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 - Treatment of Resale Shops and Garage Sales under CPSIA Amendment

A comment was posted recemtly here questioning whether ECADA (CPSIA amendment) truly liberates the resale industry from the CPSIA. In my opinion, it does. I have also conferred with the authors of ECADA for their intentions, and they confirm that resale shops are intended to be exempted under the new language.

The authors point to this language: "obtained by the seller, either directly or indirectly, from a person who obtained such children’s product for use and not for the purpose of resale". This language should give true resale activities, whether in a shop, in your garage, even on eBay, an exemption from all the requirements of CPSIA. What they didn't exempt is sales by liquidators. In other words, they did not intend to open a loophole in the protections (purported protections) offered to consumers under the CPSIA allowing mass liquidation of potentially violative products Otherwise, real resale activities are exempt. There are some limited exceptions in ECADA to the resale exemption notably.

Thanks for posting this question. I hope this helps clear up any infusion.

CPSIA - Analysis of Pending House CPSIA Amendment (Sections 1 and 2)

[This is a long essay - I apologize.  The subject is important.]

In anticipation of this week's hearing on the pending House CPSIA Amendment, I wanted to share my thoughts on the present draft.

But first, a little perspective:

The debate over the CPSIA amendment has propitious timing.  Fate has provided us with a new vantage point on lead mania.  In a sad parody of the junk science underlying the CPSIA, the EPA this week assured Americans that it's safe to feed mildly radioactive milk laced with bits of nuclear meltdown to infants.  What?!  In a March 30 press release (available on the EPA website), the EPA instructs us to keep it all in perspective:

"Results from a screening sample taken March 25 from Spokane, Wash. detected 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131, which is more than 5,000 times lower than the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly.  'Radiation is all around us in our daily lives, and these findings are a minuscule amount compared to what people experience every day. For example, a person would be exposed to low levels of radiation on a round trip cross country flight, watching television, and even from construction materials,' said Patricia Hansen, an FDA senior scientist."  [Emphasis added]

The CPSIA, on the other hand, is built around the idea that there is "no safe level for lead".  The CPSC has uniformly rejected exemption requests on the grounds that there is no proof that the products won't emit ANY lead - meaning one atom.  The CPSC staff has already acknowledged that there are no materials on Earth that can be relied upon to not emit a single atom of lead.  I would call that "limited" options.  Then again, perhaps space exploration will save us from this law . . . .

So the EPA blesses feeding milk infused with Japanese nuclear material to babies, but even a single atom of lead is intolerable to Congress and the CPSC.

Call me crazy, but they BOTH can't be right.  And it's obvious who knows what they're doing in this case - it's the EPA. 

It's time to drop the rhetoric and rebuild the CPSIA to provide appropriate protection WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED and strip everything else away.  Period.  The Emperor has no clothes.


Section 1  Definition of Children's Product:  This open-ended section attempts to lay the groundwork for trimming the coverage of the CPSIA.  Notice that the age limits are blank.  This probably reflects internal divisions among the Republicans on how to set age limits or how to position this law for passage in the Senate and then into law.

Notably, an age limit of seven years of age passed the Senate back in 2008.  That seems to be the default age that may get penciled in, simply because some people believe it may be easier to get that age limit through the Senate.  I believe this is an untested hypothesis, unfortunately.  The consumer groups are going to scream no matter what - they hate most of this amendment, and will make it tough on the lefties in the House and particularly in the Senate to support any rational trimming of these limits.  Even seven years of age may find more than token resistance in the Senate.  Of course, that does not mean we shouldn't push for the right age limits.

Were it up to me alone, I would probably pick a range defined as products SUITABLE FOR children five years of age or younger.  Five years of age pretty much defines the outside limit of age inappropriate behavioral risks for normal children.  Injury statistics and human factors analysis do not identify substantial risks above this age.  [It provides a safe "margin of error", if one is actually needed.]  I think the definition must eliminate the concept of manufacturer's "intent" because the state of mind of the maker has nothing to do with safety.  The intrinsic attributes of the product are what defines risk.  In addition, the fact that we must GUESS as to the state of mind of the manufacturer makes it an unworkable standard.  An objective standard based on traditional notions of human factor analysis would work best.

Even more fundamentally, I question whether it is really the job of Congress to set these age limits.  As we know, Congress has already made a big mess as the self-appointed substitute for the CPSC.  Age limits for safety standards should be based on scientific inquiry, human factors analysis, risk assessment, and so on.  It is presumptuous for anyone to conclude that Congress can do it better than the Ph.D.s at the CPSC.  Of course, in this politicized environment, in which trust in the agency has been bruised beyond recognition, I am somewhat sympathetic to Republicans who feel more secure setting the rules in concrete. If, however, we want to get out of CPSIA hell, we need to restore order in the safety universe.  The CPSC should be given responsibility for making these determinations on a MANDATED RISK ASSESSMENT BASIS.
I hate to go down the path of one sizes fits all age limits, myself.  Is there ANY reason to set age ranges that apply equally to toys, books, t-shirts, dirt bikes and ATVs, CDs and DVDs and educational products?  Of course not.  Who should make this determination?  The agency with the experience and the professional staff trained to make these judgments - the CPSC.

PLEASE NOTE - this is a critical part of this amendment. This section defines who is subject to this awful law and who is not.  Don't misunderstand which provisions are driving this ship - this provisions controls your legal liability, your exposure to regulatory oversight, penalties, enforcement, government intrustion generally.  Testing relief in this amendment MUST BE seen in the context of the limitations here.
With that thought in mind, I would remind my readers of the scarcity of evidence of lead injuries from children's products and of lead-in-substrate victims in general.  I believe the entire basis of this law is a scam (or at a minimum, a hideous misunderstanding of the data) and CHALLENGE the zealots to PROVE a need for the suffocating regulation of lead-in-substrate in these products in these industries.  If lead victims cannot be identified and their lead injuries explained, then there is no demonstrated need for the legislative hammer - no one will benefit (no one will be safer because they weren't in danger in the first place).  The consumer groups and left wingers have had three years to trot out the victims.  There are NONE.  Shame on them for spreading fear.  I say put up . . . or shut up.

Section 2  Application of Lead Limit: 

Subsection (a) is a classic "kick the can down the road" compromise in which the 100 ppm lead standard will be implemented by the CPSC in four years, not three, pushing the prospective date of implementation out to August 2012.  Not good enough, guys!  The structure of this part of the law, requiring that the CPSC implement the new standard or a standard between 100 ppm and 300 ppm based on "technological feasibility" is a direct INSTRUCTION by Congress to the CPSC to reduce the standard.  The CPSC arguably has no choice in the matter.  [Now you know who to blame.]

You can see this issue discussed in gory detail in this snippet from my testimony on the 100 ppm in front of the CPSC Commission on February 16th.  Commissioner Bob Adler asks me if I want him to BREAK THE LAW by not implementing the new standard.  BREAK THE LAW, BOB! 



This is no way to regulate, no way to govern a country!  ALL references to the 100 ppm standard should be DROPPED from the law.  As noted above, and in countless blogposts here, there are no identified lead victims from children's products - so how is lowering the lead standard at enormous cost and economic risk of benefit to ANYONE?  The 112th Congress can do better than repeat the errors of the 110th Congress. 

Should there be a need for a lower standard based on real risk, the agency has sufficient regulatory authority under the CPSA and FHSA to lower standards to protect children in a rulemaking process.  Congress does not need to meddle further in this area.

Subsection (b) introduces a new and uncorrelated "standard" for risk under the CPSA:  "presents an unreasonable risk to children’s health".  This is bad draftsmanship.  There is a standard already in use in the CPSA and the FHSA, namely "substantial product hazard".  The amendment should MANDATE that this term ALONE should be the standard for all action by the agency. 

Subsection (c) makes the application of the lead standards prospective.  [In Section 6, the amendment makes the same change for phthalates.]  This is mainly intended to head off market disruption and distrust over the new 100 ppm standard.  Of course, in my formulation, this is unnecessary if the 100 ppm standard goes away.  I would point out that the entire idea of this kind of downward ratcheting of standards implies that what was safe yesterday is no longer safe today, which is crazy.

Subsection (d) relates to a revised exemption process.  The "any lead" standard would go away, in faver of some limited exceptions.  Ironically, this provision expands the application of the small parts rules to products for older children like youth model ATVs.  This seems like a big error to me (and a bad structure for the law).  If it's foreseeable that a cap on an ATV spark plug could come off and go through a small parts cylinder, it loses its eligibility for the exception.  Hmmm.  This may require some further thought . . . .

There would no longer be an exemption process under the CPSIA.  So if you are in, you are "in" and can't get out no matter what.  The drafters seem to have settled on small parts as the way lead poisoning is "transmitted" or may be transmitted.  I am not sure how this was determined, since there are no victim case histories to examine.  The presumption is that mouthing is how poisoning occurs, but then again, how many poisoning victims (from children's productrs, not from lead-in-paint) can be found?  Zero?  If we have never seen a victim, how can we be so sure there is ANY mechanism for this dreaded outcome?  Is chewing on ATVs, dirt bikes, the ink end of a pen, rocks, and so on, really such a big health risk that we must fight for years over it? 

Hmmm.

The subsection also artciulates a new (presumably relaxed) standard for steel, copper and aluminum alloys.  The new standard is still blank.  I sure hope the definition of "steel, copper, and aluminum alloys" is crystal clear and I likewise hope that this covers the waterfront for metal used in all current products and future materials used in similar circumstances.  I guess we'll find out in time . . . .  It appears to me to be simply a better formulation of the originally defective legislative concept.  But still defective.  Remember, no victims . . . . 

The drafters have introduced doubt about what's in and what's out.  Is a grommet in or out?  Says the new provision:  you lose the exemption if "after any necessary assembly of the product and after the product has been subjected to reasonably foreseeable conditions of use and abuse, the part or any portion of the part becomes detached from the product and such part or portion of the part fits entirely within such cylinder."  How are you supposed to figure this out with confidence?  Your guess is as good as mine.  This kind of rule does NOT work in the real world.  Sorry. . . .

By the way, this provision seems to snag items incorporating metal balls.  While you may or may not like those products, this provision probably will give them no relief whatsoever.

I am even more hostile to their so-called "de minimus" exception.  "De minimus" ingestion of lead is okay under this rule (whatever that is - can't wait for the three year fight over "Congressional intent") BUT only if it does not fit into a small parts cylinder (same as the metals formulation).  This is patently ridiculous and will give no relief to anyone.  Why are the Republicans playing games here?  There is no safe level for over-compromised legislation . . . .

This is the mechanism that the House is providing to "save" rhinestones, btw.  To get rhinestones into the market, you will need a methodology to calculate the amount of lead a rhinestone emits and document it.  You are a "merchant of death", so you must keep records of how much of this "lethal" substance you subject children to.  Excessive regulation, perhaps???  As I have said, compromise is not always the way to build good legislation. The Republicans need to steel themselves to fix this law once and for all. 

The concept of the "de minimus" exception may be off-base.  It is worth noting that blood lead levels are CONCENTRATIONS (mass divided by volume).  In other words, different levels of lead ingestion will be required for a baby and a big child to develop the same blood lead levels.  The persistence of high blood lead levels also has a big impact on the likelihood of injury, so wouldn't daily lead ingestion rates be a better measure of the likelihood injury?  The "de minimus" standard seems to miss the point entirely.  I get the impression that this amendment was drafted entirely in the context of the (defective) CPSIA and thus carries froward some of its basic flaws and misconceptions.  Square pegs are not good fits for round holes. It may not be possible to "fix" the CPSIA by layering more and more rules on top of the underlying law.  Some things may be best left unregulated with a reliance on the substantial product hazard standard.

Perhaps John Dingell was onto something with the original conception of the CPSA in 1972.

Needless to say, this hyper-technical "de minimus" provision will not work for small business. None of us know how to make a "de minimus" assessment and besides, the requirement to document our methods is just an invitation for tort lawsuits.  If we will be made to create evidence to be used against us, I would rather be in another business. The crafters, the small toy merchants, the t-shirt vendors, the book printers, will also howl over the need to engage in silly and pointless technical evaluations of nonexistent risks by calculating the amount of lead ingested from use of their products.  This is just waste, waste, waste. Again, we should not compromise ourselves to hell in this amendment.  If Congress is going to try fix the damn thing, then fix it right.

As noted above, the substantial product hazard /standard is sufficient to empower the CPSC to do everything it needs to do. The legislative structure is in place and tested over decades.  Why not tell the CPSC to do its job, and stop telling us how to run our businesses? 

Finally, subsection (d)(2) entirely excludes used products from the CPSIA other than children's metal jewelry and products actually known by the sellers to violate the lead standards.  This relief is long overdue - I appreciate that the committee is prepared to do the right thing for this group of CPSIA victims.

Of course, this may beg the question.  If Congress is able to dispense mercy on used products, what about all the other absurd victms like bicycles, rhinestones, ATVs and dirt bikes, books, rhinestones, pens, educational products, CDs and DVDs and so on?  Why stop at used products?  Why even START at used products?  Of course, they deserve help but do they deserve it anymore than the rest of us?  They are senseless victims of this law, of course - but stand in line!  So why not keep the carving knife out and free some more corporate "unintended" victims?  I think the problem here is political, not policy.

Ugh.

CPSIA - Congress and CPSC in the Clouds . . . .

I have heard from an old friend today, a resale shop owner. The store owner is as frustrated as anyone by the CPSIA and has some interesting observations. The store owner's point is that it is utterly impractical for store personnel to be up-to-date on recalls or to manage recall issues on a day-to-day basis. Think recalled baby monitors with "remedies" like a new warning label. Think also of the national chain of resale shops that told us that many of their MANAGERS are paid $8 per hour. Can you get a sense of the brilliance of Congress' master plan yet?

The store owner sent me a picture worth a thousand words:

The store owner: "The photo I've attached is of my six-inch binder of printouts for every recall on children's items since the early 90's. The papers on the floor are the new recalls since September 2010. I printed those last week, so I need to go back and print the newer ones. I take this binder to all my events and strive to search it thoroughly to keep recalled items out of our events. I'm going shopping today to pick up a second six-inch binder as I'm obviously going to need it." [Emphasis added]

Sounds very practical. I am sure Scott Wolfson and Sean Oberle have some useful tips for this store owner on how to manage all this data. It is worth NOTING that rifling through 20 years of CPSC recalls is not the store owner's main business - their business is selling gently-used merchandise - but it probably seems like it nowadays.

The store owner is also a victim of unscrupulous "gaming" by a competitor who seeks to capitalize on fear and the ambitions of local politicians to put pressure on him/her. The store owner: "I'm no longer comfortable posting publicly about CPSIA since a local children's resale full-time store owner has told several of her shoppers that she's planning to call the [local] Attorney General to come investigate my next seasonal consignment event to be sure I'm in compliance with CPSIA. Since I don't have XRF vision, there is no way to prove I'm in compliance with the instructions to not resell anything over the lead limits, despite the fact that I'm not required to test. I still don't have a clue what do to about phthalates, but I've banned all bath books, bath toys, & teething toys from our events anyway." [Emphasis added]

There's a stimulus plan for you. . . .

Did you catch the store owner referring to any topic relating to safety, such as injuries or concern for the health of children? Nope. It isn't the concern of the competing store owner or the local Attorney General, either. This is about officious bureaucracy, paperwork for paperwork's sake, all to satisfy a neurotic anxiety without a basis in FACT.

I used to ask "Where are the victims?" The zealots in the last three years have been able to produce exactly ZERO injured children from lead or phthalates in children's products. So I guess I have to nominate my friend the store owner - a prototypical victim of this law.

Job well done, Congress and CPSC!

CPSIA - Watch Out, Resale Shops! The CPSC is Watching . . . .

An alert reader pointed out today that the 1.7 million "recalled" baby monitors (the ones that need a new sticker) can't be sold at resale shops anymore. After all, they have been recalled so they are verboten now. Presumably they can only be sold accompanied by their anti-recall kit of the fancy new label restating the obvious, new instructions telling parents to come inside during rain storms and the clips (gotta have them clips!). As a practical matter, this will be impossible for resale shops to manage, so I hope resale shops everywhere are pulling these baby monitors to keep America safe.

In fact, the "hazard" that these devices present is common among all baby monitors so I certainly hope those shops stop selling all that merchandise immediately. Alert! Alert! No more baby monitors! And the hazard is found in everything with a cord that might be used near a crib - so you better stop selling humidifiers, lights, radios and the like. As the G-Men used to say, "Stop or I'll shoot!"

Don't forget, the CPSC has the U.S. Attorney ready and willing to put you out of business to protect . . . the . . . children. What would we do without those guys to keep us so darned safe?

And there will be penalties a-plenty, too, count on it. Jail time for selling a baby monitor? Well, we'll have to see about that.

If you live the clean life and stop selling anything remotely connected to children, these issues won't be a problem for you. Something to think about . . . .

I meant for the stores. Certainly not for Congress.

CPSIA - A Quick and Incomplete Analysis of New Draft Waxman Amendment 2.0

With only a few hours to look over the new draft of the Waxman Amendment 2.0 before tomorrow's meeting, I guess the idea is that we are supposed to drop what we are doing to complete an analysis fire drill. Power trip for the Waxman staffers? Possibly. Still, what choice do we have? I thought I would outline my preliminary comments to contribute to the debate.

It goes without saying that this is entirely my own work without the benefit of discussing it with others similarly situated and without the opportunity to compare notes. It is therefore likely that I have missed something important or made other mistakes. Sorry . . . . This post is also painfully long. Again, given that Mr. Waxman hardly cares about your problems or mine, I have little choice but to post this as one essay. Again, sorry . . . .

a. Modifications to Section 101(b)(2) Exemption Process:

• The idiotic post-exemption warnings provision has been deleted.
• The three-pronged exemption test remains in place, as does the ambiguous and troubling term "practicable". "Practicable" is a sneaky Waxman approach to providing an escape hatch for big industries with narrow product definitions like ATVs and books. You're not supposed to know this. Our laws aren't for the little people anymore.
• The third prong of the exemption test has been clarified from no effect on "public health or safety" to no effect on "the user’s health or safety, taking into account normal and foreseeable use and abuse by all foreseeable users." This change seems like new belts and suspenders to make it easy to deny an exemption. The Dem zealots want to be sure no one gets an exemption but ATVs and books, wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
• Poor applicants for exemptions are still obliged to wait hungrily by the door of the CPSC for the leavings of rich supplicants. Yes, small business owners who want exemptions like the big guys but can't afford to pay the big bucks can reuse the big guys' consultant's reports provided the evidence is considered non-proprietary. [Whatever that might be.] Nice . . . if someone else has already paid for it and submitted it in an exemption process, and if you have access to it (and have found it), you can use it. Noblesse oblige, I guess. Thank You, Kind Sir. I speak for all the little people . . . . Oddly, this concept reappears in a confusing provision called "Previously Denied Petitions" that only refers to previously denied petitions in its title (I don't get it).
• In another "how closely are you watching me?" change, the grounds for decision provision now permits the Commission to consider "only" evidence presented by "interested parties", rather than the evidence presented by the party seeking such exceptions. So if you ever get as far as an exemption hearing, this provision turns it into a town meeting. How would you like it if anyone could enter and participate in your litigation without your consent . . . like your competitors or your business enemies? I have a good idea - why not just write into the law that Rachel Weintraub will be considered a party in interest to every action at the CPSC?
• The Narrowest Scope provision has been modified to clarify that you must not only address each component but also each material. The paranoia you sense in this legislation is just the precautionary principle at work. The staffer-gnomes who have been crafting this legislation are not thinking about how our markets work or should work - they are simply obsessing over how we business people might find loopholes. Of course, it is in the nature of business people to try to avoid laws, we are all so evil. Oh yeah, I forgot . . . .
• The Limitation of Exception provision now is framed in terms of "all foreseeable users" which I can only assume is meant to make the burden of proof higher for supplicants. After all, if you can foresee a so-and-so using the product (I won't supply the colorful example), then the Commission must limit the exception. No possibility of risk can be tolerated by the precautionary principle folks.

As the provision for exclusions has not changed much, here is my analysis of the original language for your reference.

b. Treatment of Resale Shops by the Waxman Amendment:

• The provision defining a "used children's product" seems to now mean (a) an actual used children's product, and (b) new goods donated for a charitable purpose. This would seem to protect resale shops from liability for sale of items violating the lead provisions (but not the phthalates ban, notably) unless the seller or the person who supplied it to the seller knew it was in violation of the lead provisions. If that seems somewhat circular, it is. In this case, the law as drafted encourages resale shops to remain as ignorant as possible. This is Waxman's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Nice.
• There has been no clarification about the application of this provision to consignment shops. Do they "obtain" goods for resale if they never take title? Something fun to speculate about!
• In a little-noticed provision, the definition of "seller" includes lenders or donators of used children's products. Thus, for lending libraries, they will be in the clear if they lend used goods, but will be on the hook if they lend new product. Does it become "used" after one loan, and if so, what does this mean? The legal department in your local children's library will figure this out. Sure. As to people who donate, the provision is circular again. As best I can figure out, you are not subject to the lead rules (only) if you are donating something used for charitable purposes, but if you give away something new, you are on the hook. At least, that's how I read it. So the bottom line is - don't give anything new to a charity, just give them junk. This is what Mr. Waxman wants. And that means this is what Congress wants.

While these changes may be an improvement, they are sadly improvements without much impact. This provision remains convoluted and hard to understand. The definition has numerous exceptions and also avoids giving the same shelter to resale shops for all the other picayune provisions of the law, like the phthalates ban. Frankly, without a clean exemption for this industry, resale stores are all going to avoid this class of goods. The complexity alone will kill this exemption except for the most sophisticated participants in an industry not known for its legal skills or resources. These stores won't hire lawyers to check their work. They can't afford it.

This is my original criticism of this provision, which is still applicable.

c. Prospective Application of 100 ppm Lead Limits - this provision was not changed in the new draft.

d. Low Volume Manufacturer "Exceptions":

• Thank heavens, they changed the term of art for these small fry to Small Batch Manufacturers. This was done at the insistence of the HTA. What a victory! Someone please explain this to me.
• The "In General" provision is basically unchanged, other than the fancy new name for the supposed beneficiaries of this largess. Notably, the last sentence was clarified to make sure no one could contend that Waxman inadvertently gave the Commission the power to grant "alternative testing methodologies" for ANYONE but the small batch guys. There's so much trust and love flowing here . . . .
• The truly non-existent "relief" of this provision remains EXACTLY the same. Here it is, bask in its wonderfulness: "The Commission . . . may, by regulation, provide alternative testing requirements for covered products manufactured by small batch manufacturers in lieu of those required under subsection (a) or (b). Any such alternative requirements shall provide for reasonable testing methodologies to assure certification based on compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards." [Emphasis added] Standing ovation? These lucky micro-businesses must meet alternative TESTING methodologies that ASSURE compliance with the standards. In other words, they gotta test. They even added a "savings clause" to forbid any relief here (such as it is) if any foreseeable user might be foreseeably at risk. Some relief.

Notably, the reach of this section has now been limited to "covered products". This new term, which incorporates a three-prong test (this is the second three-pronger of this amendment so far, but not the last). [See below.] Please NOTE that this new term means that the ONLY relief the CPSC can grant is to these small fry products. A product that exceeds the limits of a "covered product" will NOT enjoy any theoretical testing relief, even if made by a business qualifying for relief overall. Should you care? Well, in my view, if you have to endure the burden of full compliance with one product, you have to build the full infrastructure and bear the related liabilities. Thus, these micro-businesses supposedly being saved here are actually at substantial risk of suffocation if even ONE product sells well. Too bad for them.

The absurd and utterly inappropriate definition of a "low volume manufacturer" has been completely jumbled and incorporates the new concept of "covered products", too. Let me try to sort out this for you.

- As noted above, only "covered product" enjoy any potential relief under this section. The "covered products" test is a three-prong test: (i) manufactured not more than 5,000 "units" of the product in the prior fiscal year, (ii) had not more than $30,000 in sales of the product in the prior fiscal year, AND (iii) had no more than $500,000 in total sales in the prior fiscal year. [Do you feel vines growing over your brain yet?] Dollars are indexed for inflation. Notably, the definition ONLY applies to the manufacture of these items, NOT importation. Too bad, importers. GOTCHA!

The implication of this definition is that if you grow to over $500,000 in total sales, all exemptions applicable to any of your low volume items goes up in smoke instantly. That last dollar is gonna HURT. You also cannot get relief for any individual product if your sales of THAT item are greater than 5,000 "units" per year or $30,000 in sales. Here's another compliance tip: don't grow your business! Too hard? Don't worry, the other policies of this government should help you meet this goal . . . .

- The definition of a "small batch manufacturer" defines who should be treated with special charity by the CPSC under this marvelous section of the amendment. It's not going be a long list. Who wants to see another three-prong test?! Okay, break out your calculator so you can figure out if they are referring to you: (a) AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS of "the manufacturer's products" (I love that term) meets this two-part test: (i) the manufacturer manufactured or imported not more than 5,000 units of the product in the prior CALENDAR year, AND (ii) the manufacturer had not more than $30,000 in sales of the product in the prior CALENDAR year, AND (b) the manufacturer had not more than $500,000 in sales in the prior CALENDAR year.

This is getting fun! Okay, first we need to decide - is it a two-prong test with one prong having two sub-prongs, or is it a three-prong test? This is a rather metaphysical question . . . but I say it's our third three-prong test of this short amendment. [Imagine how many three-prong tests are in the health care bill.] I welcome your insights on this question.

There are some interesting quirks in the Small Batch Manufacturer definition. First, this provision applies to imported products, but the "covered products" definition does not. Gotcha! What does this mean? Who knows. The head spins . . . . Even better, the definition of "Small Batch Manufacturer" is based on calendar year calculations and the definition of "covered products" is based on fiscal year calculations. Love it. I learn so much from Mr. Congress. Apparently, Congress wants it to work this way because there must be some sort of dangerous loophole for people who have fiscal years which are not the calendar year. Mr. Waxman is onto your game, you desperadoes! There's no escape!

At least the Waxmanis kept it simple. Good job, guys, it's artful!

Btw, they added a little provision to make sure that the Commission investigates the structure of your business' "affiliations". Clearly, the Commission needs to make SURE they correctly tote up your revenues for this ornate determination. [Little known fact: the CPSC uses clacker balls for this work.] The reach of the Obamist/Waxman government into your private affairs, in ways completely and utterly unrelated to public interest or safety, apparently knows no bounds. Get your files ready, little businesses - the CPSC wants to take a peek. Perhaps check out your tax returns and . . . oops, it appears you took a few deductions that you weren't entitled to. We can just let our sister agency know, you don't have to do ANYTHING, we're just here to help.

Small business people, you should be flipping mad over this pathetic attempt to "help" you. My original criticism of this provision is still largely applicable.

e. Phthalates Ban Exception for Internal Components: This is largely intact from the prior draft although they did add a provision modifying the Commission's right to adopt the definition of an internal component from the lead accessibility standard. The Commission must now, "as appropriate", consider whether the component can be placed in the mouth. We are talking about internal components here.

I wish I had a laugh track for my blog . . . .

f. Removal of CPSA Section 6(b) Due Process Rights of Manufacturers: has been eliminated from the draft.

g. Voluntary Recall Standards to be Matched to Mandatory Recalls: has been eliminated from this draft.

h. Imminent Hazard Panic Attacks by the Commission: has been eliminated from this draft.

i. Subpoena Power for Underlings at the CPSC: This provision was trimmed back partially to apply only to physical and documentary evidence. This modest restructuring of this new right does not in any way address the issues I have pointed out in the past (here and here). This new subpoena power is not essential to the operation of the CPSC, regardless of their assertions, and represents a significant degradation of procedural protections that encourage business people to invest. When all trust is destroyed among the regulated community and its safety regulator, who will want to invest? Hello, Congress?

CONCLUSIONS:

The Waxman Amendment has been improved mainly by deletions of several truly awful and duplicitous provisions. Many defective provisions in the original draft survived the revisions. What's left provides little substantive relief to the unwashed masses, but promises some sub rosa relief to the book industry and ATV'rs without giving the appearance of favoritism. There is little to cheer here for resale shops, small businesses (even micro-businesses, hello HTA, are you there?), education companies, apparel companies, you-name-it.

And many important issues are left completely unaddressed. I have previously provided my most discrete list of CRITICAL missing elements that must be part of any meaningful amendment of the CPSIA:

• Risk Assessment by the CPSC and/or the Commission.
• Changes in age limits for the lead standards and phthalates ban.
• Narrowing of the scope of "Children's Product" to eliminate many categories of products unthinkingly pulled into this law by its overly broad language.
• True reform to protect small businesses.
• Tracking labels relief.

My full list of needed changes is found here.

More fun to follow tomorrow, I am sure.

CPSIA - More Data on Devastation of Resale Industry

Can any sensible person continue to deny the pain inflicted on resale and consignment shops by the CPSIA? The issues have been well-documented for almost two years now. Not only were these small businesses needlessly harmed by this law and forced out of the children's market, but the neediest American families dependent on these outlets were left in the lurch, too. Congressional Democrats left them there with the justification that it was for their own good. Spoken like someone with warm clothing on.

NorthJersey.com published an interesting piece on the plight of these retail outlets yesterday entitled "Some Thrift Shops Hurt by Lead-free Law". It starts out:

"Janis Nelson, owner of Growing Kids consignment shop in Riverdale, points to a heavy book of lead-paint recalls as explanation for the store's decision to stop selling second-hand children's toys . . . . she could not risk a $25,000 fine, which is possible under the law if a single toy with lead were to slip past the heavy book of recalls."

And the shops aren't the only losers. The article continues:

"Besides hurting the stores financially, [store owner Lorraine] DeHart said that the law can also hurt consumers, who may be turning to thrift shops because they cannot afford department store prices. 'People can't afford to buy it new,' she said. They might turn to garage sales, she said, where there tends to be less scrutiny over products sold. Yet even garage sales are not exempt from the new law. 'If you're going to have a garage sale, be careful what gets sold because if someone gets hurt they can sue you,' said Kathleen Reilly, public affairs specialist for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission." [Emphasis added]

What a calming effect the CPSC has on this market! I can't wait to see what the CPSC's Small Business Ombudsman does to earn his wages. Perhaps he will roam the land assuring small businesses that by complying with the thousands of pages of rules under the CPSIA, they can avoid getting sued, fined or jailed.

Crazy? Remember the words of Inez Tenenbaum: "'CPSC’s new authority to seek higher civil penalties does not mean we will ignore serious violations by small businesses,' said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. 'We will continue to take enforcement action against any business, large or small, that violates the Commission’s product safety laws and regulations.'"

And the market reality for the resale industry today? Ask the National Association of Resale & Thrift Stores: "NARTS members have reported significant increases in both sales and incoming inventory, according to NARTS, but those that sold children's products did not fare as well with 44.2 percent experiencing a decrease in sales due to the challenges of complying with the consumer act of 2008."

It's time for Congress to stop sucking its thumb and do something for the neediest members of our society. Of course, some modest risk will be required to fix the mess they made in 2008. Resale shops deserve a bright line rule to encourage them back into the business of selling used children's products. The law's focus should be on recalled items only. The rest of the used children's product category should be saleable without risk of liability unless the store has actual knowledge of a hazard. The strictures of the CPSIA will slowly and effectively clear out old inventory over time.

The resale industry has NO HISTORY of selling dangerous products or harming children. The "risk" of restoring the market sanity that prevailed before the lead mania of 2007/8 is trivial but the harm inflicted by the CPSIA fix is real and profound.

It's time to 'fess up and fix the law, guys!

CSPIA - Treatment of Resale Goods under the Waxman Amendment

The new Waxman Amendment provides an arcane and inadequate resolution of the longstanding complaints about the treatment of resale shops and resale goods under the CPSIA. The amendment adds a new provision, Section 101(b)(3), to address the resale issues.

This short provision has a lot going on:

a. It only applies to lead restrictions. The exceptions for resale goods do NOT apply to the phthalates ban. This means that used toys are unlikely to reappear in resale shops. It also means that anything possibly affected by the phthalates ban, including certain clothing and childcare articles, will be dangerous to sell in resale shops.

The legal niceties are of little import here - these low revenue stores won't go near trouble. Will they know what's okay to sell and what's not? Probably not. Of course, the CPSC could always put out a new guidance brochure for them - something to look forward to!

Arguably, the inability of the Dems to give a clean waiver to the resale industry means that the resale exemption grants little relief in practical effect. That's my belief, at least. If resale shops do not feel comfortable that the responsible administration of their businesses will keep them out of harm's way (including being free of the possibility of bad publicity), they are likely to stay out of the market for children's goods entirely. Resale stores don't have legal departments . . . . [Who knew?!]

b. The definition of a "used children's product" is quite interesting:

"The term ‘used children’s product’ means a children’s product that was obtained by the seller for use and not for the purpose of resale or was obtained by the seller from a person who obtained such children’s product for use and not for the purpose of resale."

This obtuse language is intended to forbid the bulk resale of merchandise by inventory liquidators while permitting charity or consignment sales of children's product. "For profit" resale shops will also be snagged on this language.

The origins of this language is presumably Commissioner Bob Adler's odd Solomonic recommendation that charity shops be allowed to sell used clothing but not "for profit" resale shops.

The new definition is confusing because of the peculiar word "obtain". There is no question that under this provision, you cannot "obtain" children's products for the purpose of resale. Does this restriction apply to donated goods? Probably not because the legislators presumably believe you don't "obtain" a donation for a particular purpose. Of course, that's a fiction - do you think the Salvation Army accepts donations of children's products with no purpose in mind? Could this language be a backhanded way to approve the distribution of donated goods for free but not for a nominal price? Possibly.

Would this limitation apply to consignment sellers who never take title - do they actually "obtain" the goods? Consignment sales may be okay but no doubt some factual inquiry will be required, a nice case-by-case analytical process to keep the CPSC busy! Ebay resellers and "for profit" resale shops are almost certainly not given relief by this language. The Resale Roundup is not in danger . . . .

The asserted distinction between a reseller of donated goods (a so-called charity shop), a consignment store and a "for profit" resale shop is flimsy and patronizing, in my view, reflecting a patrician view of society and the needs of the "lower class". As I have explained in the past, the issue should be about safety, not compassion for the impoverished. Is it morally permissible to give dangerous products to children because they are poor? Please, don't insult my intelligence. If the goods are safe, sell them - and if they're not, throw them away. It has nothing to do with "needy" kids. This is yet another case of Dem legislators being unwilling to take a reasonable stand on what is and what is NOT safe. They are apparently willing to sacrifice the resale industry to their lack of courage.

c. As if the foregoing didn't prove that the bill's authors live in La La Land, the definition of "used children's product" has several exceptions, namely children's metal jewelry, painted children's toys, children's products comprised "primarily" of vinyl and any other children's product later identified for this list by the Commission. I guess the charity shops are supposed to keep their eyes peeled.

So apparently the idea is that resale shops can get back into the children's product business except . . . except . . . except . . . . The simple relief these shops need has been denied in favor of new uber complexity. To the intended beneficiaries of this "relief", complexity alone will make the law unintelligible or at least unmanageable. Despite the "good intentions", the effect of the relief will be moot - in other words, nada.

You should be OUTRAGED about this situation. The very FACT that this Dem-controlled Congress has been sucking its thumb over this issue for TWO YEARS, through two cold and snowy winters, is a national embarrassment. Frankly, it more shameful than that. When the Dems finally worked themselves into action, this is the best they could do?

The persistent inability of the Dem Congress to act sensibly on this issue is both demoralizing and illuminating. This situation is the Dems' handiwork and yet, the disruption of this market affects the neediest Americans, and among them, the youngest and most vulnerable. Quite a departure from Democratic Party traditions. Not only is access to kids' warm winter clothing impacted, but so many other important products are embargoed, from baby items to educational products to whathaveyou. And even though the needed goods are plentiful, the CPSIA made it prohibitive to offer them for sale at a low price. Too bad, Poor People!

The poor don't deserve to live in the anti-economy just because the Dems have a phobia. The fact that the Dems can't apparently empathize with people who really need their support is so shocking.

I hope you won't support this bill regardless of its impact on you unless it gives real relief to those in need. If we are really a community, we must DEMAND true relief for the resale market. It's time to take a stand against a stubborn, morally-numb, self-justifying Dem Congress.

CPSIA - The New Waxman Amendment Analyzed

On Friday, House Democrats began to circulate a discussion draft of a new amendment to the CPSIA. This draft follows the abortive effort by Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slip a CPSIA amendment to his own liking into omnibus legislation last December. [That effort was disclosed and discussed in this space from December 11-16, 2009.] The crash-and-burn of the first Waxman amendment created a new dynamic in CPSIA negotiations as it was the first (tacit) public acknowledgement by Waxman that the law was flawed AND that the CPSC could not fix it by itself. The failure of the secret amendment effort also showed that Mr. Waxman isn't invincible. So, a step in the right direction.

Recently, in the wake of the January 15th recommendations of the CPSC Commission, the Dems reignited the simmering discussion of CPSIA changes by engaging various stakeholders on how the first Waxman amendment could be improved. This process was constrained by the Dems' insistence that comments be in the form of changes to the first Waxman amendment, thereby eliminating anything too "blue sky". Consistent with the recent (and short-lived) post-Massachusetts Dem preference for bipartisan "cooperation", the Dems actually asked House Republicans what they thought. Let's just say the Republicans see some basic flaws in the law. . . . Anyhow, the Republicans having provided their feedback, largely rebuffed, this draft emerged.

The procedural process forward is unclear. The standard (and appropriate) process would be a hearing followed by a "mark-up". The Senate also has something to say on this legislation (their position is not clear although Senate Dems more readily acknowledge the need to fix the law). It remains to be seen whether Waxman will allow a real hearing on the CPSIA to take place. Dissenting views are not well-tolerated in this era of Congress. Anyhow, the Dems are asking stakeholders to send comments by this Friday.

I intend to discuss this proposed legislation in several essays. In this essay, I would like to discuss global issues. I will return to discuss the specifics of the law, notably the treatment of Section 101(b), in later posts.

A few thoughts, generally:

a. The amendment dodges most of the serious issues in the law. My list of changes is comprehensive, and the draft legislation avoids most of it. This amendment makes no effort to respond broadly to the well-documented flaws in the law. No one can argue anymore that the CPSC can fix these problems. The legislation reads (to me) like the position of someone almost completely in denial.

Let's face FACTS - the CPSIA was passed on August 14, 2008. It is now March 14, 2010. That's a long time. The CPSC has blown countless deadlines, and has failed to resolve MANY critical issues so far, like the phthalates test standard, the 15 month rule and so on. They are working around the clock. This thing is not going to fix itself, and the agency's future is literally at stake.

The Dems refusal to face up to these issues is a betrayal of you, your customers and your marketplace.

b. You might ask - WHY are the Dems avoiding all of these serious issues? Are they deaf?

I think the answer is that they are hardly deaf but have little interest in opposing viewpoints. The CPSIA is their legacy and as such, no amendment will be blessed by them if it admits a defect in their original thinking or their asserted Perfect Legislative Process. An "acceptable" amendment must therefore pay homage to the original law and its structure. By working within the law's original structure, the Dems ensure that the basic defects will survive amendment - and the consequences to your business, your market and to the regulators themselves will remain devastating.

[The Dems' "legacy" also survives if they can delay change long enough to make it impractical or impossible to unwind all rules and regulations implementing the misguided CPSIA. After all, we business people have no choice but to upend our businesses to follow these rules, and would incur more damaging expense to change our processes a second time. There seems little doubt that the forces behind the CPSIA want the law's infrastructure to be impossible to untangle by future Congresses or CPSC Commissions.]

The Dems' homage to the original law is evident in several places. For instance, the concept of a "low volume manufacturer" is designed to provide a very (VERY) limited opportunity to craft an exception to the original testing requirements. Even so, the language clearly states that exceptions benefiting the LVMs must still "assure certification based on compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards." [Emphasis added.] In other words, no exception will be given to the little guys from the law's basic premise that manufacturers must prove compliance before sale. [More on LVMs later.]

The proposed rules on the so-called "functional purpose" exception also kowtows to the law's concept that everyone must ask for permission to be excused from lead requirements. In other words, the Dems reject the notion that the law can be narrowed rationally and appropriately without a burdensome bureaucratic process. Even action by the agency on its own initiative will be a major ordeal. The Dems know (because they have been told) that the exception process is effectively a closed door for all but the most well-capitalized companies. You may interpret the legislative language as the Dems' response to this small business issue.

Another good example of the Dems' sticking with the original law's structure is the use of the word "practicable" in the Section 101(b) changes. This change is the doorway for the ATV'rs and book publishers to argue for exceptions to the lead-in-substrate standards. I am told that this word was chosen because of a Supreme Court decision (that I have not read) holding that "practicable" incorporates concepts of economics. Ah, I see. In other words, this language is a way to make the law look just like the original one, but still provide a faint hope for business people that they can somehow wriggle out of ridiculous lead-in-substrate restrictions. It's obscure, to say the least, but leaves the original legislative structure in place - the Dems' principal goal.

c. The new amendment ADDS more complexity to an already blindingly complex law. I have written about complexity numerous times, and recently posted a video explaining the frustrating challenge of trying to understand this law fully. Complexity in this case does not reflect the difficulty in creating a safe market for children's products. Actually, that issue is long-resolved. The complexity stems entirely from a defective legal structure and its consequences. If the Dems insist on keeping the original CPSIA structure in place, you must get used to complexity spawning more complexity in your business life. It will only get worse.

This is what Big Government looks like. Hope you like it.

d. CRITICAL ISSUES are absent and unaddressed in this legislation. Examples:

• Risk Assessment by the CPSC and/or the Commission.
• Changes in age limits for the lead standards and phthalates ban.
• Narrowing of the scope of "Children's Product" to eliminate many categories of products unthinkingly pulled into this law by its overly broad language.
• True reform to protect small businesses.
• Tracking labels relief.

And so on. As noted above, to take these steps would mean acknowledging that the original law was grossly defective. The Dems would rather eat lead-free glass than admit their career achievement was fundamentally defective. Ironically, the Republicans have no such reluctance, despite voting for the original law. The sad prospect is that unless the Dems have a change of outlook (soon), real reform may need to wait for a change in gavel (bye, bye, Mr. Waxman).

Hence my excitement over the prospect of voting in November.

More to follow.

CPSIA - In Defense of Lead

Perhaps you have been expecting it. After all the "heat" in this blog over the past year, finally, my defense of lead. Hope you're happy now. . . .

Last Friday, Commissioner Bob Adler posted his long-awaited position paper on lead and related CPSIA issues. Weighing in at 21 pages and 89 footnotes, Mr. Adler's paper includes a thorough recitation of facts as well as his recommendations about the law. Among other things, he recommends making the lead exemption process more flexible and allowing clothing to be sold through charity resale shops. He also left the door open to changes that would ease the economic burden of the CPSIA on small businesses and low-income consumers. I agree with all of these changes - but I also think many other and more extensive changes are needed, too. I do not agree with the basis of Mr. Adler's reasoning, however, and that makes all the difference.

Mr. Adler devotes about half of his statement to a detailed analysis of lead safety, reciting many facts that are not in dispute. Unfortunately, he then leaps to familiar conclusions that we have seen in recent Commission meetings and which are also found in many of his written statements. He does signal some extremely limited flexibility on lead, more or less hewing to the line put forth by Central Casting.

Ironically, Mr. Adler's statement sometimes leaves you wondering where he stands, since he seems so sympathetic to both sides. It is frustrating to not have a clear picture of how he really sees the world. I fail to find persuasive his argument that the lead rules are good for us when they lead to ridiculous results like the banning of brass bushings on toy cars. Mr. Adler himself noted in the Learning Curve hearing that the brass bushings pose NO risk to children at a hypothetical tipping point with blood lead levels (in other words, the toys were incontrovertibly safe) - and then voted to ban them because the law compelled it. This should trigger a sense of outrage in the Commissioner . . . but it doesn't.

To me, as an ex-lawyer, the illogical results documented in the Learning Curve case are intolerable. It is proof of a defective law and a defective system. Banning acknowledged safe products is a SIGN of problems, not something to rejoice in. As you know, it costs money to toss away perfectly good product. It also costs a lot of money to employ CPSC staff and Commissioners to decide silly cases like the brass bushing case. Something's quite wrong if we are celebrating a system so obviously broken.

i believe there are fundamental flaws in Mr. Adler's views on lead which prompt him to make recommendations basically defending a broken, illogical and self-destructive legislative system. Let me start by stating what I considered to be incontrovertible facts:

• Lead is bad
• Lead can be dangerous to children
• Harming children is bad, and unacceptable if reasonably foreseeable.
• Lead poisoning in children is largely if not entirely the fault of lead house paint and leaded gasoline

Mr. Adler makes the latter point in his footnote 83: "Clothing is not a significant source of lead poisoning. Far and away the greatest source of lead poisoning is lead paint in older housing, lead-saturated soil from gasoline emanated over the years from automobile exhausts, and lead-saturated dust (both from paint and gasoline)." [Other citations omitted] It is important to remember that Mr. Adler KNOWS that blood lead level problems stem from house paint and the long term consequences of years of leaded gasoline use (particularly in the inner city).

Mr. Adler tries to prove that lead is bad - but that fact is beyond dispute. He goes further and builds the case that there is no "safe" level of lead, providing citations. Thus established, he then seems to justify the legislation's strict terms based on the logic that if science hasn't identified a safe level for lead, every instance of lead is therefore dangerous: "We may have currently reached the outer limits of our ability to measure negative effects of exposure to small amounts of lead, but that does not mean that no adverse effects are occurring. It basically means that we do not know." Scary stuff. . . but what does he really think?

It's hard to tell. Notwithstanding his assertion that no level of lead is safe, Adler seems oddly reassured by the permitted levels set by Congress: "[Given] that lead remains ubiquitous and often unavoidable, policymakers who are fully aware of lead's risks, have sought to determine some level of lead that would be acceptable - at least until new information becomes available." And these all-knowing policymakers (Congress) set a retroactive scheme of rapidly declining permitted lead levels. In other words, what was considered "safe" (meaning legal) on February 9, 2009, was "unsafe" on February 10, 2009, and what was considered "safe" on February 10, 2009 became "unsafe" on August 14, 2009, and what was "safe" on August 14, 2009 promises to become "unsafe" on August 14, 2011. Mr. Adler analyzes retroactivity under the CPSIA in his statement and then endorses it. Huh?

I fail to grasp the logic of either Congress or Mr. Adler here. Is lead in substrate dangerous or is it not? Is there a safe level for lead or is there not? Is lead safe on one day, and not safe on the next day? If so, can someone explain the science of that safe/unsafe trigger to me? I believe Mr. Adler's accommodative attitude toward the lead standards and retroactivity is best explained by politics than by any notions of safety or risk.

It is even harder to take Adler's stern tones on lead seriously when you consider the volume of lead elsewhere in a child's life. Will regulation of lead in substrate in children's products have any material impact on blood lead levels? Can anyone prove that it will, or that the cost of getting rid of all the lead is worth the cost? Remember that we could redeploy the same money for more impactful projects, like eliminating high lead levels in drinking water in schools or remediating soil contaminated with lead. We have already covered the fact that Mr. Adler knows that blood lead levels are fundamentally tied to exposure to leaded house paint and contaminated soil. It is also well-known that cars are coated in lead paint, legally under our laws. Lead is also in our food chain, is found in nature - and enters our bodies every day. [For data on this topic, see "Eat My Dust".] By obsessing on children's products in the face of these facts, Congress ensured that its new legislation would fail to deliver measurable results.

In essence, the slogan "no safe level for lead" connotes a risk-free condition. "Risk-free" is an unrealistic standard and FAR too expensive as public policy. Mr. Adler uses this formulation in his lengthy analysis of used clothing sales: "In sum, I cannot state with certainty that a "safety" threshold of, say, 1 µg/dL blood level change would never occur from zipper sucking. . . . The fact that I cannot say there is no risk is why I characterize the choice [between allowing and banning resale of used clothing] as between bad and worse." [Emphasis added] Mr. Adler is not following a legal principle here, he is asserting one. This is the precautionary principle, the famous Nanny State being implemented before your very eyes.

It is difficult to diffuse an argument based on the elimination of all possible risk. If we wish to organize our society around the elimination of risk, rather than the management of risk, we are doomed. All of us, not just the children's product industry. The sad truth is that no one in the Federal government can prove that the policies of the last 35 years on lead caused injury. Mr. Adler implicitly asserts that our inability to prove that it DIDN'T is enough justification to throw the old system out. This is a belief system, not science.

The fear of risk is fanned by the threat of undetectable dangers. Mr. Adler notes: "To say the effects [of lead on healthy children] are not directly observable is not to say that that they are minor." He amplifies this point by implying a link to children's products to lead injuries without any proof of a relationship: "[MRI] technology has permitted us to identify permanent damage in adults stemming from childhood lead exposures." Exposure to what, precisely? ABC blocks or the soil next to an inner-city apartment building in the leaded gasoline era? Mr. Adler's assertion that we just don't know what the harm is dodges the real question - how do you know there is any harm resulting from THESE USES OF LEAD? No answer is supplied because no one can answer that question.

The Adler statement paints a pretty compelling picture and the 89 footnotes were presumably intended to add academic gravitas to his arguments. However, not all academics agree with Adler. Here are videos of the presentations of two Ph.D.s who specialize in risk assessment in children's products and lead issues taking an opposite view: Richard Reiss of Exponent and Barbara Beck of Gradient. They both note that the dose makes the poison and that only through true risk assessment will a sensible safety system be possible.

A couple brief notes:

- Mr. Adler talks a lot about retroactivity in the CPSIA. At the end of the day, he comes down . . . get ready for it . . . in favor of retaining retroactivity, but also for the recommendation of the Commission to make the pending 100 ppm lead standard prospective. I am not commenting on his arguments other than to say that I think relaxation of this provision would bring considerable economic relief without any possibility of physical harm to anyone. That's enough reasoning for me.

- In calling for change to the lead exemption process, Adler is apparently willing to support only "a modest expansion in the amount of discretion granted to the Commission". I find this rather curious and unexplained - he only wants a little discretion. Why? Does he worry that the Commission can't handle the responsibility for full discretion? Again, why? I wonder if greater powers suggested this very limited recommendation out of a lack of "trust", namely trust of future Commissions not hand-picked by this Dem-dominated Congress. No matter the explanation, it is curious indeed to see a Commissioner ask Congress to extend his Commission limited discretion.

- Adler devotes considerable space to sale of children's clothing at resale shops. He ultimately recommends that charity resale shops be allowed to sell children's clothing (possibly subject to posted Proposition 65-like warnings, see footnote 88). Adler's logic in this section is puzzling to me. Is Adler trying to defend children or defend the CPSIA? He concedes that clothing has no history of causing injury from lead but is apparently troubled that it cannot be proven that a child couldn't be harmed by clothing. Incredibly, he resolves the dilemma by distinguishing between resales made by charity shops and by for-profit shops, leaving the latter out of his proposed exemption. So is he approving the sale of unsafe products by charity resale shops to poor people so they can stay warm? Or is he saying that the clothes are probably safe, but can't be sold by for-profit stores for . . . what reason? If the clothing is safe to sell, sell it . . . and if it isn't, don't. WHO sells it shouldn't matter. But apparently it does.

An aside: Mr. Adler uses some strong language to discuss those of us who have pushed back on this law: "As I have waded into the debate, I have encountered many thoughtful, sincere, and anguished concerns about the CPSIA. I have also heard numerous overheated arguments, scanned many bloviating blogs, and read great numbers of error-laden emails (and letters) commenting on the law." For those of you who don't know this SAT word, "bloviating" is defined as "[to] discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner" on dictionary.com. I wish our government officials would stick to the issues and avoid attacking the exercise of Free Speech by U.S. citizens. This is particularly the case here, since after a long fight, many of those bloviaters have been proven right. I don't expect thanks, but I think this is out of line.

I could go on, but I won't. Mr. Adler's voice in the debate is an important one and I appreciate his efforts to set the record straight. I don't agree with him and appreciate the opportunity to reply.

You be the judge!

CPSIA - Commission Report to Congress on CPSIA Changes

The CPSC Commission issued its January 15 Congressional report on recommended changes to the CPSIA last Friday. As promised by Inez Tenenbaum, the Commissioners were afforded the opportunity to present individual statements to accompany the Commission report. Four of the Commissioners (Tenenbaum, Adler, Nord and Northup) chose to present their own statements. Adler also promised a supplemental statement on the subject of lead, which has not been released yet to my knowledge.

The Report and the accompanying statements make interesting reading. I do not propose to summarize the documents here, but have set out a few thoughts:

a. The Commission's Consensus is Important. The Commissioners made a big effort to speak with one voice in the report. While they certainly did not agree on everything, their effort to achieve bipartisanship agreement in the report sends a good message. The Commission needs to work harder to find this middle ground more consistently and less fractiously. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for turning safety into a game of political football. If the Commission can work better together, confidence in their administration will grow and extremes will be avoided.

The prohibition against full Commission meetings in private (the Sunshine Act) is a hidden factor in the report. Since the Commission ill-advisedly voted down a public discussion of the report, the Commissioners were prevented from meeting in groups of three, four or five. When you read this report, imagine how it might have read if the five Commissioners were allowed to sit in a room and duke it out. It might have been a better document, more complete and more prescriptive.

b. Where's the Functional Purpose Exception??? The report is as interesting for what it DOESN'T say as for what it does say. Most importantly, the functional purpose exemption is GONE. Rumorville has it that the functional purpose exception became more and more ornate and complex as the Commissioners struggled to write a recommendation until even its most ardent supporters had to concede that it wasn't going to work. This was set up to be Waxman's excuse to do nothing or nearly nothing. It's not there anymore.

Too bad for Henry, huh?

c. The Commissioners' Statements Reveal that Common Sense is Divided on Party Lines. The Commissioners' statements reveal a lack of communication within the Commission. I know they were talking but it appears that some messages weren't being heard. The statements of the two Democrats (Moore apparently did not prepare a statement) were straight out of Central Casting. Disappointingly, Ms. Tenenbaum chose to repeat a fairy tale about the law's origins:

"In response to the flood of dangerous imported products, which were involved in tragic fatalities, poisonings and injuries involving children, Congress closely examined the needs of the CPSC and the statutory changes necessary to enhance the regulatory safety net maintained by the agency. Congress spent considerable time reviewing these needs and continually consulted with the agency’s leaders, staff, consumer groups, and the regulated community in order to carefully craft the proper legislation to achieve this end. Seeing a clear need to reauthorize and reinvigorate CPSC with new energy and purpose, Congress passed a sweeping law." [Emphasis added]

The re-characterization of what was essentially an anger-fueled legislative mania into some sort of group hug is apparently the Democrats' effort to justify a passive or inert approach to fixing the law. In addition, both Tenenbaum and Adler repeated the misleading togline about the dangers of lead, although I don't think that's news anymore. It's also not really relevant to discussing the issues under the law - and their persistent refusal to acknowledge this is disappointing.

The Republicans (Nord and Northup) delivered rational and balanced statements that calmly and appropriately diagnosed the issues with the law. They are cognizant of the excesses of the law, the dramatic impact on both the regulated community and the hobbled agency itself. The Reps make no effort to prop up the CPSIA - you know, the law passed by REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE. There's no pride of authorship by the Reps - to their credit, these Commissioners seem to be trying to restore a rational system of law and regulation designed to provide appropriate levels of safety at an affordable cost.

I am tired of the Dems on the Commission simply being good Dem soldiers rather than committed stewards of safety. The ANGER expressed in Massachusetts today is a strong message to the Dems - America is sick and tired of government aggressively inserting itself into every aspect of our lives, including by way of the CPSIA and its precautionary principle. See tonight's Wall Street Journal for more details. It will be interesting to see if Massachusetts impacts the CPSIA amendment process.

d. Does it Matter What's Safe Anymore? I am struck again by the absurdity of the debate over lead. As I see it, the debate is over which incidents of lead that are illegal should be permitted. This is different from defining what constitutes safe lead. This used to be a simple decision. Now the premise is that there is NO safe level of lead. Is that really TRUE?

Think of ALL cases where lead is found in children's products. Now separate them into two piles, one that is labeled "safe" and one that is labeled "not safe". How do these piles compare to the piles made by the CPSIA, FHSA and CPSA? Well, that question never comes up in the debate. The big question is about compliance with law, not safety.

This is not a rational system for administering risk. First of all, if lead were so deadly that it needed to be eliminated in all cases in all children's products, then presumably we would be even MORE motivated to remove it from our food, water and air (not to mention dirt). After all, we consume food etc. and the lead in the food gets into our bloodstreams. But this isn't an issue today because the CPSIA didn't make it illegal - and apparently the CPSC does not feel lead is dangerous in food, water or air (or else it would have acted on the threat under the FHSA). It gets worse - consider that lead paint is illegal on children's products but not on cars. If lead is so dangerous and mere contact with lead-in-substrate is so dangerous that it is utterly intolerable in a modern, sophisticated society likes ours, then why does the CPSC permit kids to touch or even ride in cars? After all, the zipper pull on a kid's golf bag is illegal if it has a dot of lead paint on it. But a whole car dripping with lead paint, that's fine.

The answer - it doesn't matter what's safe when it comes to lead, it only matters what's legal. The Dems prefer to portray what's illegal as unsafe, and imply that what's legal is safe. [Call this the All-Knowing Congress argument.] It's hard to take this seriously. It's time for them to drop the precautionary principle pretense and start being accountable for the rationality of their regulatory positions. If lead is a crisis as they say, then please ban everything with lead in it, including our entire food chain. I am ready to be safe, finally.

e. What Has Been Accomplished in the Last 18 Months??? Does it bother you as much as me that so little has been accomplished by the last 18 months of chaos? The many steps and achievements documented in the report and statements might make a bureaucrat blush with pride but how have injury statistics changed? [Recall statistics are a poor measure of the effectiveness of safety rules.] How much did we pay as a society for these extremely meager achievements? If you add in the cost to our society of a crippled safety agency, the price we paid is staggering. The waste is sickening. It's not possible for me to read the recounting without a sense of loss.

f. Does Anyone Else Want An Exemption? Umm, Yeah! It's important to note that the low number of exemption requests does not reflect a lack of interest in exemptions. Exemption requests are very expensive to prepare and are complex. In many cases, the exemption request will obviously be rejected or is too broad to state in any compelling way. For instance, educational products span so many categories that it is impossible to state a coherent exemption request. More importantly, the real inhibition to filing is a fear of losing the request. For many companies, it just doesn't pay to ask for permission - they prefer to beg for forgiveness if a problem ever arises.

Anne Northup correctly notes in her statement that it is bad law to require that regulated companies line up for exemptions. She is not arguing on behalf of the companies - she focuses on the huge burden these requests place on the CPSC and the Commission. She is TOTALLY correct. The idea that we should have a safety system based on exceptions would only appeal to the IRS. Somebody needs to listen to Northup on this point.

g. The Report Whitewashes Ineffective Help for Resale Shops. It is a sad joke to assert that coaching resale shops with the CPSC's guidance document and a few workshops is somehow a solution to the massive problem caused by the CPSIA. For one thing, it is quite clear that this message has not reached its audience. The CPSC's approach is inherently inefficient and unlikely to bring relief to many affected stores. A better law is the necessary solution. Second, it is apparent that the CPSC's efforts did not relieve anxiety - the stores are still dropping children's items. This lack of accountability begins to look cynical when you consider that only last week, Scott Wolfson was warning people not to sell cheap jewelry on auction sites or in resale shops. Hmmm, that sounds very reassuring, doesn't it? Problem solved!

If the Commission truly cares about resale shops, then a more effective approach (including a communication strategy) needs to be implemented.

With the issuance of the report and statements, the shuttlecock has been batted back to Congress. The next step is to work on a long-needed amendment of this awful law. Stay tuned.

CPSIA - CPSIA Casualty of the Week January 7

The Alliance for Children's Product Safety's "CPSIA Casualty of the Week" highlights how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is disrupting the U.S. marketplace in order to draw attention to the problems faced by small businesses, public institutions, consumers and others trying to comply with senseless and often contradictory provisions of the law. These provisions do nothing to improve product safety, but are driving small businesses out of the market.

Congress and the CPSC need to address the problems with CPSIA implementation to help small businesses by restoring "common sense" to our nation's product safety laws.

CPSIA Casualty of the Week for January 11, 2010

NEW SAFETY LAW CLEANING OUT "THE KIDS CLOSET"

Kitty Boyce worked for 18 years to build her resale shop, The Kids Closet, located in Rochester, IL, into a well-known resale shop. With its colorful signage, brightly decorated interior and whimsical whale logo, The Kids Closet built its reputation on offering customers quality second-hand children's products at great values.

Shortly after being voted the "Number One Place to Shop Resale" by the Illinois Times, Kitty announced that because of CPSIA she was converting her store to sell predominately teen and adult clothing, home accessories and furniture, and changing its name to Remarkable Resale. The loss of revenue in her shop due to the changes in inventory forced her to lay off several employees.

"CPSIA has been devastating for us," said Kitty. "We just decided to get rid of all the toys and furniture. It's just not worth the risk."

While the Consumer Product Safety Commission has temporarily stayed requirements for testing and certifying products, all resale shops still must comply with the new lead and phthalate standards. Realistically, resale shops cannot be 100 percent certain that the used items meet the new requirements.

Due to the over-reaching law, Kitty Boyce's dedicated attempts to provide children and families with reasonably priced, gently used baby equipment, furniture and toys have been shut down. For Kitty and others, the risk of enforcement action by state attorneys general or private groups is too great. The result is that during one of the worst economies in decades, resale shops around the country are avoiding selling winter clothing for kids and other children's products.

This winter, ask Congress how denying a perfectly safe used winter coat to a child whose parents can't afford to buy a new one is protecting that child's health.

For more information about Kitty Boyce, visit http://www.thekidscloset.net/closet.htm

For additional information on the Alliance for Children's Product Safety and CPSIA, and to view previous "Casualties of the Week, visit http://www.AmendTheCPSIA.com/.