CPSIA - Final CPSIA Amendment (HR 2715) Moves to President's Desk for Signature

Here is the final form of the CPSIA Amendment  (HR 2715) that should become law sometime this week.

I want to quote from another blog (thank you, Steven Hansen) on this amendment's path to the President's desk:

"This bill and the path it has taken is an example of why people are very frustrated with Congress and getting legislation passed in general. These 'legislative' fixes have been getting passed around in backrooms for months and when they finally did come to a 'vote' the 'fix' was already in and they sailed thru in minutes or seconds on votes that were purely formalities. There was really no warning that this would be passed when it did or in this fashion. If you did not get what you wanted in here well that's too bad because you are not likely to see any further relief for some time. Apparently Congress is going to be in recess until after Labor day as they had to work so hard to pass the debt ceiling bill."

Mr. Hansen is completely correct.  We know that even Republican members found out about this amendment when it was docketed for a House floor vote.  Mark-up, schmark-up.  The Senate also made the decision (if that is even possible, since the Senate is an inanimate organization without a mind) to shift to HR 2715 without debate, and passed it with a voice vote.  These decisions were literally made in minutes behind closed doors and Members of Congress had no time to read (and perhaps no interest to read) the "noncontroversial" bill.  After three years of intense bickering, a small group of individuals made the decision for all of us that this bill is good enough to "fix" the CPSIA.  There won't be another "fix" to this law again, perhaps EVER.  You know the bill sucks if Henry Waxman is clucking about it.  In fact, most of the text of the bill was his handiwork almost entirely (functional purpose, testing "relief" (Eshoo), database (Markey), small batch "relief").

And what did we get for all our good government dollars?  I have previously given my quick assessment of this law and have no interest in repeating the exercise at this point.  I would like, however, to highlight low lights of the bill:

Winners:   ATVs, Bicycles, Resale Goods, Books, Libraries

Losers:  See above list, and if you're not on it . . . you.

Technical Fixes of Past Congressional Screw-ups: 

• 100 ppm lead standard is prospective now.  And WHY wasn't Congress able to do this for 300 ppm or 600 ppm?  Good question.  The five CPSC Commissioners called for this particular change back in January 2010.  What's the hurry now???
• Changes to testing requirement to "representative" rather than "random" samples.  And we just hired our third statistician, too!
• Restricts the phthalates ban to accessible plasticized components.  i guess Congress isn't worried about kids with serpent tongues any longer.
• Makes FUTURE crib standards prospective.  And who said the $32 million in recently discarded good fixed-sided crib inventory died in vain?!

Shame, Shame, Shame:

Small batch manufacturers, the most micro of businesses (under $1 million in total turnover) must register prior to utilizing any of the nifty cost-saving testing innovations now being cooked up by the very open-minded CPSC.  This is the CPSC's version of the sex offender registry.  Is there ANY basis for singling these people out for special attention?  Why doesn't Mattel have to register, too?  Oh, come on, you know we must have different rules for Mattel!  They need their own firewalled labs and so on for their efficiency.  [Here's a good example of their efficiency.]  It's only fair, the real safety worry is the crafters . . . .

The only good news is that none of the small batch manufacturers will ever have to suffer this indignity. The clever gnomes of Congress have figured out how to appear to give something to those heart-rending  little nobodies without doing squat.  How do they do that?  The only "relief" that the CPSC may implement must meet this standard:  "Any such alternative requirements shall provide for reasonable methods to assure compliance with any applicable consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation." [Emphasis added]  This CPSIA term has already been interpreted by this Commission multiple times.  The word "assure" ensures that no relief will ever be given since nothing can "assure" compliance other than prophylaxis.  Notably, the Commission has purportedly looked for this "out" for three years and came up with nada.  And Bob Adler has been "agonizing" over it for that entire time.  [I feel AWFUL for him, he suffers for each of us.] How will another year or two of agonizing produce a different result?

Suckers are welcome to wait longingly for this promised "relief" but they will be disappointed again and again.  Protest is futile.

Disgusting, Repellent Hypocrisy:

Consider the amazing gimme provided to bicycle manufacturers:

"(B) METAL COMPONENT PARTS OF BICYCLES.—The third party testing requirements established under subsection (a) shall not apply to metal component parts of bicycles with respect to compliance with the lead content limits in place pursuant to section 101(b)(6) of the [CPSIA]."

They don't have to test their metal components at all.  AT ALL, EVER.  Bicycle manufacturers are different than you and me.

Let me be clear - I think testing metal components on bikes is a stupid and pointless waste of time and money.  The bike industry testified in the CPSC 100 ppm hearing that when they tested a single part in ten places, they got ten different results.  Whoa!  They proved they had an unsolvable problem and apparently Congress listened.  How heartwarming!

I gave similar testimony and submitted similar data about our products at the same hearing in the same panel sitting at the same table.  Congress must have gone deaf by that time.  Oddly, the CPSC staff included this data and my testimony in their 100 ppm report.  So perhaps Congress isn't just deaf, they may be blind, too.  Or perhaps they just don't bother with the details.

Inquiring minds want to know about this particular term benefiting bicycle manufacturers:

1.   The AAP testified that there is a real risk that kids might lick their bicycles.  Problem?  Apparently not, but the testimony was taken morbidly seriously at the time.  I wonder why Congress wants to protect bike lickers now.

2.   Perhaps you recall that the CPSC rejected the request of Learning Curve to exempt its brass bushings on toy car wheels.  This decision was a "major victory" for safety because, get ready for it, there was lead in the brass bushings although Bob Adler noted there was no danger even to a child at the "tipping point" in lead exposure.  [Adler voted to reject LC's petition nevertheless. He "had" to, the law left him no choice.]  Later the Consumers Union warned against playing brass instruments in a band because of the dreaded lead in brass.   [Degchi (Curry cookware) is one of many traditional Indian cooking utensils and pots made of brass.  Where are all the Indian victims from generations of eating off brass?]  The CPSC also held the line against bikes, pens and ATVs over the purported lead content of their metal components because the Dems asserted that there is no safe level of lead.  Is Congress signalling that metal components are uniquely safe in bicycles?  How did Congress figure this out?  Is there something in the Congressional record on this point?

The term about testing metal bicycle components first appeared in this bill when it went to the House floor on suspension.  Bills on suspension cannot be amended.  Hmmm.

3.   I recall Rachel Weintraub intoning during testimony at the CPSC and in Congress that consumers expect their products to be tested before sale.  [Former Commissioner David Pittle told the same tale at a CPSC hearing.]  Bicycles won't be tested before sale now.  How will consumers be able to sleep peacefully?  How will they know which items are not tested (ATVs, books, bikes, resale goods of all types) and which are tested?  Won't they have the same uncertainty again?  I can feel the fabric of our society tearing a little bit . . . .

4.   Bicycle manufacturers have indicated that tests of metal components vary depending on where you test the component.  There is unpredictable variability in their test results because . . . metal components are not precisely homogeneous.  Metals are used in components in many children's products, not just bikes.  It follows that all metal components pose the same issue.  It also follows that metals pose an equal risk of lead poisoning regardless of the product they are used in.  So why must we test our grommets and staples when bikes can tool around untested?

5.   Is there a reason why OTHER components on a bicycle (presumably made of plastic and vinyl) must be tested?  Is there a known health hazard there that bike companies must protect against?  Will those tests achieve anything for anyone?  And why must every other product category still subject to the CPSIA test every component, whether metal or plastic?

6.   The CPSC has held that it is "technologically feasible" to make every component of every children's product compliant to the 100 ppm standard.  There were no exceptions to their conclusion.  Why did Congress in its infinite wisdom decide that bicycles alone could be forgiven the need to meet this standard and alone to not have to test its metal components?  [The other problem child under this provision, ATVs and motocross, was written out ENTIRELY.]  Why weren't bikes made to comply with the astute judgment of the CPSC and shift over to new materials to meet the "toughest lead standard in the world"?  After all, that only costs money, and Bob Adler assured us that the cost would be minor and worth it.  Can't be too safe and, of course, we all know that safety delayed is safety denied.  Isn't this action of our all-knowing Congress denying safety?

As I have noted, this law picks winners and losers.  Applying reason and rationality to this arbitrary allocation of spoils is a pathetic waste of time at this point.  Congress has decided what's best for all of us, and with the Tenenbaum gang in charge at the CPSC, you shouldn't spend much time hoping things are going to change in the future. Henry Waxman and Rachel Weintraub won.

CPSIA - The Futility of Protesting the CPSIA

With Congress about to sign-off on a CPSIA Amendment which seals the fate of the regulated community, for better or worse depending on who you are, the question of what remains is quite relevant.  With rights allocated and responsibilities delegated to a Dem-controlled CPSC Commission, what kind of justice can we expect in the future???

As if to answer this question, last week CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum published a troubling Op-Ed dated July 28th ("CPSC Chief to Detractors: ‘Safety Delayed is Safety Denied’").  In her article, Ms. Tenenbaum asserted that Democrats on the CPSC Commission are responsible for many "major victories" over the resistance of the minority party Republicans:

"We have made great progress at CPSC, and at times, our achievements have come with support from the two Commissioners in the minority party. Though, consumers should know that vigorous resistance is the rule, rather than the exception, with these two Commissioners. Through a coordinated campaign, these Commissioners have sought to delay and distort our actions in an attempt to circumvent the will of American families and Congress. Their tactics have been unsuccessful, as demonstrated by the strength of the new safety measures we have established."

Democrats good, Republicans evil. . . .  She continues, openly accusing minority Commissioners of almost venally favoring pocketbook issues over safety:

"We faced another example of this obstructionism in our effort to make sure cribs are safe. From November 2007 to April 2010, there were 36 deaths associated with crib structural defects. To address this critical issue, the Commission voted unanimously last December to establish new crib safety rules. Sadly, two of my colleagues in the minority party then attempted to delay the rules from going into effect last month. They were for it, and then they were against it, all in an effort to put the interests of a few retailers over the interests of hundreds of thousands of parents and very young children."

Perhaps granting me an honorable mention as an irritant, Ms. T. goes on to lay claim to the higher moral ground.  As you know, this is all about the tug of war between good-and-evil . . . .

"It is ironic that the minority party Commissioners and certain cynical special interests continue to gesture wildly, alleging a failure to take the concerns of businesses into account, while many safety-conscious companies have been manufacturing, testing, and selling children’s products for nearly three years that meet and exceed the requirements set by Congress. The minority party’s approach does not solve problems and does not serve the public interest. The Consumer Product Safety Commission under my stewardship will not succumb to efforts to undermine this law. Like justice, safety delayed is safety denied." [Emphasis added]

[I can't let Ms. T get away with the "safety delayed is safety denied" baloney.  To accept her rationale, one must conclude that safety was at stake in the cited decisions.  Among her claims of "major victories" is the determination that 100 ppm is technologically feasible.  Her own staff indicated that this decision will have "minimal" impact on safety.  And the safety achieved by the decision?  No reply.  She also points to the new phthalates standard.  Her own agency has TWICE considered these same chemicals for safety risks and TWICE given them a clean bill of health.  Isn't it a stretch to call her new standards a "major victory" for consumers or to contend that safety was ever at stake?  Not if data is irrelevant to you.  As is to ensure her own blissful ignorance (and to avoid learning anything inconsistent with her political agenda), Ms. Tenenbaum has never asked for injury statistics to evaluate evidence of the utility of the new rules she KNOWS will choke business.  Why not?  Who wants to spoil a good thing?  Safety delayed is safety denied . . . .  "Safety" perhaps defined in terms of job security.]

Commissioners Nord and Northup replied to Tenenbaum's Op-Ed snarkiness, and you should read their replies. However, I think the real issue is how this Commission will handle its responsibilities once Congress bows out.  Congress is about to let the Commission take it from here.  Now what?

The Tenenbaum article raises a question in my mind.  Does Commission voting records give any insight into the Dems' willingness to listen or their interest in listening to contrary viewpoints?  Is it all so open-and-shut?  Do we even have a fighting chance with these people, given their moral self-justifications?  Commission voting statistics have never been analyzed publicly to my knowledge, so I put them together this afternoon. Please feel free to check my work - here are the Tenenbaum era CPSIA votes.

My tabulation excludes procedural votes and votes related to cribs and infant care, the phthalates CHAP and Pool safety. In other words, it is only those votes which relate to my advocacy on the core issues under the CPSIA. Notably, I am unable to access confidential votes - the spreadsheet only applies to votes cast in open sessions of the Commission.

There have been 46 votes since her confirmation, and 37 since she began to chair the meetings. Each and every decision of the Commission has been controlled by the Democrats. Each and every vote won by Democrats had all Dem Commissions in tow with two exceptions - the two stays objected to by Adler, an avowed stay-hater.  Every 3-2 vote was three Dems to two Republicans.  No doubt each vote was configured for Ms. Tenenbaum's consent - she has never voted against a proposed rule or ruling.

Think about that - all the Dems voted together on everything, except two dissents by one Commissioner on the same issue, the extension of a stay, and in those cases he wanted to be even less forgiving of reasonable business interests. For perspective on this, consider that this is the Commissioner who claims to "agonize" over every vote but always votes against even the mildest form of relief for business. He is also the one who stated that he wouldn't allow cost-benefit analysis to be performed "over my dead body".  He only veered away from his fellow Dems on two votes on stays.  What does that tell you?

After three years of advocacy and the considerable expenditure of cash, time and other resources by so many people affected by this law, it seems apparent from the voting data that nothing we ever said or any data we ever presented were in any way persuasive to the Dems. They were gracious in their expressions of gratitude for our participation in their processes, but given the outcomes, one must conclude that we simply enabled them to give the appearance of justice. After all, we got our day in court, or so they would have you believe. However, if anyone who comes before a particular judge is sentenced to death, one begins to wonder about justice after awhile.

The Dems have used slogans to justify their actions:

- "There's no safe level of lead."
- "Safety delayed is safety denied."
- "Over my dead body . . . ."

Is there a pattern in these slogans?

They are sanctimonious. They wreak of moral superiority, while at the same time pinning their work on other people. Ms. T. tells us that they were just carrying out the will of Congress.  Nevertheless, she would have you believe that their work is necessary and a triumph for you.

They are self-righteous. There's something smug about their contentions. They will block cost-benefit analysis with their dead bodies. They portray themselves as courageous heroes, opposing devious foes. Taking a page out of the estimable Jan Schakowsky's playbook, Tenenbaum labels those who oppose her as "certain cynical special interests". Conspiracy theories bulk up her slender reed of self-justification.

The slogans play to emotions and ignore legal precedent and data. Bob Adler's "How do you measure the life of a little baby?" is a great example. Bob Adler is a lawyer and knows full well that the law provides a solid and respected answer to this question. As one practitioner told me, this kind of assessment is done every day in our courts and by other agencies. Adler knows that brains short out when he mentions "little babies" and who can argue that anything is worth more than the life of a "little baby".  By invoking images of "little babies", Adler and Co. divert attention from incoherent rationales underlying their decisions.

[To save a "little baby", is it okay to eliminate one job? Ten jobs? 100 jobs? 1,000 jobs? 10,000 jobs? 100,000 jobs? 1,000,000 jobs? Where do we draw the line? The implication, if you listen to Mr. Adler (not that he ever listens to me), is that the value of a baby's life is infinite so no economic sacrifice is too great. He won't allow a cost-benefit analysis to be done, despite the fact that it is mandated by an Executive Order and is good law to boot, so the question will never answered.  But isn't it clear - the line must be drawn somewhere. We can't function as a society if it isn't.  Don't expect this kind of thinking as kong as Adler and Tenenbaum hold down the fort at the CPSC, however.]

The slogans are cynical, too. Tenenbaum's repeated request (four times by my count) in the hearing on 100 ppm that businesses are welcome, even encouraged, to file for exemptions from the technological feasibility decision is despicable and cynical. Cynical in a sincere voice and with a smile on your face is cynical all the same. The CPSC staff wrote up a 59-page analysis stating that EVERYTHING is technologically feasible.  She knows this.  Her encouragement can't and won't lead to exceptions - The CPSC staff have already "tied her hands".    Still, she persists.  Consider Ms. Tenenbaum's advice in her statement on the 100 ppm standard:

"Although the Commission already has voted on this issue today, if a manufacturer were to discover that it is not technologically feasible to manufacture a children’s product or category of children’s products, the agency always will consider a request for a technological feasibility determination through our normal petitioning process. During my tenure, the Commission has docketed and either has resolved or is considering several petitions requesting action on various issues. The criteria for any petition on the technological feasibility of achieving the .01 percent lead limit are laid out clearly by the statute and further explained in the staff briefing package. The process for writing a petition also is clearly set forth in the agency’s regulations. I encourage any business that discovers it manufactures a children’s product or category of children’s products for which it is not technologically feasible to meet the .01 percent limit to come to us with enough specific data to enable our staff to recommend that the Commission make a finding concerning technological feasibility under section 101(d) of the CPSIA. Our door always will be open to considering future requests. As always, for small businesses that may require additional guidance, our small business ombudsman stands ready to work to work with you on any of your concerns. I realize that this process has presented a challenge for manufacturers, and I commend those in industry who have worked so diligently to bring the lead levels in their products below .01 percent." [Emphasis added]

Makes me want to vomit. This is your government talking.  Or perhaps lying?

So as Congress closes the door on helping us, doling out relief to favored groups like ATVs and books, they left the rest of us to fend for ourselves. The issue of how any of this related to safety was never considered in the pending amendments. Congress also chose not to address the abuses of the panel of hanging judges at the helm of the CPSC. The result is painful and a reminder that fighting City Hall is pointless. In this case, the Dems in charge have proven they are beyond reach and will not listen. Further resistance seems futile.

CPSIA - The House Answers with its Own (Bipartisan) Suspension Bill

The Republicans and Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have apparently suddenly agreed on a new 29-page draft CPSIA Amendment.  This is a modification of ECADA and is probably the best that the House Republicans could extract from the Dems.  It is also part of a game of chicken between the House and Senate on how to amend the CPSIA.   The bill is sponsored by Mary Bono-Mack and G.K. Butterfield, meaning that it is a bipartisan bill.  It will proceed to the House floor for a vote tomorrow, cannot be amended and will only  pass by 2/3 majority vote.  It could be a voice "consensus" vote and will likely pass without opposition given its bipartisan character.

A quick review of this amendment:

a.  100 ppm lead standard is made prospective.

b.  Functional Purpose exception process remains part of the amendment.  [I have written extensively on how this provision is a sham.  I haven't changed my mind.]

c.  ATV exception is included.  This is death knell for any hope of later CPSIA amendments. This signals the end of the road.

d.  The terms of the bike stay are made into law.  They also get a really sweet deal - as far as I can tell, they don't have to test metal components anymore.  That provision is buried on page 19 in the book exception section.  All the better to sneak it through.  Nice for them . . . but no word as to why we must test metal components.  Too bad for us, I guess. . . .

e.  Resale goods exception is included.

f.  Testing rules are now based on "representative" samples, not "random" samples.  The rest of the provision is based on the Eshoo amendment requiring further "inquiry" on reducing costs of third party testing.  The Eshoo model still requires "assuring compliance" with the lead standards.  This is the big dollar issue, as everyone knows, and is the one issue that touches everyone, all the ordinary businesses.  This provision is a punt and offers little prospect for future relief. 

This provision is a huge time-waster and will never result in anything useful because the standard for relief is in the context of "assuring compliance".  It also calls for more business "instruction" like that found in the current draft of the "15 Month Rule".  [The status of the 15 Month Rule is not apparently addressed and may still emerge from the agency to bite us later this year.]  The authors of the 15 Month Rule draft rule know exactly zippo about the real world and if we are ever supposed to follow their sage dictates, the losses will mount . . . fast.  In any event, this Commission will never feel comfortable with anything less than prophylactic assurance, injury statistics be damned.  I hate this provision because I don't trust the CPSC Commission under current leadership.

Notably, this provision does not stay compliance with the testing rules due to go off stay at the end of the year pending resolution of the Eshoo inquiry.  Congress has not dictated that the stay be extended, and believe me, it won't be.  The reasoning behind this provision escapes me.

g.  Small batch manufacturers receive minimal relief ("reasonable methods to assure compliance").  The real sham part of this is the tantalizing prospect that the CPSC will actually deliver on this demand for testing relief.  Call me a cynic, but they have received testimony out the wazoo for three years on this topic, and have yet to find a way to "help" the remaining micro-businesses in the market.  And the reason we should believe they will make a afety testing discovery in the future?  Your guess is as good as mine.  They won't.

Small batch manufacturers have to register before benefiting from this wonderful "relief".  The registration requirement is deeply offensive to me and really shames Congress and the agency.  What did these little companies do to deserve this treatment?  What makes the House (Dems) think this is a good idea?  It smacks of 1984 and is utterly detached from any rational assessment of risk.  Do small batch manufacturers have an exceptionally bad safety track record meriting this kind of surveillance?  Of course not.  That they would accept or even support this treatment is shocking to me.  In any event, no relief is offered to any company with gross revenues in excess of $1,000,000, so it's really just for the benefit of the really micro micro-businesses.  It won't benefit me even for small unit volume items we currently sell - our top line makes us ineligible for any possible relief.  Happy registering, little guys!

h.  Ordinary books and printed materials get a pass.

i.  Durable Nursery Products standards provision (not reviewed).

j.  Phthalates standard applied only to "plasticized" components and not to inaccessible components.  Guess that means no more testing of paper, wood and metal.

k.  Authority to exclude items from tracking labels provision is given to the CPSC based on practicability.  This is promising although the Dem hanging judges on the Commission have yet to make a single decision that saved a business a dollar for any reason. Don't hold your breath.

l.   Database rules are tweaked in a meaningless way consistent with the Markey proposal on database.  NO relief offered.

THERE IS NO RELIEF GIVEN TO EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS.  Thanks, Congress.  I am glad my kids are out of elementary school by now.

That's it, more or less.  Hope you like it, that's all you're going to get.

CPSIA - CPSC Enforcement Officer Speaks

In a July 29th blogpost, CPSC Commissioner Anne Northup reproduced a letter she received from a CPSC Field Agent.  Like so much data rejected by the Validation Bias Democrats on the Commission, I am sure this letter will be ignored.  Why not decide for yourself if it's relevant?

"I just had an opportunity to read your July 20 statement concerning lead ppm.

I just wanted to say thank you for saying what some many of us in the field are feeling everyday while having to carry out compliance efforts in face to face scenarios with business owners. We don’t have the sanctuary of a phone, a computer or geography to shield us form [sic] the reality of their world.

Since passage and implementation of CPSIA many of us, [geographic location removed], are facing more and more resistive and hostile receptions as we carry out our day to day activities with businesses. This seems to be specifically for the reasons noted in your statement and not just within the limited scope of lead. For the most part these are people with children of their own trying to make a living for their families that have no desire to put out an unsafe product. We are becoming the face of the reason they believe that opportunity is becoming more difficult and/or failing for them. It is so disheartening to go out on an assignment and spend an hour listening to a business owner berate us about how ridiculous some of our regulations and/or procedures are and not have one argument to present in return because they are right.

It is reassuring to know there is still some hope at the Commission level that some day we can return to a state of reasonable regulation and focus on safety, not philosophy and bureaucracy."  [Emphasis added]

I wish I shared the Field Agent's optimism.  Hey, buddy, those days are looooooong gone.

CPSIA - Rumorville on Pryor Bill

A little bird tells me that some people have verified that the the Pryor bill to amend the CPSIA has been "hotlined" in the Senate as a step to immediate passage.  Other people have gone silent or have been unable to verify, so it's not an entirely clear situation.  "Hotlined" bills are on track for a unanimous consent vote. 

I gathered this explanation from Republican Committee on Rules site on hotlining:

"The Senate has largely institutionalized its unanimous consent process. On major pieces of legislation, the Majority or Minority leader may force a Senator from the other party to object to a bill’s consideration in the absence of a unanimous consent agreement. Similarly, the Senate will hotline a bill when it is ready to be considered under a unanimous consent agreement. Under the hotline process, the Senate cloakrooms notify Senators of upcoming bills that may be considered under unanimous consent to provide them with a final opportunity to object."

It's all rumor at this time, but this suggests that someone wants to get something done now.  While the Pryor bill is imperfect as drafted, it's better than nothing, and if there is a chance of a conference bill later, the possibility of a better bill is not yet dead . . . before we all die.

CPSIA - Don't Faint . . . Senator Pryor Put Up CPSIA Amendment Today

Senator Pryor today introduced the so-called "Consumer Product Safety Flexibility Act of 2011" to amend the CPSIA.  This four-pager is targeted at three problems:

First, it makes the 100 ppm lead-in-substrate standard prospective.

Second, it exempts ATVs and motocross (off-highway vehicles) from the lead standards of the CPSIA.  It also gives a year extension on the standards for all-terrain vehicles.

Third, it codifies the holdings of the CPSC stay as it applies to bicycles (‘Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Bicycles and Related Products’, published June 30, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 31254)), thus exempting bicycles from the 100 ppm standard.

The bill to my knowledge is not up on any of the Congressional monitoring sites yet and does not have a bill number.

This is a useful effort by Senator Pryor.  For one thing, the 100 ppm lead standard issue MUST be addressed before Congress goes on its August recess.  Hats off to Mr. Pryor for at least providing a means to address this issue.  Rumorville has it that the Senator wants to do more than is expressed by this bill.  Other Dem Senators are on the list as purportedly wanting to do more for us.  All I can say is . . . get in touch with your feelings, Senators.  We need help NOW and we would appreciate your help and leadership in particular.

As for saving the ATV'rs and bikers, well, they never belonged under this law in the first place.  The devastation wrought by this law should have been addressed long ago.  That said, there is nothing more or less sympathetic about ATVs or bikes under this law than the rest of us losers under the act.  None of us were poisoning children or even injuring children with lead-in-substrate, much less phthalates.  The neuroses of the consumer groups is no more applicable to bikes and ATVs than to us.  [Please note my prior disclosures, dating back to January, that the AAP has long supported application of CPSIA lead provisions against the ATV industry to effect a tacit ban of youth model ATVs.  The AAP admits they want youth model ATVs off the road.  This duplicity exposes the sham nature of the CPSIA, how it has been misused for political reasons by the white-cloaked and self-righteous proponents of children's product safety.]

Having spent literally countless hours on advocacy on this issue since 2007, I cannot say what more needs to be said or can be said to explain how misconceived the law is.  The ATVrs and bike industry should be let off the hook . . . but so should all the other innocents.  If ATVs deserve a pass, so do rhinestones, so do t-shirts and shoes, so do books, so do science kits.  Come on , guys, science kits?!  Do you REALLY want to send America's science education back to the Stone Ages?  It's time to loosen the noose on American industry.

One can only hope that this bill moves quickly through the Senate, and that the House quickly regains its Mojo on ECADA, leading to a useful and hopefully productive Conference negotiation to produce the long-awaited CPSIA Amendment that we have long craved and which is so long overdue.

CPSIA - Northup Lashes Out at Majority for Disregarding Executive Order

Letters to the Editor
Wall Street Journal
July 26, 2011

CPSC Should Follow Obama's Policy

As one of the minority (Republican) commissioners on the Consumer Product Safety Commission who voted against finding that it was technologically feasible to lower the lead content in all children's products from 99.97% lead free to 99.99% lead free, I appreciate your July 20 editorial "Toying with Deregulation." You accurately paint a grim picture of the commission's disregard for President Obama's appeal that regulatory agencies promote "economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation." But you omit the even more disturbing evidence that the commission majority twisted the language of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and ignored the evidence before it in order to reach a predetermined outcome.

As the majority proved with its 100 ppm vote, it will take much more than an executive order to stop an agency bent on imposing its radical agenda without regard for the economic consequences. See www.cpsc.gov/pr/northup07202011.pdf.

Anne M. Northup
Commissioner
CPSC
Washington

CPSIA - Amazon to Kids' Hat Companies: Prove You're Lead-free by August 7th

Hope your kids don't need hats.  Perhaps you are aware that absent Congressional action, the new 100 ppm lead standard will be imposed retroactively by August 14th.  The five Commissioners have requested that this provision be applied prospectively (they made this request in January 2010) yet Congress has done nothing about it.

As a matter of fact, now that you mention it, they haven't done anything about any of the problems under the CPSIA.  I guess as Rachel Weintraub suggests, more "discussion" is needed.

Anyhow, I received the below letter (excerpts are reproduced only) from a maker of children's hats.  Anyone out there ever heard of lead poisoning from a hat?  Me, either. Nevertheless this company is subject to the stupid rules of the CPSIA for reasons best explained by Henry Waxman, and are now being required to prove up the "safety" of their hats.

So how do you expect hat companies to respond to this kind of request?  Do you think they can afford the tests?  To employ the people to administer the tests, apply the tracking labels, maintain the records, deal with all the paper-pushing by their customers, pay for the lawyers, fill out the forms and so on?  I can think of several likely replies.  First, cut the product line.  Don't waste money on testing so many hats.  Second, simplify the product line.  Remember cute hats with lots of colors?  Thing of the past.  Better snap 'em up while you can.  Monochrome is the new rainbow.  Third, make hats for kids over 12 or for adults. Then you can sprinkle your little hats with lead to your heart's content.  No one will care.

Oh, I know, natural fibers and certain fabrics don't need to be tested.  Yes, but my customers don't care much for these niceties.  They want a piece of paper for the files.  If you think we test only when we have to, you are wrong.  That's the bare minimum.  Most tests are repeated or substantially exceeded, even beyond the absurd levels required by law.  This hat company was pretty depressed by the news delivered by Amazon.  Get used to it.

Or go pick up some hats right now.  If you have little kids, buy them in several sizes while you're at it.  No time like the present. . . .


Amazon Letter (excerpts):


Dear Amazon Vendor:


The Federal Government enacted the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (the “Act”) that, in addition to other requirements, prescribes strict limits on the content of lead and phthalates in products intended for children.

New stricter limits on lead in children’s products will go into effect on August 14, 2011. This message outlines the steps Amazon will require vendors to take to confirm that their products comply with the new stricter lead limits affecting children’s products.

Vendors are responsible for thoroughly familiarizing themselves with all the requirements of the Act and for tracking and complying with any regulations issued by Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Additional information on the Act is available on the CPSC website at www.cpsc.gov. Specific provisions of the Act discussed in this letter are for ease of reference only.

Actions Required: What you need to do

By July 31, 2011, each vendor must confirm and report to Amazon.com that all of your children’s products (i) in Amazon.com’s inventory, as reported to you in Vendor Central, and (ii) in transit or shipped to Amazon.com, will comply with applicable limits set forth in Column I.

Limit:  Lead 100 ppm

Effective Date of Limit per the Act:  August 14, 2011

Products shipped to Amazon must comply by:  July 31, 2011

Noncompliant products are subject to return to Vendor:  August 7, 2011
Step 1: Verify that your products are compliant with the lead content requirements going into effect on August 14, 2011.

Vendors are responsible for determining whether the products they sell on Amazon.com are compliant with the new lead requirements.

CPSIA - Tenenbaum and Co. Thumb Their Noses at Obama's Executive Order

The sparks were certainly flying at the July 20th Commission meeting last week.  With access finally granted by the CPSC today to the video footage, I was able to see for myself all the excitement at that storied meeting.  I was amply rewarded with a display of regulatory arrogance you rarely see on tape - Inez Tenenbaum and Bob Adler standing tall and thumbing their noses at a binding Executive Order.  I guess the CPSC is now above ALL law, other than laws endorsed by Henry Waxman.

The tension in the room at this meeting was palpable, and the usual shenanigans took place, like Ami Gadhia's claims that CPSC Staff found that manufacturers intentionally add lead to children's products (47:31).  While I would normally take the scummy consumer group reps to task for their misstatements (lies?) and innuendo, in fact at this hearing, a much more important issue was "debated".  [Bickered over is more like it.]  Namely, whether the CPSC has to follow President Obama's Executive Order to preform cost-benefit analyses on regulations under the CPSIA.  I have previously addressed this issue in blogposts on July 12, July 14, July 20 and July 21.

After the usual pointless sparring over the ability of the CPSC to do the right thing (don't worry, Bob Adler "agonized" over these difficult decisions . . . and then voted to screw industry), the meeting devolved into a series of often incoherent and inconsistent defensive rebuffs by Dems in support of their political conclusion that they can blow off the Executive Order to the extent that it threatens in any way their work implementing the CPSIA.

Of course, the idea of the Executive Order was to ensure that those rules are economically justified. Blah blah blah.  The view of the Dem Commissioners is that evidence of the extreme economic impact of these rules is not relevant to the CPSIA rulemaking process, notwithstanding Mr. Obama's little note.

Chairman Tenenbaum laid down the law at 1:15 in the tape:

"I'd like to comment on the Executive Order [which says] 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof . . . . This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.'  Congress was very clear. They wanted the lead limits at 600 then 300 then 100.  We have looked at this from all angles.  And I can tell you, consistent with the law, we have implemented the CPSIA. . . . Congress was very aware that we could not write regulations unless we did a Section 9 cost-benefit analysis in some of the statutes we implement.  And they on purpose did not require us to do cost-benefit analysis because they realized the urgency of getting lead out of children's products. . . . And that my legal understanding. . . . And so to have this fiction be a part of this public hearing, that we are required to do cost-benefit analysis under the CPSIA under the Executive Order cannot go unanswered."  [Emphasis added]

Take that, Obama!  Your EO is fictional!  Tenenbaum seems to be saying that because Congress permitted expedited rulemaking under the CPSIA, all regulations under CPSIA are shielded from any cost-benefit analysis mandated by the President.  She pins this on the standards established under the CPSIA.  Interestingly, she seems to overlook that the 100 ppm standard was subject to a rulemaking process, and the Obama order specifically addresses rulemakings.  She also glosses over so many other rulemakings which are remote from the standards.  Details, details. . . .

The Obama order instructs the CPSC to follow Executive Order 13563 to the extent "permitted" by law.  The CPSIA does not preclude cost-benefit analysis, it only allowed the agency to skip it.  The only direct reference to cost-benefit in the CPSIA is in Section 233 where cost-benefit analysis is specifically written out of  the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.  Cost-benefit analysis is NOT specifically written out of the CPSA in the CPSIA anywhere.  The Dem Commissioners didn't address this point during the July 20th meeting.

EO 13563 in relevant part says:  ". . . to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts; and equity). . . ."  The President's new EO applies this verbiage to the CPSC.  Tenenbaum just blows it off entirely.  The President must be below Henry Waxman. 

Ms. T gets pretty snippy at points.  "There are people on this Commission that want to contort and use this Executive Order.  I have spoken to attorneys at the White House; I know I stand on firm legal ground.  And so please don't leave this meeting thinking that we are expected to do cost-benefit analysis or this Executive Order mandates that we do that.  It does not!"

Tenenbaum's argument - I am judge, I am jury, don't question me. 

Anne Northup notes that the stalemate in Congress is no indication that the law requires such harsh and inflexible positions by the agency:

"It's also clear that Members of Congress . . . are universally talking about, even the authors of the bill, changes that ought to be made [to the CPSIA].  The reason that Congress has not acted is that [there is disagreement over how broadly to amend the law.]  They have not told us that they think we should proceed in the most aggressive fashion and in the most punishing rulemakings and to take advantage of every opportunity we have to regulate more toys rather than less, more tests rather than less, and so forth. . . . All an Executive Order does is ask us to . . . take seriously whether or not we can find alternative ways of achieving the meaning of the law without the disruption in the economy."

Continuing the debate (argument), Bob Adler had much to say as usual.  As we know, Bob Adler is already on record volunteering to block cost-benefit analysis with his dead body.  [See "Is that a promise, Bob?"]  At the July 20th meeting, he proffered the reason why cost-benefit analysis is inapplicable here:

"My colleague asked whether there is anything in the statute that specifically exempts us from having to, from being able to do cost-benefit, and I think in terms of the precise parsing of the statute, that's correct.  But let's be clear:  it effectively in all major respects precludes us from doing that. When they've given us 42 deadlines to achieve in just a very short period of time, when they've specifically exempted us from having to do these incredibly time-consuming and costly Section 9 procedures, i think there's a very clear message from Congress there.  Congress in effect was saying 'We've done the cost-benefit analysis.  Now we want you to implement the law."

So, the reason not to obey the President - Congress couldn't have meant us to do a cost-benefit analysis because otherwise they wouldn't have given us so much darned work to do.  In addition, by reducing our burden with looser Section 9 procedures to expedite the implementation process, Adler says Congress meant to say that they had already "completed" a cost-benefit analysis.  Mr. Adler does not attempt to prove his point, his assertion being enough apparently.  I am always impressed by the self-justifications of regulators who claim to be able to read the "mind" of an inanimate body like Congress.  In law school, they taught us to follow rules of legislative interpretation.  That's so Old School!  Nowadays you only have to attribute a "thought" to Congress to "prove" legislative intent.

Of course, just a few days ago, Bob asserted something rather different:

"It says "to the extent permitted by law" we should do cost-benefit analysis. And I just wanted to say over my dead body would I agree to do the kind of cost-benefit analysis that is contained in Section 9 of the [CPSA]. That is paralysis by analysis."  [Emphasis added]

At that time, Adler seemed to believe that the words "to the extent permitted by law" require the agency to do a cost-benefit analysis only when it is convenient to perform such complex analyses.  Hmmm.  Does anyone think that legal analysis is just a bit "loose"?

Ah, but Bob wasn't done by any means.  He carried on (and on and on) at the July 20th meeting to add yet another argument, namely that cost-benefit assessments are impossible as a practical matter.  No explanation as to why this was relevant, as Adler already said Congress instructed the agency to not to do such analyses and the Executive Order is inapplicable.  Details, details. . . .

"One of the things that I this is intriguing . . . is where they say 'Now when you're doing a cost-benefit analysis, let's address all the deficiencies we have identified with cost-benefit analyses in the past, namely you can always calculate the costs, especially the short term high costs but measuring benefits is just extraordinarily difficult.' How do you measure the life of a little baby? Because usually what they [conclude is that] there is no benefit . . . that you can quantify from saving a baby's life."

So, apparently, it might be okay to do cost-benefit analysis (?) but it wouldn't work.  Congress must not have meant us to waste our time . . . .   He later challenged anyone in the room to tell him what the "quantifiable benefits" of two lost IQ points are.  Too bad the EPA wasn't there. They do that regularly.  Here is a quote from AOL Energy referring to this kind of economic analysis:  "The economic value of the IQ points and the benefits of reducing particulate pollution was estimated using 'long-standing, peer-reviewed' practices on the effect of regulations, [EPA] officials said."  Again, details, details . . . .

Adler noted that this IQ point information would be crucial to an argument on how many angels could sit on the head of a pin.  Thus, Mr. Adler sneers at the value and legitimacy of a cost-benefit analysis involving children.  As our apparent judge, jury and overseer, one must surmise that he thinks it's his right to make this judgment, notwithstanding an Executive Order.

Oddly, Big Bob does concede that the picture is not quite so clear.  Hmmm.

"I'm not arguing that because we've got a lot of work that Congress therefore said don't do cost-benefit analysis.  [Editor's Note:  Bob, in fact, that IS what you argued.]  That isn't all they said.  They said 'You know what we want you to do, we want you to do a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis which is looking at the cost side of the ledger which is easier to calculate.  In particular, to look at the cost side of the ledger insofar as affects small businesses because those are the folks who are the canaries in the mine that we look to."  Adler goes on to retract this assertion, and return to his claim that Congress DIDN'T want the CPSC to do a RFA analysis and instead just wanted the agency to implement the law.  His argument here seems to be that Congress was interested in some sort of economic analysis but only a limited one.

Adler then launches into his final jab at blowing off the Order:

"I guess we do have a dispute about whether we have imposed this in an ultra-aggressive way or in an extremely thoughtful way.  I think we have taken the approach in an extremely thoughtful way.  But sometimes you have to do a cost-benefit of whether to do a cost-benefit and I don't think that analysis gets us very far."

So Adler wraps up with his "over my dead body" argument - he just doesn't want to do it. Take that, Obama!

Nancy Nord grimly assessed the sad spectacle we witnessed:

"This is an important issue.  And cost-benefit analysis could have been done with respect to our regulations under CPSIA but wasn't.  Whether that's a good idea or a bad idea, we can continue to debate.  But Congress did not say not to do it - Majority did.  And I think that's unfortunate and I think our rules have suffered because of  that."

I will spare you the late sniping between Tenenbaum and Nord, but if you like catty repartee, it's at 1:24.

With three Dem Commissioners in charge at the CPSC, you can forget about relief from the EO.  Nice try, Mr. President, but you've met your match. Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore are above the law and are on a Waxman mission that transcends our laws and the Constitution.  There's not much left to hope for with this crew in charge. 

Maybe the CPSC will be on the national debt chopping block.  Don't hold your breath. . . .

CPSIA - Not to State the Obvious, but the Debt Ceiling Fiasco Imperils ECADA

Among the many reasons for despondency at this time of national gridlock is that the Washington national debt standoff likely signifies the demise of ECADA (the pending CPSIA Amendment).  A week from this Friday is the last work day before Congress' all-important summer recess.  [As you know, Congress needs its R&R.]  The CPSIA will remain unamended unless a bill moves through Congress by then. 

You don't need to be a seasoned Washington vet to see that Congress ground to a halt while the national debt food fight is going on.  With the likely pressure of world market volatility, U.S. credit rating downgrades and other homegrown massive financial calamities, and you have a recipe for Congress' attention being somewhere besides the CPSIA.  With the President and his minions playing the market manipulation card (Daley and Geithner were dispatched to the Sunday talk shows to spread their gloomy prediction of market cracks on Monday), the ability of Congress to focus on its actual work is just about nil now.  Mine certainly is, too.

It will be the ultimate irony if the debate over the size of our government is what wins day for an engorged CPSC focusing on fake health crises as directed by the CPSIA.  Victory to Rachel Weintraub, Henry Waxman and Bob Adler all because our national leaders can't decide how much to spend beyond our national means?  Three years of fighting may end up on the rocks, simply because of bad timing.

If ECADA does not become law before August 14, the 100 ppm lead standard will be retroactive, the THIRD such scr*wing imposed on us by the soulless bureaucrats at the CPSC since August 2008.  Oh yes, I know, they have no choice.  Woe is me, they feel so badly about it, but what can you do???

Tell that to our employees, our suppliers, our dealers and the millions of families, schools and teachers who depend on our company and its products.  Hey Dems, why not finish the job with a big tax increase, too?! 

Stay tuned.

CPSIA - What Exactly Happened at the July 20th CPSC Commission Meeting?

What happened on July 20th at the CPSC Commission hearing?  I wish I knew. We must rely on a BNA article and gossip from those who were present or happened to be wasting their morning watching the spectacle live online.  Apparently Inez Tenenbaum made some blanket statements rejecting the President's Executive Order of July 11 relating to cost-benefit analysis of provisions of the CPSIA. 

Of course, how would I know what she said?  The video at the Sunshine State of the CPSC is not available to me.  Two days later . . . .  Hmmm.  Do you think they are waiting for me to forget about it???

While I cannot tell you exactly what Ms. Tenenbaum said during the meeting (yet), I do know a couple things.  First, BNA in an article entitled "CPSIA: Discord Between CPSC Commissioners Comes to Head but Fails to Halt Productivity" dated July 20 quoted Ms. T as follows: 

"And in a July 20 public meeting on the agency's priorities for 2013, Tenenbaum felt the need to say to Northup and other critics of the commission that the rules under the CPSIA are exempt from cost/benefit analyses, and therefore the agency is not required do them. 'To have this fiction that we are required to do cost/benefit analysis under CPSIA cannot go unaddressed.'  She said CPSC has committed to conducting a retrospective review of its regulations, per Obama's Executive Order, and 'we will begin our retrospective review and we will solicit comment.'"  [Emphasis added]

Fiction, eh?  Ms. T also made the same point in her statement on the newly adopted 100 ppm lead standard:

"Despite our clear and strict statutory instructions on this issue, some of my colleagues have raised a concern that the Commission’s actions run contrary to an Executive Order issued by President Barack Obama on July 11, 2011. Their position is not correct. In that Order, the President has asked independent agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to make decisions only after taking into account several considerations, but also to remain true to their statutory mandates. I am confident that the Commission has met and exceeded its mandate under the CPSIA. As such, the decision reached by the Commission today is consistent with the President’s Executive Order, because we have followed the law as mandated in the CPSIA, and as clearly intended by its Congressional authors."  [Emphasis added]

Ms. T seems to be saying that the agency was not permitted to follow the Executive Order because this setting of standards is not a "regulation" but is instead a "statutory mandate".  There is no such thing as a "mandate" in this context from a legal point of view.  See the definition of "mandate".  Essentially, what the regulators are referring to as a "mandate" is the directive by Congress to take certain steps and exercise judgment coupled with a public inquiry process, meaning that it must be a well-informed process taking into account the feedback of interested stakeholders. 

[It's okay, let it out.  I just doubled over in laughter myself.]

What DID Congress tell the CPSC to do about 100 ppm in the CPSIA?  The law instructs the CPSC as follows:

Section 101(a)(2)(C):  "100 PARTS PER MILLION.—Except as provided in subparagraphs (D) and (E), beginning on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, subparagraph (B) shall be applied by substituting ‘100 parts per million’ for ‘300 parts per million’ unless the Commission determines that a limit of 100 parts per million is not technologically feasible for a product or product category. The Commission may make such a determination only after notice and a hearing and after analyzing the public health protections associated with substantially reducing lead in children’s products."

Section 101(a)(2)(D):  "ALTERNATE REDUCTION OF LIMIT.—If the Commission determines under subparagraph (C) that the 100 parts per million limit is not technologically feasible for a product or product category, the Commission shall, by regulation, establish an amount that is the lowest amount of lead, lower than 300 parts per million, the Commission determines to be technologically feasible to achieve for that product or product category. The amount of lead established by the Commission under the preceding sentence shall be substituted for the 300 parts per million limit under subparagraph (B) beginning on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act."

Section 101(e):  "PENDING RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS TO HAVE NO EFFECT— The pendency of a rulemaking proceeding to consider— (1) a delay in the effective date of a limit or an alternate limit under this section related to technological feasibility . . . shall not delay the effect of any provision or limit under this section nor shall it stay general enforcement of the requirements of this section."

[Emphasis added]  Section 101(e) refers to the process that just concluded as a "rulemaking proceeding".  I don't know how you feel about this, but this section of the CPSIA sure sounds like an instruction to administer a rulemaking proceeding to me.  This is not a direction to reach a particular conclusion - if it is a "mandate" at all, it is a "mandate" to go through a classic regulatory process.  Read the instructions yourself, it's right there.

President Obama's Executive Order reads as follows (in relevant part):

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve regulation and regulatory review, it is hereby ordered as follows:  Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, 'Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,' directed to executive agencies, was meant to produce a regulatory system that protects 'public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.' Independent regulatory agencies, no less than executive agencies, should promote that goal. . . . Executive Order 13563 set out general requirements directed to executive agencies concerning public participation, integration and innovation, flexible approaches, and science. To the extent permitted by law, independent regulatory agencies should comply with these provisions as well."  [Emphasis added]

Ms. T interpreted the words "to the extent permitted by law" as "to remain true to their statutory mandates".  Ms. T, a lawyer, is blatantly wrong, laughably so.  Unfortunately, it's not funny.

Ms. Tenenbaum has taken the position that cost-benefit analysis is not relevant to the CPSIA.  Of course, you know I think that's a bunch of bunk.  The President's Executive Order is plainly applicable to this rulemaking process and Tenenbaum may be daring you or me to sue her.  I would like to point out, however, that when rules of legislative interpretation are applied to the CPSIA, her shoddy legal conclusions look even worse. 

Does the CPSIA mention "cost-benefit" anywhere?  I am glad you asked . . . .  The CPSIA uses the term "cost-benefit" only once (outside of the Table of Contents):

"SEC. 233. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS UNDER THE POISON PREVENTION PACKAGING ACT OF 1970.  Section 3 of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1472) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ‘(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission, in establishing a standard under this section, to prepare a comparison of the costs that would be incurred in complying with such standard with the benefits of such standard.'"

If Congress was so concerned that cost-benefit should never apply to these provisions, why didn't they say it?  They weren't silent on cost-benefit - Congress thought enough of the issue to mention it in context of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.  But as it relates to lead and phthalates, Congress was silent on cost-benefit.  Why might they have been silent?  Perhaps the authors of the law believed it was an illegal provision as applied to these rules.  Perhaps the Dems behind the law felt the CPSIA wouldn't pass if such an obnoxious term were included in this critical part of the law.  Perhaps those people figured no one would call their bluff, and that later, politically-aligned appointees would simply make up the law the authors couldn't write themselves. 

As this week's WSJ Editorial implies, we are powerless to stop Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore.  They can run rampant over our laws, our companies, our markets, our jobs, our lives.  They are the law, they are the judges, they are the jury.  They know what's best for us, and no public hearings are going to change their minds. 

Oops, make that no Presidential Executive Order will change their minds . . . .

CPSIA - Nancy Nord Op-Ed on the Wasteful 100 ppm Lead Standard

From the Washington Times (July 18, 2011):

NORD: Playing around with toy makers

Stricter lead regulations will cost jobs without making children’s products safer


The Obama administration has recognized that excessive and unnecessarily burdensome regulation is a drag on the economy. As the administration has worked to promote job creation, it has publicized its efforts directing agencies to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient regulations. Apparently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not gotten the word.

The commission’s failure to get the word is no more apparent than in its efforts to implement the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act. The legislation was enacted after agency recalls of imported products illuminated the issue of import safety. The goal of the law is to assure that products intended for children are safe, a goal for which there is universal agreement. The devil, of course, is in the details, and the details of implementing this laudable statutory goal are devilish for sure.

For the rest of the article, please click here.

CPSIA - NAM Ad In The Hill Supporting Passage of ECADA

From The Hill Newspaper, dated July 21, 2011:

The time left to Congress to act on amending the CPSIA before the 100 ppm lead standard boom crushes more businesses and jobs is only 24 days.  [Html version of the ad]  This includes the time to get through the Senate, then conference, then to the President for signature.  Not a lot of time . . . and par for the course for this government, I suppose.  Will they act in time?  I certainly hope so but with Henry Waxman doing his evil best to prevent any progress on this issue, I don't have high expectations.  Let's hope some Democrats still have a conscience.

CPSIA - WSJ's NINTH EDITORIAL Opposing the CPSIA

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
JULY 20, 2011

Toying With Deregulation
Another agency ignores Mr. Obama's executive order.

Here's a question for White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein: Do Presidential executive orders mean anything? Only last week President Obama asked independent agencies to examine existing rules and get rid of the duds, but nobody is listening.

Within days of the executive order, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted 3-2 that it is "technologically feasible" to impose a lower limit on lead content in children's products, reducing the level to 100 parts per million from 300 parts per million. The new limit, which will go into effect August 14, will mean one more round of hair-pulling for small business owners who will have to change their manufacturing processes and junk existing products that don't meet the new standard. The three votes in favor came from Mr. Obama's chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum and two other Democratic commissioners.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act passed in 2008 in a frenzy of concern over lead content in toys from China, and it has since tormented anyone who makes or sells bicycles, books, children's jewelry and so much more. Its strictures have imposed costs for testing, recalls and other inconveniences without any reasonable correlation to the risks to children. "No sweetheart, don't eat that bicycle!"

According to the CPSC, the plan to require that products be 99.99% lead free is reasonable because manufacturers would still be able to find materials and because some products already comply. While the additional safety gain will be negligible, the change will do damage in other ways, causing companies to avoid recycled metal and plastic, which may contain higher amounts of lead. It will also raise costs for metal parts, potentially driving some businesses to substitute plastic for metal, or stop producing children's products. In the bicycle industry, a quarter of manufacturers have stopped making kids bikes.

Instead of fixing its manifest flaws, Congressional Democrats who wrote the law have shrugged off small business complaints and opposed any changes. Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee Chair Mary Bono Mack introduced reforms earlier this year that would revise the law and give the CPSC greater authority to make regulation decisions based on actual risk. The bill is waiting for a mark-up at full committee but any reprieve would likely come too late for businesses facing the mid-August deadline.

Mr. Obama's recent executive order is voluntary, but the President told agency heads that getting rid of red tape was an opportunity to "forge a 21st-century regulatory system that makes our economy stronger and more competitive." Perhaps Mr. Sunstein will tell toy makers it's the thought that counts.

CPSIA - You're Only SAFE if It's 99.99% Lead-Free . . . But Don't Tell the EPA

Last week, the Democrats took action to protect you and your kids from the perils of lead.  As we have been relentlessly reminded by non-scientists, there is "no safe level of lead" - just ask Bob Adler and Inez Tenenbaum.  Now, in the wake of the conclusion that reducing lead content from 300 ppm (lead-in-substrate) to 100 ppm will produce "minimal" health benefits (read, none), the CPSC Commission voted three Democrats to two Republicans to reduce the lead limit to 100 ppm. 

Reducing lead standards from 300 ppm to 100 ppm can be expressed a different way mathematically.  This is a reduction from 99.97% lead-free to 99.99% lead-free.  [Credit to Anne Northup for the mathematics!] This will cost billions and the economic devastation was ALSO documented by the CPSC Staff in their analysis on the 100 ppm standard.  Nevertheless, the non-scientists who rule the roost at the CPSC saw nothing but health upsides in this technologically feasible but economically absurd feat.  And, as we know, injuries to children have an infinite value when you are unable to assess risk.  The numbers work out - yes, the cost may be in the billions and the reduction in incentives will cost yet more, but the savings are infinite!  Even one avoided injury is an infinite savings.  Queue the tears . . . .  What-a-deal!

Ironically, last week the EPA bowed to political pressure and in an exercise of common sense, eased up on precautions against lead-in-paint in housing stock.  Hello?  Did you catch that one?  Twelve Senators signed a letter in April to protest this proposed rule as excessive and damaging to small business, and bingo, something good finally happened.  Olympia Snowe was so delighted that she put out a press release to celebrate it.  Please note that the EPA acknowledges that lead-in-paint in housing stock is the principal source of lead poisoning in the United States.  [It sure ain't toys.]  They have previously acknowledged in writing (lucid writing, actually) that their rules on lead need to be measured and that the economic impact of their rules must also be carefully assessed. The EPA does not attach an infinite value to injuries, even to children.  They aren't idiots.  Draw your own conclusions.

Hello, Senators, anyone home?

The foundation of the "no safe level of lead" slogan has been laid by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a political organization masquerading as a professional organization.  This organization was aggressively and justifiably attacked by Anne Northup during the 100 ppm Commission meeting.  It is rare to see anyone attack these people, perhaps besides me (not a fan . . .), but do they ever deserve it.  Here is what Dr. Dana Best of the AAP told a House Subcommittee on April 7, 2011:

"Exposure to lead is amply documented to cause the loss of intellectual capacity. On average, children whose blood lead levels (BLLs) rise from 10 to 20 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL) lose two to three IQ points. More recent studies have shown an even greater impact on IQ of BLLs under 10 mcg/dL. Key studies reported a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points in children whose lead levels rose from 1 mcg/dL to 10 mcg/dL. These studies suggest that “low” levels of exposure – meaning BLLs less than 10 mcg/dL – cause proportionately greater harm than higher levels. . . . The medical and scientific literature are in substantial agreement that an increase of 1 mcg/dL in blood lead level is capable of causing the loss of approximately one IQ point in children whose blood lead level is under 10 mcg/dL."  [Enphasis added]

Dr. Best, well-known for her fear of children licking bicycles, has previously posited "millions" of victims of lead-in-substrate.  Despite taking such a dramatic stand, Dr. Best cannot seem to name even ONE victim or lead-in-substrate or provide a single case history demonstrating that such a victim has ever been located . . . anywhere.  Not even one.  Doesn't matter, apparently.  When you're right, you're right.

But is Dr. Best actually RIGHT?  Fascinatingly, when Dr. Best plugs the notion that driving lead concentrations below 10 mcg/dl will have some defined (definite) health benefits, she flies in the face of the official AAP Policy Statement on Lead Exposure in Children (recently restated on May 1, 2009).  The Policy Statement does NOT support her assertions - and she is on the committee that wrote/approved the statement.  You might say she got it wrong, or you might just say she's a liar.  Is it really possible to be that incompetent?  Here's what the Policy Statement says:

"Canfield et al recently extended the relationship between blood lead concentration and IQ to blood lead concentrations less than 10 g/dL. They observed a decrease in IQ of more than 7 points over the first 10 g/dL of lifetime average blood lead concentration. . . . To confirm the adverse effects of lead on IQ at these concentrations, however, more children whose blood lead concentration has never been more than 10 mcg/dL should be studied. A reanalysis of the primary data from several of the prospective studies is underway to help resolve this issue. At the moment, however, these data have not yet been incorporated into policy, and the CDC16 and AAP24 both currently use 10 mcg/dL (Table 2) as the blood lead concentration of concern."  [Emphasis added]

The Canfield study is the study Dr. Best cites in her Congressional testimony above.  Canfield predates the restated Policy Statement (obviously, or else it wouldn't be cited), and thus forms part of the basis of the recommendation for further study.  The AAP recommends further study to confirm its suspicions - and those studies aren't done.  Dr. Best certainly didn't cite them.  The AAP Policy Statement goes on to recommend:

"RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT:  Fund studies to confirm or refute the finding that blood lead concentrations of less than 10 mcg/dL are associated with lower IQ. The next important step in lead research is conducting of studies in which confounding by socioeconomic factors is not so strong. Funding of studies in this area needs to be given high priority, as was done in the early 1980s when the question of effects of blood lead concentrations less than 20 mcg/dL was raised."  [Emphasis added]

So the AAP acknowledges in its policy statement that the case is not exactly open-and-shut.  Dr. Best, a member of the AAP's Committee on Environmental Health, continues to bash away on the hustings with her hyperbolic and conclusory message.  Perhaps she feels that no one will likely check her work or contest her blather, so why not?

Senators?  Congressmen?  Does anyone care about the effects on business when it comes to the out-of-control CPSC? 

There are now 25 days until the 100 ppm standard goes into effect retroactively.  Starting packing up, guys.  Will Congress act?  I have no idea - this is not, and never has been, a question of doing the right thing for you or me or for anyone, really.  The Dems have an agenda, a political agenda, and your problems are beneath their consideration.  I can't say who will be the winners, but the losers are well-known by now. 

CPSIA - Sound Bite Justice

Today the CPSC Commission voted 3-2 to impose the 100 ppm lead standard retroactively as of August 14, 2011, having concluded that there are no materials or products that the CPSC staff could identify for which this level of lead is not "technologically feasible".  This vote has been long predicted and anticipated.  The entire meeting was conducted in a thoroughly partisan manner, with sharp dividing lines between Dems and Republicans.  What-a-shock. 

I experienced a range of emotions watching this two-hour hearing.  None of them were surprise.  I experienced some boredom, as the debate was so predictable and so repetitive of past meetings.  Many self-serving remarks by the Dem zealots.  I experienced a mild sense of hopelessness, as it is clear that the Dems are unreachable. I experienced rising exasperation over their refusal to listen or consider data - unless it agrees with pre-existing agendas and alliances.  It is hard to not feel you are appearing before the Hanging Judge. 

I won't attempt to analyze what was really going on today, you already know it.  The posturing was sickening among the Dems.  That said, you deserve some flavor of the event.  Here are a few tidbits for your amusement or annoyance:

She's just the nicest!

Inez Tenenbaum explained that the 100 ppm standard would have gone into effect if the CPSC had not chosen to decide the question of "technological feasibility".  As she sees it, "this [decision] is a courtesy to people."

What, Boeing isn't covered by the CPSIA?!

After vigorously stating her case on the cost-benefit analysis of this rule and condemning the possible adoption of this rule as a violation of the recent Executive Order applicable to the CPSC, Ms. Nord restates the obvious. Unfortunately, the power of her logic was lost on at least three of her colleagues by my estimate:  "Just because a material is out there for a jet plane, doesn't mean that it's appropriate for a toy plane."  No!

Is that a promise, Bob?

Defending caveman logic to his followers, Bob Adler rebuffed the Executive Order argument and the order of the person who appointed him to his post:  "This is not a new Executive Order . . . . [They] said could you at least do a plan for economic analysis and I do think that we are planning on doing that and we have done that in the past. It says "to the extent permitted by law" we should do cost-benefit analysis. And I just wanted to say over my dead body would I agree to do the kind of cost-benefit analysis that is contained in Section 9 of the [CPSA]. That is paralysis by analysis. If you look at the data . . . nine [CPSC] standards in 30 years using those procedures. I am not against cost-benefit analysis; I am definitely against the kind of cost-benefit analysis that's contained in our statute. Section 101 does not EXPLICITLY bar a cost-benefit analysis but it effectively does so."  [Emphasis added]

I find this rather interesting as he challenged me on February 16 with the question of whether I recommended that he violate the law.  It was a tense moment - he was trying to corner me into telling him to spurn his Congressional mandate.  Nevertheless, it is appears that Bob can pick and choose which laws bind him and which do not.  That shouldn't surprise anyone who went to law school.  Law school profs always know the right answer, even if it makes no sense to anyone but themselves. 

They care sooooo much, they really feel our pain . . . .

Ms. Tenenbaum set the records straight on the purity of her good intentions:  "I so believe that we have been diligent in looking at the marketplace and surveying materials. We have admitted it would be an extra cost to some companies and been out front. But, again, 'technological feasibility' the definition is not 'economic feasibility'. Not that I don't sympathize with small business owners and that is why we have worked on other rules [like the component part rule]. We are trying to be as flexible as possible and work with small businesses and the industry to accomplish what Congress mandated for us to do."

I know it's just a detail but in the last three years, what exactly has this "effort" achieved?  Oh yeah, I forgot about Neal Cohen - we can cry on his shoulder!  In fact, Ms. T. closed the event with the offer that Cohen has his box of Kleenex ready for you whenever you need him.

Somebody's getting the shaft, let the record reflect.

Nancy Nord noticed something the Dems must have missed:  "You know, one of the things that is of concern to me is that the penultimate recommendation from the staff here is that 'complying materials APPEAR to be commercially available for most products.' Listen to the hedge words there in the staff recommendation. They 'appear to be'? Well, let's find out for sure and let's do it on a product category basis. 'Most products'? Well, what about the ones that can't meet it? That's our responsibility as [regulators], colleagues."

Hmmm. 

Professor Adler grades the final exam.

Bob Adler was in top form today.  The "over my dead body" remark was just an appetizer.  He went on to inform us that comment letters which arrive late are not operative, especially if they did not properly read his mind on what he wanted to see:

"I do want to also comment on some of the last minute submissions we got from our friends in industry, and I always appreciate those comments and I do consider a lot of these folks to be good friends both of this agency and of mine. But it's really hard to take it seriously when it comes in at the penultimate or ultimate moment when you've had a lot of time to get that kind of information to us. . . . [Recites all the opportunities to comment prior to this hearing.] All of that, if you want to make a point, would have been very helpful especially we'd had the kind of hard quantitative data that SGS and the Hong Kong-American Chamber of Commerce gave us. And I'm going to just make a brief comment = you're free to do it, it's not helpful to tell us we've read the law incorrectly. I think we've read it correctly. I don't think it's helpful just to tell us that it's going to be difficult and more expensive to get compliant materials. I think we know that, I think the staff told us that. What we needed was more hard data demonstrating the points that you're making because what we really got were a lot of conclusory assertions when what we really needed was some hard quantitative data. And all the hard quantitative data I've seen really points in the opposite direction. So I really appreciate all the last minute comments. Too little, too late as far as I am concerned."  [Emphasis added]

This lecture was repeated three times by Mr. Adler unprompted, for reasons best understood by him.  Interestingly, Mr. Adler seems to have forgotten that I presented hard quantitative data on this same topic in my timely-filed 100 ppm comment letter and in my Febuary 16 testimony.  Of course, it did not agree with the SGS or HKACC submissions.  I guess since he found their data useful, mine must have been wrong.  According to his remarks today, I didn't even submit it, which is rather surprising since it was discussed extensively in the Staff report:  "Learning Resources reported 98.3 percent compliance with the 100 ppm standard for its products, but found this compliance level to be unacceptable because of the difficulty in identifying where the noncomplying components would turn up."

Bob Adler flips his flop.

You would think with three repetitions of his condescending lecture on late submissions, that Professor Adler must mean it.  Can't get a good grade in his class with that behavior, right?  Well, maybe not for the teacher's pet:  "One very quick point, well two. One is that the [AAP] study you shared with us, and again thank you so much Commissioner Northup, is a 2005 study. We got a letter last night from the American Academy of Pediatrics reiterating their support for moving down to these levels. . . . "

Bob Adler wings it. . . .

In the face of a vigorous attack by a well-prepared Anne Northup on the shoddy scientific data presented by the AAP supporting the "no safe level of lead" assertion, Mr. Adler lapses into hyperbole and fantastic assertions incapable of validation:

"It isn't just the [AAP]. A lot of what they've done has been drawn from research done around the world on the effects of lead. I'll bet there must be ten thousand, I know there are thousands and thousands of studies on lead, all of which point to the very severe toxic effects associated with [these products]."

Mother knows best!

In a truly shocking display of personal preference substituting for appropriate policy and regulation, Ms. Tenenbaum decided that we don't need recycled materials in children's products because who would want them anyway? 

"The scientific community has shown us over and over again that lead is cumulative and so I think there are safety benefits in reducing the exposure to lead and the accumulation of lead in the body. Also, I don't know that parents are interested in having products that their children use, particularly infants and young children, that are mouthable being made of recycled materials, recycled materials that may contain a higher level of lead. Recycled plastic - do you want your child to have a recycled pacifier? Well, that is why Congress has set these strict limits."

[Full disclosure, we recently won a toy industry award for environmentally-friendly toys made of recycled plastic.  No one has objected to them to my knowledge, and believe me, they are wonderfully and thoroughly tested for compliance.]

And the support for Ms. T's bald assertion is . . . what?  Did she find something in the legislative record?  Is there some verbiage in the law?  I have not heard this previously from anyone at the CPSC but notably I have repeatedly noted that the CPSIA will be the death of recycled materials in children's products.  Still, Ms. T's logic is irresistible - she is there to figure these things out for us and certainly knows best.  After all, she loves children, probably much more than any of us. She cares.  What else do you need to know?  With her power to impose policy, her preferences will become our marketplace.  Brave New World, courtesy of the Nanny Staters.

Tenenbaum says you can ALWAYS file for an exemption!

Ms. T. reminded the audience at least four times that if they wanted to, they could ALWAYS file for an exemption if they can prove their product or material can't be made to the new standard subject to the non-economic technological feasibility test.  The door is always open . . . .

This promise seems to be in denial of reality.  Let's start with the fact that the CPSC staff studied this question for more than a year and concluded, as summarized in a 59-page tome, that EVERYTHING is technologically feasible.  That seems to put us all against the wall when it comes to exemption petitions.  And then there's the fact that for three years, nobody has been able to get an exemption for anything, regardless of how obvious the case, unthreatening the use or how well-funded the supplicant.

Notes Ms. Northup:  "I just think we should warn the public that it is unlikely that any petition would be accepted and that that is, first of all, for anybody to file it would be far more costly than to just pay for the materials and increase the cost of their products in all likelihood, not to mention the delay they would have in us in actually addressing their petition."

And Nancy Nord speculates that petitions for relief are highly unlikely in any event:  "I will just tell you, in my conversations with folks out there, there is a feeling that 'why bother?' There is a comment weariness, there is a sense that it isn't worth the candle, and so I guess if you're not a company that's either been put out of business or not making the product, you don't have the money to hire the lawyer to file the petition. So I think that's just an empty option for most people."

Who do you believe?  Hey, as Ms. T says, the door's always open even if it's the door to oblivion.


The outcome of the decision to implement the 100 ppm standard was foretold but let's not forget something important - this is a retroactive rule as implemented today.  Unless Congress acts, we are all in the soup.  Even worse than before.  Call your Congressman and don't stop until they take action.  Mr. Obama must sign something by August 14 or all hell breaks out . . . again.