am going to take other questions now.

[RW: So we cannot complain about the consequences of CPSC action on the database because they're just doing their job. We must hold them harmless and "get used to it". This is an old argument used by Falvey in past speeches - don't be in denial, it's coming, get used to it, take it on board. My question for you - do you like being treated this way? I don't.]

Q: We have been the victim of fraud where people submit pictures of “injury” pulled from the Internet. We also don’t get enough data from you, may not have consumer’s contact information and don’t have the time or resources to properly research or resolve these accusations before the ten days are up. At that point, the damage is irreversible. What can we do to protect ourselves?

A: We have not had bad experiences in the “soft launch”. We don’t want you to be hurt, you should “raise” these issues. [Didn't she say this morning that they received so many photos that they had to get new servers? No problelms . . . .]

[RW: Fingers-in-ears. This does not correspond to the rules, Cheryl, and you didn't answer the question. The question notes that there won't be enough time or information to verify or sort out the claim before it's published. Why are you deaf to this? You know that your publication of this data CANNOT be remedied. Oh yeah, you are just doing your job.]

Q: Why can’t you just test this system with people who have already registered and learn about the issues from this experience?

A: Your idea is a “great idea” and we will see if we can run with it.

[RW: Don't hold your breath.]

CF: We really want to talk about the brand and license issue!

Q: What will happen to me if an injury report blaming me for an exploding battery is actually counterfeit?

A: The interest is in protecting the public, that’s the policy issue. The disclaimer seems to mean a lot to Cheryl, cures all these ills. She poses the question of whether bulking up the disclaimer.

[RW: The answer to all of these question boils down to the fact that manufacturers have no due process rights because their rights are deemed inferior to consumers. This is a policy decision, too, and is NOT part of the law. It's the philosophy of the CPSC these days, and is political in nature. Using Falvey to announce the policy makes it look more like a legal judgment, however. Falvey has not explained HOW due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been removed for U.S. corporations under the CPSIA.]

CF: Can’t put off the March 11th implementation of the database.

[RW: Recall my remark about an open mind. This isn't a gripe session, this is a venting session hosted by Cheryl Falvey. She has no interest in making any changes - consumer groups get their way. Mike Pompeo's amendment better become law. The CPSC will do NOTING to address known defects in the database. As Falvey says, these are "policy" issues, outside her job spec.]

Q: Can manufacturers reply or comment privately?

A: Nope, if you comment, the comments need to be published. Only the confidential parts of the comment won’t be posted. [RW: This is so unbelievably one-sided. It's victory for the left wing. They put their people in charge and let them run amok.]

Q: We share brands with other companies (think of celebrity brands). How will you handle notification tied to such brands on multiple products?

A: The tracking labels would really solve all of these problems! We need to be able to send the notice to somebody. We understand the gap and are working to make the system better. We have a lot of brand information already.

Q: We traditionally get written notices that identify us as a manufacturer of a halogen table lamp. We make 20 halogen table lamps. What will happen under the database?

A: You’ll get the notice and if you can’t give us information on the product, one of us will have to call the customer. In any event, the data will go up on the database.

[RW: This is a classic problem illustrating how manufacturers will be unable to verify information or contest information before it's posted. As Falvey demonstrates, CPSC policy is that this is the manufacturer's problem. This is a travesty. Ironically, the issue was subtle enough that the questioner (a large company) could not see that he is prevented from identifying the product - even to verify that he made it - but will be labeled the source of a product "incident". And Falvey says that a claim this lame will still make the cut to be published. Is that true? I wonder about that. If it doesn't make the cut, then Falvey can't match the rules to a scenario accurately. One way or another, it's a screwing. Thanks, CPSC!]

Q: If Li & Fung registers and gives my name as importer of record, who gets the notice?

A: We will go off the consumer complaint. Whoever is named will get the complaint. If they are registered, they will get it by email. If they are not, they get it snail mail. It’s still going up in ten days.

What a nauseating way to finish out such a lovely day.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Update on the Database

CPSIA – ICPHSO Database Panel

Cheryl Falvey, Moderator – I am so excited about this panel because I know how much everyone loves the database.

I assume she was joking. Of course, she might have been thinking of the New York Times . . . .

Members of the panel:

• DeWayne Ray, Dep. Dir., Hazard Identification and Reduction, CPSC
• Mark Schoem, Dep. Dir., Office of Compliance
• Melissa Hampshire, Asst. GC, Div of Enforcement and Information, CPSC
• Scott Wolfson, Dir., Information and Public Affairs, CPSC

Won’t accept anonymous submissions but will only share the info if the reporter (“consumer”) checks a box to allow it. Will prosecute false filings. Won’t publish for ten days after sending out the info to the manufacturers. You get the “whole” ten days.

RW: I am feeling all tingly now!

I just received a comment on my blog: “I think the coming government shutdown is good in so many ways.”

CF: First picture submitted to the database was of a baby’s behind.

And I thought it would be of a horse’s behind . . . .

SF: We are a data-driven agency. Where have we typically received our data? DR: We get data electronically from hospitals and buy death certificates. Put up a bizarre slide with arrows, clouds, pointers, illegible type and so on. This apparently outlines where the data comes from and goes. They call this slide the “cartoon”.

I am getting too much material here. . . .

DR: We really this new data warehouse which will bring real value to the CPSC. This is where they get the tools they need to “do the job”.

The description of the database did not incorporate any response to the vigorous and legitimate concerns of industry. Wayne Morris referred to the database as a “blog”. Ahem – CPSC, any reply?

Which reports of harm will be “public-facing”? MH: Many specific requirements before they can move forward with notifying the manufacturer or publish in the database.

MS: Rarely will postings result in a call to a company. There will be a “triage” team to sort through the data looking for serious issues.

What kinds of “product incidents” will be included in the database? DR: We have an internal process for “material inaccuracy”.

What if they identify the wrong manufacturer? MH: It would be so “great” if you register, since you will get immediate notice after we complete our review of the data for meeting minimum manufacturer. We don’t want to identify the wrong manufacturer.

[RW: Most of the time, manufacturers will not have sufficient data to evaluate that information, nor does ten days provide sufficient time to get this work done. Let's not forget that there's a lot to do in running a business. It is not acceptable that this database becomes the top priority of our company. It's just not fair or sensible to make filings in this database a daily emergency. In addition, very often, identification of the product is the least of the worries. What about the substance of the accusation? What happened to "findings of fact" or determinations of responsibility? The database is very likely to become a standard part of litigation strategy. There's a shocker for you!!]

How can manufacturers make comments on the “report of harm”? MH: Manufacturers can make any comment it wants. In addition, you can object to the inclusion of “confidential information”. Can also claim that the filing is “materially inaccurate”.

[RW: The latter two objections are as likely to be successful as an exemption from the "any lead" requirement. What, there are exemptions possible - look at the CPSIA . . . . So far, there are zero exemptions issued in three years. And there will be very few or no legitimate objections that stand up in the database process.]

CF: We rarely if ever receive confidential information from consumers. Todd Stevenson says it has happened twice since 1972. Staff will scrub the information to prevent this, too. Material inaccuracy is defined as false and misleading and so substantial as to materially mislead consumers. Burden of proof is on the manufacturer to supply EVIDENCE to support their claim of materially inaccuracy. The issue they will be most concerned about is materially inaccuracy relating to hazards. The agency EXPECTS manufacturers to call consumers in those ten days to figure out whether the claim is legitimate.

CF: We have received so many pictures during the soft boot of the database that we need new servers. It’s pretty astounding.

[RW: OMG. This is going to be a feeding frenzy when Scott Wolfson puts his machinery into motion. Why do we need the government to play this role in the market? How are we going to stay in business when the government is encouraging litigation and brand destruction???]

CF: The database has a disclaimer that the agency can’t verify or stand behind the accuracy of the database. We have no opinion on “causation”.

RW: We are SOOOO screwed.

CF: Mentioned the DryMax diaper crisis that took a full year to resolve. [Under the database, every single claim would appear for a year until it emerges that each and every one was false and wrong. Too bad for P&G, I guess.]

RW: So so so screwed.

MH: Discussed link between the database filings and Section 6(b) disclosures. Ditto for FOIA process. [Based on my experience, FOIA couldn't take much of their time, since finishing off FOIA responses is . . . not a priority.]

Tell us about “education and outreach” about the database. SW: This is a tool for consumers. It’s all about the back end.

RW: Now you know where you’ll be getting it.

SW: It is extremely important to sign up for the portal. “Snail mail” won’t work “as effectively”. Think of the ten day window. 700 companies have signed up but it should be in the thousands.

RW: Maybe Aston Kutcher can help!

SW: On the consumer side, Hotline should take fewer calls. Watns to see the reports shift to the database. Will use the Twitter platform to publicize the database, plus blogs. Will continnue to promote the database because they see it as a benefit to consumers. Expects the database to start filling in March but it may as long as a month to have enough “data” to make the searching function to become “useful”.

RW: Plaintiff lawyers, take note! Don’t worry, they have . . . .

No questions taken. Apparently there’s nothing to discuss. Maybe later . . . . Thanks, Cheryl! We get it.

Read more here:
CPSIA – ICPHSO Database Panel

CPSIA – Countdown to Crisis, Nine Days To Go

I know of no indication of a CPSC decision on the testing and certification stay scheduled for January 31, yesterday. You and I and your business and my business can wait to see the puff of white smoke from the CPSC chimney when they are good and ready for you to see it.

I am tempted to speculate on how this persistent state of indecision arose. After all, some of the Democrats on the Commission were adamant in the last go-round that this stay would not be extended. As I recall, Bob Adler expressed deep dislike for stays and promised that this was “it”. One wonders if someone has blocked action on this issue. After all, the Commission is so collegial.

Inaction in the next nine days means that the stay will lift of its own accord.

I suggest that you go into crisis mode. With the law governing your business and your market possibly going to change unfairly and dramatically in the next few days despite the incomplete state of regulations governing mandatory testing, exposing you to possible jail time, you better get working. Or praying.

Hope you aren’t in Chicago, like me – we are expecting the worst snow storm in 44 years today. I guess we’ll begin our panic attack in a day or two.

When will the CPSC take action? Who knows. Take your time, guys! After all, they must really be under the gun. Who could have seen this coming? In December 2009, they gave themselves 14 months to resolve the component testing rule and the absurdly nicknamed “15 Month Rule”, and couldn’t get it done. They couldn’t even respond to the comments they solicited on those shocking and uncomprehending rules. So busy! The last time the stay was about to expire, knowing that they couldn’t or wouldn’t get their work done, they at least had the decency to give ten weeks notice of the stay extension. Not this time.

Maybe they are punishing us because we’ve been bad. Maybe this is the way the CPSC sends us to our rooms. When can we come out of our rooms, CPSC Commission? We promise to be good!

The sick game that the Dems are playing is that the law is fine, and that there is just some sort of hang-up. A snafu. Darn those hang-ups! In fact, the law was misconceived from the start, was never workable, could not be “fixed” by regulatory action – and the Democrats on the Commission were appointed to never admit it. This is Henry Waxman’s signature legislation – Dems are not allowed to criticize it. So today we continue to suffer at their hands. They don’t care about you, your market or even the kids that your business serves. This is all politics – they are just looking up the line, and protecting their political overlords who insisted on this defective law.

Enjoy! As long as the Dems are in control in Bethesda, expect more of the same.

When’s the next election, anyhow?

Read more here:
CPSIA – Countdown to Crisis, Nine Days To Go

CPSIA – CPSC’s Shameful Failure of Leadership

On Monday, the CPSC will decide whether or not to extend the testing and certification stay that has been in place for two years. The 16-page document which sets out the parameters of the decision does not mention risk anywhere. That’s because the law prohibits the CPSC from considering safety in its work under the CPSIA. [Ironically, the CPSC warns users that use of its www.SaferProducts.gov website is at their own risk (see par. no. 2 in the user's agreement) - and ironically, we're talking about a "dot gov" website, too!]

The CPSC explains that extension of the stay is only one of its options. It can do nothing, it can roll all the existing stays forward, or just some of them (to heck with the ATV’rs and the bike industry). Presumably, they will choose to roll all of it forward to September 14, 2011. We can all be screwed on the same day. I like the symmetry of that!

The CPSC has not lost sight of the issues. They know they haven’t finished their work. They note that two years ago on February 9. 2009 when the Commission first extended the testing stay. it was because delaying implementation of the testing requirement by a year “give[s] us the time needed to develop sound rules and requirements as well as implement outreach efforts to explain these [new] requirements of the CPSIA and their applicability.”

How time flies! That didn’t happen, so the Commission again extended the stay by another year on December 8, 2010. Why? Chairman Tenenbaum: “I voted to extend the stay on lead content testing and certification until February 10, 2011, in order to allow component testing adequate time to develop and to give our stakeholders adequate notice of new requirements.” Commissioner Robert Adler: “One of the primary rationales advanced for extending the stay is to await the effective date of the so-called 15-month rule.”

Where does the time go?? None of that ever happened. Hey, CPSC, take all the time you need!

So now the Commission is poised to kick the can down the road until September 14, 2011. Why that date? The CPSC Staff report notes that this gives the Commission time to sort out the new, lower lead standard due to be imposed on August 10, 2011. The CPSC is holding a hearing on February 14 on the feasibility of the 100 ppm standard. As Staff notes, if the Commission doesn’t determine that 100 ppm is feasible, then they will have to set a standard between 300 ppm and 100 ppm that is feasible. “Feasibility” was defined in the CPSIA, lest there should be any disagreement, to exclude ANY consideration of economics. In other words, if it’s possible at any price or under any condition, it is considered “feasible” and thus mandated by the law. I can save the CPSC some time – under that definition, it’s definitely feasible. Completely unreasonable and unnecessary but “feasible”.

The idea promoted in the Staff memo is that we will time to get used to all this if the stay lifts a month after the implementation of the new lead standard. [The concept of "learning disability" floats through my head. Have we heard this song before?] “Staff recommends that the Commission extend the stay to allow time for the Commission to determine whether it is technologically feasible to lower the amount of lead in children’s products to 100 ppm.” I guess once the Commission makes up its collective mind, the CPSC will wave a magic wand and make your business, your supply chain and your sales channel comply with the new rules in a matter of days. The fact that the rules are hazy after almost three years is no concern of theirs. Is it a concern of yours?

I love magical rules and magical plans! It must be a job requirement for Commissioners to be wizards, too.

All concerns over the “15 Month Rule” seem to have evaporated. This is presumably Robert Adler’s doing (see his statement above, which is a rant that the 15 Month Rule and the stay are separable issues). The Staff report intones: “While a Commission decision to extend the current stay of enforcement will give industry an opportunity to test and certify finished products and components according to the final rule and provide the Commission time to clarify any confusion regarding the new rule, it is not necessary for the testing rule to be complete to lift the stay as to the initial test for lead compliance.” Can’t see any problem there, can you???

The CPSC doesn’t want you to worry, however. They have apparently promulgated several documents that set out their policy and whatnot on lead, namely “Statement of Commission Enforcement Policy on Section 101 Lead Limits” (February 6, 2009) (6 pages); “Children’s Products Containing Lead: Interpretative Rule on Inaccessible Component Parts” (August 7, 2009)(32 pages); “Statement of Policy: Testing and Certification of Lead Content in Children’s Products” (October 2009)(5 pages); and “Interim Enforcement Policy on Component Testing and Certification of Children’s Products and Other Consumer Products to the August 14,2009 Lead Limits” (December 28, 2009) (4 pages). If these four documents totalling 47 pages don’t clear up everything, the CPSC is ready for you. “Manufacturers of children’s products can seek guidance for what the Commission considers reasonable and representative testing in these rules.”

You may have to wait a few years for a reply, but darn it, they’re going to answer your question. And that’s because they really CARE. We’re the government and we’re here to help!

A few more cock-ups aren’t deterring the agency. The phthalates standard is still undrafted, likewise the certification procedures for phthalate testing labs. Oopsie! Well, they’ve been busy . . . and the much fantasized-over component testing “market” has failed to materialize. Imagine that, businesses that inadvertently serve the children’s market with components or which derive a small percentage of sales from children’s products aren’t volunteering to test their items and expose themselves to the ravages of a crazy and out-of-control federal agency. Shocking!

Those of you who live in the past may recall my mentioning this very issue on November 6, 2008 (yes, 2008) when I addressed the CPSC Lead Panel. [It's a safe assumption no one was listening at the agency - opportunities for stakeholder feedback is not for listening, it's for venting.] I talked about the futility of expecting our suppliers of aluminum foil (widely used in schools in science kits) to test their products. After all, they are allowed to sell it for use with food without testing, so why should they test for me? If I asked them for a test for compliance with the CPSIA, they would certainly refuse and then ask in outrage why I was selling aluminum foil to kids anyway. As I said, who could see this coming? No one . . . .

For all the outrages that this sick situation brings to mind, NOTHING is as shameful as the CPSC’s refusal to admit that this is all administrative, bureaucratic nonsense (or use your own word for “nonsense”) that has nothing to do with SAFETY. Oh yeah, safety – isn’t that word in the name of this agency – the Consumer Product SAFETY Commission. What about safety, guys? Are you concerned about that anymore? This failure of leadership is the basic issue I have with the folks running the agency today. There’s a reason that bureaucrats are called “soul-less”.

The fact is that this administration at the CPSC (Democrats) will not stand up for what’s right – they are prepared to go down with the ship. It’s ironic that they remain so strident and so stubborn. Mr. Obama can smell change in the air and even he has called for reconsideration of the deluge of regulations. The Republicans in the House have declared war on over-regulations and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has made reform of the CPSIA the top priority of Mary Bono-Mack’s subcommittee.

As I have said again and again – this is YOUR government at work. Their shameful acts which are harming your markets and your business are destroying jobs, discouraging innovation and hurting children by impairing the activities of businesses devoted to children’s welfare. This intolerable situation will only be fixed when you MAKE it change. You can do it and you must. There is a new Congress in town and they need to hear from you. Don’t let the Democrats keep on wrecking your industry. This isn’t about safety and never was. This is politics, pure and simple.

Make them pay for their sins. Call your Congressman.

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSC’s Shameful Failure of Leadership

CPSIA – My Comment Letter on 100 ppmLead Standard

774 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 36 days left until Election Day.

My comment letter submitted today on the proposed 100 ppm lead standard due to be inflicted on August 14, 2011:

September 27, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 502
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0080 Children’s Products Containing Lead; Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm for Lead Content

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on Children’s Products Containing Lead; Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm for Lead Content (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0080) published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2010 (the “Proposed Rule”).

You have requested feedback and additional information on several topics relating to the prospect of a new lower 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard. I will attempt to respond to your specific queries at the end of this letter. I find that the questions you have articulated are basically irrelevant to our company’s situation. Your questions seem to presume that the standard will be implemented. If you take the step of implementing the new standard, you will be inflicting needless and extension damage to our company with absolutely no corresponding benefit to consumers or the general public. This is terrible and irresponsible public policy. The new standard is not based on science but rather phobia and fear of the unknown. Our business will suffer for no purpose. The jobs lost will at your hand.

I want to comment on process. The agency appears to be in a race to complete its CPSIA rulemakings before year end, damn the consequences. According to www.regulations.gov, the CPSC received 73 comment letters on the Proposed Interpretative Rule for “Children’s Product” (CPSC-2010-0029 due June 21, 2010). Nevertheless, as has been widely reported, the agency ignored or glossed over the vast majority of those comments (including all of mine) and pronounced the draft rule to be “final” with virtually no changes. This flagrant disregard of public comments turned the CPSC’s rulemaking process into a sham if not an outright breach of law. I believe the agency intends to pass through rulemaking this year to avoid the embarrassment of further extending the CPSIA testing stay due to expire on February 10, 2011. The incentive to give short shrift to our comments grows daily.

I have lost faith in the sincerity of the agency’s interest in public comments after two years of being completely ignored. To judge by the agency’s disregard of my numerous comment letters, I must add little to your deliberations – in which case I do not understand why you ask me to waste hours on letters like this. After all, if you have no interest in my views, why not let me spend my time on other more productive activities? Unfortunately, I have also learned that any silence by stakeholders will be interpreted as “approval” by the powers-that-be. Thus, we are left with no option but to write these letters. With those thoughts in mind, I hereby submit my comments on the 100 ppm lead standard, fully anticipating that I will be ignored yet again.

I am aware that the agency contends that it is “compelled” to implement this new standard without regard to economics. The extremely rigid legislative language governing the implementation of the 100 ppm standard is thus portrayed as insurmountable. Is the agency truly powerless to resist? I might take that position more seriously if the agency was equally committed to following the law in other aspects of its daily affairs. However, the CPSC exhibits no such self-restraint. CPSC recalls initiated in flagrant disregard for the “substantial product hazard” standard in Section 15 of the CPSA demonstrates that the agency can invent legal flexibility wherever it wants. For instance, the CPSC pressed for a recall of McDonald’s Shrek glasses (signifying that the glasses were a “substantial product hazard”) despite this June 4th acknowledgement by the agency’s Director of Public Affairs in a tweet: “Scott_Wolfson: Note to reporters: the recalled McDonald’s glasses are not toxic.” Safe glasses do not constitute a “substantial product hazard” by any definition – yet the agency proceeded anyhow.

So when does the law actually matter, precisely? If safe drinking glasses may be labeled a “substantial product hazard”, then I guess anything goes. I find it worrisome to be regulated by a federal agency which does not abide by a disciplined interpretation of law but instead caters to prevailing political whims. If the law means nothing, then the agency should not presume to assert its inability to resist this provision. I think that’s just too convenient to be believable.

My comments on the proposed 100 ppm standard are informed by my view that the agency can do as it pleases. I have not restricted myself by the fiction that economics don’t matter.

The problems with the 100 ppm Lead Standard:

a. The new standard will have NO impact on human health. There is simply no evidence of injuries from lead at levels between 100 ppm and 300 ppm in substrate. It is notable that no other federal agency (NIH, CDC, EPA, FDA, etc.) has identified lead-in-substrate as a human health hazard. Without evidence of injuries at these barely measurable lead levels, the new standard cannot be justified economically or otherwise. It is worth noting that if the “cost” of lead-in-substrate levels of 100-300 ppm cannot be measured, the “benefit” of the new standard will be equally elusive. Given the known costs of this initiative, the new standard fails any conceivable cost-benefit analysis.

I published a study of CPSC recall data from 1999-2010 in my blog (www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com) in May 2010, revealing that only one death has been documented in association with lead in children’s products in the last 11 years, and only three (unverified) lead injuries in the same period. This is substantially fewer childhood fatalities and serious injuries than swimming pools and spas cause in an average day according to CPSC statistics. Given the trillions of daily interactions between children and Children’s Products in the course of a year, these meager 11-year lead injury totals are the statistical equivalent of no injuries. Thus, it will be impossible to prove statistically that any reduction in injuries flows from the change in standard. Troubling? Fear of lead-in-substrate is nothing more than a Congressionally-endorsed fear of cooties.

b. The new standard will substantially raise our product costs. The new standard means we will need to implement much tighter manufacturing tolerances for materials and for our processes. The many extra man-hours needed to implement and maintain these tighter tolerances will be expensive. It is difficult to estimate the cost, but we project a 10-20% increase in cost for finished goods subject to the new standard. Subcontractors who manufacture our goods will charge us for the risk of waste, plus the additional overhead required by the new standard. That is, they will charge us more if they are still willing to remain a vendor of Children’s Products subject to this standard. We are a small business, so many of our factories may feel our short runs are simply not worth the risk. That’s how I would look at it if I were them. Loss of vendors (manufacturing capacity) is yet another cost we would bear under the new standard.

It is worth noting that based on the results of our last two years of testing (thousands of testing line items), we estimate that less than 2% of our testing line items fall between 100 ppm and 300 ppm in lead as of today. The cost of trolling for those few affected components will be excessive and the waste associated with replacing “defective” materials will be a tax on our entire production and fulfillment processes. Not exactly a stimulus program. . . .

c. Our ability to control lead levels is unknown because test result variances are so wide. We have found that testing multiple samples from the same lot can show variances of up to 67% in lead content. It doesn’t take much variance to produce wild percentage swings at such trace lead levels. As an illustration, I have attached hereto a test report on a SINGLE PIECE OF PLASTIC STRING used to fasten a mesh bag. The string was tested in ten places, resulting in lead levels of 239 -275 ppm. In another case, we found three test results of the same yellow plastic substrate varied from 23 -139 ppm. None of this matters from a safety standpoint but from a regulatory standpoint, it’s a crisis in the making.

These small variances potentially endanger our business. How are we supposed to run our business selling inexpensive children’s products burdened by such an inflexible physical standard? The CPSC needs to recognize that substrates in the real world are not pure, consistent and invariable. The tight tolerances in this new standard will likely have us retesting several items a month at considerable expense and strain. [And G-d knows what standard the CPSC will inflict on us to govern retesting.] Each retest would presumably interfere with our ability to deliver on time and would stress our system and our people. Out-of-pocket costs would be high, perhaps over $100,000 per annum for our product portfolio of 1500 items; labor and other frictional costs would no doubt add to this total substantially.

d. It will be impossible to predict which components will fail. As test results tend to vary significantly for components from the same lot, it is difficult to control or predict problems. We have found violative results for many different materials used in our business – there is no pattern. Defects found in certain components might render the entire finished good worthless, potentially greatly increasing our losses. For example, an inexpensive backpack might be found to have a zipper that violates the new standard upon completion of the production run. This could happen even after extensive pre-manufacturing testing because physical goods tend to vary in composition. Perhaps only a tiny percentage of the zippers violate the new standard by a few ppm, but given the cost to repair and rehab the item and the practical inability to identify violative zippers, the entire lot of backpacks might have to be scrapped. There would be an increased incentive to substitute components across entire product lines, not because of any health or safety concern but simply to avoid regulatory compliance risk. Differences in utility would be a secondary consideration to avoidance of CPSC recalls or scrapping finished goods inventory. This situation would not be stable because consumers would not likely accept lower standards for our products just to mollify the CPSC – other seismic market changes could be anticipated.

e. The legal risks implicit in the new standard are simply intolerable. Let me ask you a question: how would you attempt to manage a major risk to your business caused by less than 2% of your activity? What if you had no idea WHICH 2% it was? What could you do? I think you might reevaluate your business model. Most people don’t roll the dice on their family wealth or their regular income. By imposing a standard for lead-in-substrate that is barely above measurable levels, the agency would be imposing EXACTLY this risk on us.

We believe we would be exposed to a daily risk of assault by consumer groups and other do-gooders bent on our destruction. This combat would be divorced from considerations of safety – it would be all about regulatory compliance. Our business purpose is not to pay fees to CPSC Bar attorneys, write up Section 15 reports or perform recalls. We do not have the profit margins to finance this kind of wasteful activity and do not have the spare capacity to deal with the regulatory “crisis of the day”. The legal risks of such conflict can quickly get out of control – and insurance is simply not a viable option economically. If we must bear these heightened risks, we will have to revisit our business model.

I hope the agency will not dare the children’s product industry to go belly up just to prove this point.

f. Companies, acting in good faith, are generally INCAPABLE of adopting the new standard as a practical matter. Everything can be made of low lead materials. Zippers can be made of platinum, alphabet blocks can be made of wood, cotton fibers or rhodium. Use of recycled materials can be discontinued (the anti-green movement). Durable and inexpensive materials used for years without incident can be discarded in favor of “purer” materials. All of these things are possible. But they are not practical and they are not economic. If we are to indulge the fantasy of the money-oblivious CPSIA, then whatever we can imagine is possible and money doesn’t matter. This is regrettably unrealistic – businesses exist in the real world and money DOES matter. Thus, companies operating in good faith can’t adopt the new standard if their business model is scrambled.

g. Dealers in our goods can be expected to adopt their own standards to create a regulatory “cushion”. Distributors and retailers have been building their own safe harbors to provide CPSIA protection over the last two years. We have many customers with unique and wildly variant compliance requirements despite the crafting of thousands of pages of rules from the CPSC under the CPSIA. Our dealers can always beat the CPSC in a game of “Can you top this?” If the agency implements a 100 ppm standard, we fully expect a new outbreak of “regulatory compliance exuberance” among retailers. What will happen to us under those circumstances? With a CPSC-fed mania, we will incur yet more costs and bear yet more risks. Our markets will shrink.

h. We believe these rules will so demoralize and de-motivate our staff that we will face high turnover rates among our employees who know all of your rules. Our regulatory compliance team is not on “work release” from jail. Their jobs are not intended as a form of societal punishment. If, however, compliance with the CPSC’s bureaucratic rules becomes too tedious or risky, or the stress of managing a string of crises and a blizzard of conflicting rules becomes overwhelming, our trusted associates will seek less stressful employment elsewhere. They don’t HAVE TO do this for a living. What is the CPSC planning to do to help small businesses who find themselves back at square one after a costly investment of thousands of dollars in specialized training? Is the new CPSC Small Business Ombudsman going to wave a magic wand to make our problems go away? I think we all know the answer – too bad for us.

Here are the answers to your questions:

1. Materials that are consistently under 100 ppm in lead content. You have previously provided a list of such materials for the 300 ppm standard. This list included some useful concessions, such as wood and cotton fibers, but also included useless and irritating examples like gold and platinum, gemstones and various byproducts of nuclear decay. In our experience, the common substrate materials used in educational products have varying (trace) levels of lead. As noted above, we have seen significant variances in lead content in a single string, and in substrates taken from the same lot. I have no confidence that any material we use can be proven to ALWAYS contain than 100 ppm lead.

2. Strategies or Devices to comply with the new 100 ppm standard. The only strategy we could employ is pre-manufacturing testing on materials with substantially increased testing frequency. As noted above, natural variances among many materials prevent us from creating any reliable safe harbor and cost increases from such testing activity (and the cost of scrapping otherwise acceptable raw materials) will greatly shrink our product line. As a consequence, we would likely have to sharply reduce our product line or go out of business – all thanks to the CPSC and our Congress!

3. Consequences of use of compliant materials meeting the needs of the product. We have not spent any resources evaluating the market demand for educational products made of platinum. We do not intend to switch over to osmium or ruthenium for their purported lead-free properties (we find toxicity to be a greater concern). We have not spent our time figuring out if gold is a suitable material for pattern blocks or our Reading Rods. There is no answer to this ridiculous question. As I mentioned above, more than 98% of our test line items complies with the new standard. The materials and components that fail do not fit a pattern. Tests are inconsistent, too.

4. For products that meet the 300 ppm standard but not the 100 ppm standard, provide data on compliance. As noted, we find that we are already 98%+ compliant with the new standard. The components that fail do so unpredictably and inconsistently. Even the same material out of the same lot produces varying test results, as do multiple tests of the same piece of string. We cannot run a business based on junk science intolerance of the world that G-d created. The crazy new 100 ppm lead standard is incompatible with variances found in the physical world.

I want to reiterate that the 100 ppm standard is entirely arbitrary and will save no lives and will preserve no IQ points.

5. Can such items be made compliant through use of other materials? Sure, of course they could. They would be unsalable because the products were rendered too expensive either by the engineering cost or the new materials cost. Is creating products that no one will buy an acceptable solution to this dilemma? Whether by economics (too costly to buy) or re-jiggering of business models (discontinued products), children will be purportedly “safer” because they will lose access to needed products. What a wonderful result! Does the CPSC advocate that American schools teach physical science with photos of magnets, paper clips and rocks? Perhaps we should revert to rote-and-repetition math education rather than modern techniques of hands-on learning. No doubt the CPSC would singlehandedly solve our national education crisis. Bring on pointless material substitutions and let the fun begin.

6. Best practices to be used to always comply with the new standard. I recommend dropping most products and only making items that are CERTAIN to be compliant. This in practical terms may be impossible, and as noted above, is completely uneconomic. Another good practice to discard everything that isn’t virgin material. I know that’s not “green” but we have to be really, really safe, right? Another super idea is to substantially increase our testing, but of course, we cannot afford the current level of testing as it is. That seems somehow unrealistic. Other strict controls on manufacturing seem equally out of reach. There are so many variables to manage to achieve the new standards – we must control the factory environment as though it were a hospital ICU. That’s just not possible at current cost levels. Our factories would have to be “restructured”. I bet the Small Business Ombudsman can coach us on this!!!

Please note: we don’t have to reorganize our factories because we don’t have to stay in the children’s product market. If the CPSC expects us to reorganize our entire way of doing business to accommodate a phobic standard not based on any observable public health problem, we may opt out. Is this really the purpose of the CPSC – to micromanage markets, to restructure the economy, to substitute for market forces? I think not. Please check the CPSA to see why your agency exists. I hope a Republican-controlled Congress will do exactly the same thing in a few weeks’ time.

7. The lowest technologically feasible lead level below 300 ppm in our products. We can achieve anything for a cost. There are no “lowest” levels. Why not specify entirely lead-free? We can make everything out of gold and osmium! Lay in a few gemstones and diamonds, and you will have a sparkling new toy that cannot poison anyone with lead. It may have other problems (choking hazards? Sharp points?) but at least no one will die from lead poisoning. Not that anyone did previously . . . .

8. The date by which our products can meet the 100 ppm standard. In my opinion, the date is NEVER, because we have no practical ability to control quality to the level you require. Even at our current 98%+ compliance with the new standard, it would be extraordinarily disruptive to attempt to be 100% compliant. After a few episodes of being shut down by the CPSC or sued by some lunatic consumer group over nothing, we would exit the market. If you intend to deprive us of the meaning and pleasure of our work to make children’s lives better, we’ll leave the well-being and education of our nation’s children to you. That would be a very sad day for us.

Thank you for considering my views on this important subject. This letter took me all day; I hope you won’t completely ignore it as you have all my other letters.

Sincerely,

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

Read more here:
CPSIA – My Comment Letter on 100 ppmLead Standard

CPSIA – Republican Strategy MAY Benefit CPSIA Sufferers

766 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 44 days left until Election Day.

The strategy of the resurgent Republicans to deal with over-regulation under Obama is becoming clearer. The Wall Street Journal today broke a story about “de-funding”, a strategy employed by Republicans in the 1994 Congress to address bad regulations and bad legislation after the Congress “flipped” at the Midterm elections.

This appropriations maneuver can take away the funds to enforce legislation or even regulations at the agency level. Thus, the Dems’ entire effort to build a durable business death machine at the CPSC can be subverted. By making it illegal for the agency to spend one red cent to enforce the rules, all de-funded legislation and every regulation is essentially rendered moot.

This is a hopeful sign – and another reason for you to RALLY support for Republicans this Fall. Reach out and make your needs KNOWN. Work for these candidates, give money and do what it takes to help them WIN. Believe me, based on my work over the past three years, there is not one living Democrat prepared to help us in any way – the Republicans are our only chance. If a Democrat wishes to prove me wrong, I will gladly publicize their activities. I am not holding my breath.

If we are lucky and our well-documented problems are not forgotten post-election, we can still be saved.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Republican Strategy MAY Benefit CPSIA Sufferers

CPSIA – Happy Birthday CPSIA!!!

Can’t let a wonderful occasion like this go unnoticed – HAPPY BIRTHDAY CPSIA! Two years ago today, President Bush signed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act into law, giving vast new powers to CPSC and promising wondrous new levels of “safety” for children in our country.

And how much safer we have become! In my post “Numbers Don’t Lie“, I abstracted the injury statistics from CPSC children’s product recalls over the prior 11 years. I know from “someone who should know” that the CPSC does not tabulate injury statistics like this – so I am your only source even on the second birthday of the CPSIA. No matter, the spreadsheet indicates that there were 242 recalls of children’s products between August 14, 2008 and the end of my study, April 21, 2010. By contrast, there were a total of 657 recalls of children’s products between August 14, 2008 and the randomly-selected end of my study, March 5, 1999. The injuries associated with lead that proceeded the CPSIA were one death and two asserted injuries, and after the CPSIA – one asserted lead injury (in two years). [See "Numbers Don't Lie (Update No. 1)".] What an achievement! It’s so, soooo clear we need this tough new law. . . .

By the way, I don’t mean to be too “science-y”, but a reduction in lead injuries from one death and two asserted injuries in nine years to one asserted injury in two years is simply not a statistically significant reduction. And we must consider additionally that ALL of the injuries, before and after the CPSIA, were ASSERTED BUT NOT VERIFIED. So there may be ZERO recorded actual injuries – we just don’t know. This makes our health improvement objectives even fuzzier.

And the cost of the CPSIA “final solution”? Well, I have calculated that, using the HTA’s estimate of $5.625 billion in annual CPSIA compliance costs (which I believe is low and in any event was calculated before the CPSIA showed its hand on testing frequency – see below), the 11-year cost of compliance is a mere $61.9 Billion. Using EPA metrics for the economic value of a human life and one lost IQ point, and giving full credit to each of the three asserted but unverified lead injuries, I have calculated the cost of the injuries to be $6.1 million over 11 years. That’s pretty symmetrical, don’t you think? $62 billion in costs to save $6.1 million.

Spend $10,000 to save a buck. That sums up this era in a single sentence.

Oh, but it gets even better. In case you, or pick any regulator, are too dense to understand the implications of those numbers for the future prospects of the children’s product market, the CPSC has recently published a rule for comment on testing frequency and “reasonable testing programs”. This rule was due on November 14, 2009 (hence the “15 Month Rule”) but was delayed because the CPSC understood the rule’s potential to literally kill all small businesses in this market. [That would include our business, btw.] So they held a two-day workshop in December 2009 to hear ideas and industry concerns and then spent months crafting the rule. This rule has been in the works for two years now. You have to figure they’re serious.

The CPSC was kind enough to illustrate the costs our business can expect under their sparkling new rule. So I broke out my trusty calculator (again – too math-y? too science-y?) and determined that they intend for us to spend a mere $10,000 per item per year in testing. This includes destroying 54 samples of each item in the process of testing. Anyhow, think of how many products you make – and multiply by $10,000. That’s your annual testing bill now.

Drum roll, please . . . our bill will be a mere $15 million per year! Pretty exciting to get off so easy. No doubt our bankruptcy will make American kids safer. Of course, I am pretty sure it won’t make them any smarter – our educational products will cease to exist. Then, of course, their ignorance of math and science might qualify to run the CPSC. There’s always a bright side to tragedy and catastrophe, I suppose.

It is worth a passing note that this is my 490th blogpost on the CPSIA and its terrible effects. I have submitted comments letters by the bushel basket, testified numerous times at the CPSC (often at their request), testified in front of Congress, been on national TV and radio, wrote Op-Eds and been featured innumerable times in various publications, held a rally on Capitol Hill, met with Commissioners, Congressional staffers and members of Congress, and so on. The CPSC’s actions are not being taken in ignorance. They are being done in the face of reason. This is not partisanism – this is “know nothing-ism”.

So Happy Happy Birthday, CPSIA! Your work is not done, unfortunately. Our company is still breathing.

Read more here:
CPSIA – Happy Birthday CPSIA!!!

CPSIA – I’m Back!

I am back in the saddle and wanted to thank our Guest Bloggers for their contributions in my absence. Likewise, I really appreciate the support and creativity of the staff of the Alliance for Children’s Product Safety in their administration of the blog while I was gone.

I find that the passage of time has not brought us any relief. With the newly asserted need to test carpets for lead and recalls of lacrosse gloves for lead-in-ink, the goofiness that had us in its grip when I left still has us in its grip today. I will comment on these and other matters in the coming days. In the meantime, I prepared a blogpost before I left and will post it shortly.

I liked the work of our Guest Bloggers and want to encourage the submission of other guest posts in the future. I would be happy to continue to post the views of market participants on the topic of the CPSIA in the future.

Rick

Read more here:
CPSIA – I’m Back!

Next Page »