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 - 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 - Hypocrisy on Display

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum was home in South Carolina last week and made an appearance to commemorate a new State ATV safety law known as "Chandler's Law".  This law is supported, even encouraged, by the ATV industry.  Notes Paul Vitrano of the SVIA, “Chandler’s Law is a major step in the right direction. It’s something to be celebrated and we extend sincere thanks to everyone involved in its enactment. But there’s much more work to be done in South Carolina and all over America. ATVs are safe when used properly, but they are not toys. No responsible parent would hand the keys to the family car over to their child and send them on their way." [Emphasis added]

ATVs are not toys.  But ATVs are regulated by the CPSIA as though they are toys.  Notably, as a consequence of the CPSIA, access to youth-model ATVs has been all but eliminated.  Incredibly, there is still NOT ONE test lab certified by the CPSC to test ATVs for compliance either.  Testimony to this effect was given at the February 16th CPSC hearing at which I appeared.  Jay Howell of the CPSC acknowledged that the expense of testing ATVs cannot apparently be recovered by labs because there are so few youth model ATVs left on the market.  No lab wants to invest for testing at a loss.  The market speaks?  The absence of youth model ATVs from the market also means that they are not being rented out.  Rental and sales are the same thing under the CPSIA.  They're gone.

Interestingly, Chandler's Law prohibits children under 16 from riding adult-sized ATVs.   If you can connect even two dots, you will realize that this is a tacit ban on children riding ATVs.  Period.  This is the secret agenda of the consumer group zealots like the former AAP majordomo Cindy Pelligrini as she admitted at a meeting of stakeholders with the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff on January 6, 2011.   So in other words, the consumer groups have a political agenda that they cannot accomplish via direct legislation - taking away ATVs from your kids, even using youth model ATVs developed at the request of the CPSC.  ATV riding is too popular regionally for a ban to ever pass Congress - so the consumer groups obtained their objective under the cover of darkness with the CPSIA and sympathetic Dem plants on the CPSC Commission. 

And here's the hypocrisy of Ms. Tenenbaum on public display.   Appearing to herald the restrictions on youth access to adult-sized ATVs, Ms. Tenenbaum does not mention that she is ALSO responsible for the removal of youth-model ATVs from the market and that Chandler's Law essentially implements a ban on ATV use by children under 16 years of age in South Carolina.  Had she admitted it, the publicity storm would have been bad for South Carolina legislators and Dems all over the country.  She'll never breathe a word.

Not unlike the rest of the CPSIA mess, the reality is kept beneath a cloak, out of sight.  You will only notice, if you ever do, when you go to the store and try to buy something wonderful that you have used safely in the past . . . and it's gone.  Where did it go?  The self-appointed "fun suckers" have been there first.  Youth model ATVs - they're against them.  Trampolines, backyard pools, fireworks, rhinestones, brass instruments - all too "dangerous" for you to be allowed to use.  They know what's best, and you should be thankful.

It's our country but they're running it.  When are you going to do something about it?  After three years, you don't have much time left to figure it out.

CPSIA - Futile Provision or Gimme for Big Biz?

In response to my blogpost on the "Functional Purpose" exception so desperately desired by the Dems (Waxman and his Waxmanis, plus the Dem CSPC Commissioners) as the "solution" to the inflexibility of the CPSIA restrictions on lead, I am informed that some people think the door is still cracked open for exclusions.

I must disagree.

Here is the language on the functional purpose exception from the last published version of ECADA: 

"(1) FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE EXCEPTION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission, on its own initiative or upon petition by an interested party, shall grant an exception to the prohibition in subsection (a) for a specific product, class of product, material, or component part if the Commission, after notice and comment in accordance with subparagraph (B), determines that—(i) the product, class of product, material, or component part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture such product, class of product, material, or component part, as the case may be, in accordance with subsection (a) by removing the excessive lead or by making the lead inaccessible; (ii) the product, class of product, material, or component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product, class of product, material, or component part by a child; and (iii) an exception for the product, class of product, material, or component part will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse." 

I have added color to the key words in this section.  In blue, I have highlighted that the exemption will ONLY apply to those products or materials which "require" the inclusion of lead.  In yellow, I have highlighted the two parts of the exception, namely cases where the inclusion of lead is not practicable or not technologically feasible. 

Who will benefit from this provision, and how will they benefit?

First, to take advantage of this provision, you must demonstrate that your product "requires the inclusion of lead".  When might lead be required?  According to the CPSC Staff in their recently released report on the "technological feasibility" of 100 ppm lead, no products or components under 600 ppm concentration requires lead:  "Staff has found no intentional uses of lead in materials at concentrations at or near any of the three statutory lead limits (i.e., 100 ppm, 300 ppm, or 600 ppm). Therefore, staff does not believe that children’s product manufacturers intentionally design or make products or components with the maximum allowable lead content because lead concentration near the maximum limit would have no benefit or purpose to the product or the manufacturer." 

No benefit whatsoever of trace lead content.  Who would have guessed that?!

Thus, this provision only applies to items, components or materials well over 600 ppm lead.  For those of you on the sidelines hoping that this will save your trace levels of lead in components, like metals in bicycle components, sorry!  It's not for you.

I believe this provision is only intended for a very limited list of components - namely, brass, metal alloys or possibly rhinestones.  In reality, it's just for metal alloys which actually require lead as a component, like engine components (or brass).  There will be almost no argument possible where there is a market substitute that the CPSC thinks is adequate. They get to run your business now, don't forget.

Rhinestones are so done.

For those items, components or materials that make it through the "requires the inclusion of lead" filter, the provision then further limits coverage where avoiding the inclusion of lead is not "practicable" or technologically feasible.  The above-referenced report states the opinion of CPSC Staff that NOTHING requires the inclusion of lead as defined by the CPSIA:  "Based upon this analysis, the staff could not recommend that the Commission make a determination that it is not technologically feasible for a product or product category to meet the 100 ppm lead content limit for children’s products under section 101(d) of the CPSIA. No such determination has been made by the Commission. Therefore, all children’s products sold, offered for sale, manufactured for sale, distributed in commerce, or imported for sale in the United States must meet the 100 ppm lead content limit beginning August 14, 2011 as statutorily mandated by the CPSIA unless otherwise excluded . . . ."

Some people believe the legal definition of "practicable" in certain legal rulings (case law) takes into account economics  and is intended to be a more pragmatic standard allowing applicants to plead that the law will ruin their businesses.  This theory depends on a richer, more nuanced meaning of the term than provided in online legal dictionaries ("when something can be done or performed" or "anytime something can be done or performed").

A more detailed explanation, closer to the wishes of those pinning their hopes on this provision, comes from JustAnswer.com:  "Normally one would say, in a legal arena, that if it does not cause an undue hardship to one party or the other, then it is 'practicable'. An example would be if during a child support hearing, one party wants the other party to pay for a brand new corvette for their 16 years old child to drive, that would be considered impracticable whereas if they asked for the other parent to provide safe transportation and it is agreed to get a used Ford Escort, that would be practicable. If during a hearing on a property easement the land owner wants $200,000 for a 40 foot easement, the easement holder to pour a new driveway for them both to use, and he can only use it on Fridays, that would be impracticable. Does that make sense? It is basically saying that if there is a reasonable way to provide whatever is being asked, or rather 'whenever practicable', that should be done."

Anyone hoping to win an exception under this provision must be prepared to explain that there is no reasonable way to accomplish their goal, that it is in that sense not "practicable".  This definition does not permit exceptions simply because in their absence costs might rise.  The cost must be "unreasonable" but can be much greater than zero.  What might be deemed an "unreasonable" cost by this CPSC Commission?

Well, I think some factors are quite relevant in evaluating whether such exceptions will EVER be granted.  First, the three Dem Commission has taken the position publicly that there is no safe level of lead.  This is wrong, as we know, because since every human takes lead into his/her body every minute of the day and night through lead in air, water, food and dirt (at a minimum), we cannot conclude that life degrades in the presence of lead alone.  The source, concentration and exposure to lead determines the nature of the risk (as they say, the dose makes the poison).  Unfortunately, these Dem non-scientists are beyond convincing.  Try telling them that money is more important than their unthinking appraisal of the "risks" confronting children with lead.  I can't see it.

As if that weren't enough, the CPSC Staff has publicly stated that everything can be made lead-free based on the bizarre definition of "technological feasibility" under the CPSIA. That term of art does not have the expected meaning of its English words since economics were written out of the definition.  This Commission knows that everything can be made without lead, and given their caveman fear of lead, any applicant will have to explain why other available options are no good.  The concept of technological feasibility and not practicable are not really as divorced as they seem.

CPSC Staff shed some light on practicability in their 100 ppm report:

a.  " . . . low-lead materials that can be used in the production of children’s products generally appear to be commercially available in the market place"

b.  "In general, for cost increases affecting a broad base of industries, there will be a mixture of effects: both increases in the retail prices of children’s products and reductions in overall production levels."

c.  "Alternatively, some manufacturers may need to redesign or re-engineer their products. Valve stems for bicycles, for example, may need to be fitted with more secure caps, which will effectively render them inaccessible and potentially more difficult to use. In addition, products may be simplified to reduce the number of components for testing."

Overall, the implication of the economic analysis is that the bulk of economic damage (rising costs) has already occurred.  In addition, the CPSC seems to think there is more than one way to skin a cat - and that would be quite relevant in any proceeding under the Functional Purpose Exception provision  Which items would likely be eligible for consideration for relief?  It would likely only be items that are being sold subject to a stay (ATVs and bicycles) because everything else that's on the market is already compliant.  And how many items are being openly sold today are NOT in compliance with the current lead standards?  Damn near zero.  As Mike Larson notes in the Star-Tribune (March 27, 2011):  "Unfortunately, this hasn't helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there's now a limited availability of these products for consumers.  In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles."

My conclusion:  No one can apply for this exception and if they do, they are highly likely to be turned down. Just like the last three years.  It's a big win for Waxman - he appears to be "listening" but instead is perpetrating a fraud on all the dupes in the children's product industry.  He cares not about your petty problems (that he created).  It's truly heartwarming . . . .

One last thought:  Who really gets the short end of the stick here?  It's you as usual, the little guy.  The CPSC Staff acknowledges that the 100 ppm standard is anti-small business:  "Despite the existence of complying materials and components in the marketplace, some manufacturers, especially very small ones, may not be able to readily purchase these materials and components due to the lack of available distribution channels. For example, the Handmade Toy Alliance stated that its members would be unable to consistently obtain materials complying with such a low lead limit because its members do not purchase raw materials, but instead purchase component parts from retail stores."

But, heck, who will take the time to actually read their 59-page report?  Believe me, Waxman ain't losing sleep over the possibility that you will read it, much less actual members of Congress.

And then there's the practicality of the exception process - it's like major litigation against the government. Think of the cost - you would need to hire experts, lawyers, consultants and would have to prepare dossiers on each and every material, component and product you want exempted.  You will bear the burden of proof, you will be judged ONLY on the "proof" you submit, and best of all, you will be judged by a panel controlled by Tenenbaum, Adler and Moore.  Who on Earth will waste their money and their time on this?  Perhaps Mattel, WalMart and a few Asian manufacturers of bicycles (China makes 58% of world bicycle production).  It's not for you - you can't afford it.  This is a meager gimme for big business, like "firewalled test labs", something to ease the troubles of the mega companies affected by the CPSIA.

As for the rest of us, let's not forget the wisdom of Senator Dick Durbin's office:

"I think you are right that the CPSIA imposes costs on businesses, and because of economies of scale it’s the smaller businesses that will feel these costs more acutely. This is part of a larger calculation that it’s worth the costs to shift from the old system of post-market correction (once a dangerous product is out in the market and leads to sick kids, recalls, lawsuits, etc.) to a new system of pre-market testing and certification (instead of just assuming products are safe and paying the price for false assumptions)." [Correspondence dated April 16, 2009]

I think the real false assumption is that the Democrats care about anything other than getting reelected.

CPSIA - Battles Lines Drawn

As ECADA moves toward a mark-up, possibly next week, the action over the CPSIA is happening elsewhere on the Hill.  In yesterday's The Hill newspaper, it was announced that the pending Appropriations Bill knocks out all funding for the noxious CPSIA database. 

It is symptomatic of the partisan gridlock in Washington that a policy debate has to be dealt with by withholding funds.  The parties are simply unable to agree on anything.  To agree is to give up political advantage.  In gridlock, it is always possible to blame the other party and to paint them with whatever black brush is handy.  This is particularly attractive to a minority party like the Dems in the House - they want their majority back.  Thus, while the "defenses" for the absurdly over-reaching rules governing the database are almost laughable, the Dems posture as though any change threatens the American way of life.

That said, it's a good thing that the Appropriations Bill is doing the work that the House Energy and Commerce Committee hasn't done or perhaps cannot do.  Brokering agreement with someone as unyielding and unreasonable as Henry Waxman is no small feat.  Rationality and reason, not to mention good policy, have no apparent effect on this ideologue.  He won't concede that Rep. Mike Pompeo, and the other database haters, have legitimate concerns.  NO ONE is asking that the database die, just that it be a fair game for everyone.  It's only because the Dems won't give a millimeter that you get the Appropriations Bill.  If Energy and Commerce can't change the database, or the CPSIA, I commend the Appropriations Committee for taking action to protect American businesses from government-sanctioned slander.  Somebody had to do it.

There's no telling where all this goes.  The Republican majority in the House may be able to shine a light on the issues of the CPSIA, but since the Dems control the Senate and White House, it seems as though the Dems are capable of blocking progress.  Three years of work have no persuaded one Dem of anything, by all appearances.  [Hence my disillusionment, frustration and outrage.] 

There is little sign that the Dems will give an inch - and you know what that likely means.  You and I are (remain) screwed.  Stasis means the 100 ppm standard gets implemented in two months, possibly retroactively.  It means that you must continue to test internal components for phthalates and test and retest everything else endlessly without relief of any kind.  It means that the 12-year-old age limit for everything stays in place, rhinestones and brass remain illegal (but osmium, iridium and ruthenium are still a-okay!), books and bikes and ATVs remain under the thumb of the CPSC, and many, many businesses will further weaken. 

NO child will be safer, and NO injury will be avoided.  The advocates can't provide evidence that ANYONE was EVER injured so there is no rational reason to believe this massive disruption will save a life or even a paper cut.

The battle lines are drawn.   Perhaps now you know why I was so disappointed when only one wiener resigned from Energy and Commerce today. I can think of a few more that ought to go . . . .

VOTE FOR ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

CPSIA - Kids Don't Lick ATV's, Apparently. Who Knew?!

In today's Desert Sun newspaper, John Paliwoda, Executive Director of the California Motorcycle Dealers Association, published an Op-Ed entitled "Note to Congress:  Kids don't lick their ATVs".  You're kidding!

A few salient take-aways:

a.  Although ATVs and dirt bikes are now "banned hazardous materials" under the law because of trace levels of lead in metal parts like engine components, scientists agree that the risk of injury is "remote at best".  Even the CPSC staff acknowledge this (in writing).  Mr. Paliwoda notes that "there have been no cases of lead poisoning documented from children riding youth model ATVs".  No one seems to care, however.

b.  The CPSC acknowledges that children face a "far graver and more immediate risk" by being exposed to adult-sized ATVs than exposure to lead in metal components in youth-model ATVs.  The very EXISTENCE of youth-model ATVs is the handiwork of the CPSC - so their ban reverses the safety gains earned by the Commission (work that actually saved lives).  This ban of youth-model ATVs under the CPSIA is part of a larger political objective to ban ATV use by kids altogether, as publicly admitted by Cindy Pelligrini of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Subterfuge as public policy?  Apparently.  Still, Mr. Paliwoda observes:  "The one thing that the government, ATV manufacturers, dealers and consumer groups all agree on is that the key to reducing injuries and fatalities to children riding ATVs is to keep riders younger than 16 off adult-size ATVs."  Hmmm.  Job well done, Congress!

c.  The manufacturing and sale of youth-model ATVs has been severely curtailed by the law despite the temporary stay protecting manufacturers and retailers.  Why?  The stay of enforcement "failed because many manufacturers and dealers are not comfortable selling youth model powersports vehicles while the ban is on the books."  And the impact on the industry?  Mr. Paliwoda:  "[For] motorcycle dealers in California, [the CPSIA] has been devastating."

Sadly, Mr. Paliwoda's reasoning and documentation will not likely sway any Dems.  Why?  Aren't they listening?  No.  Don't they care about data?  Nope.  Don't they care about the creation of jobs in their districts?  Doesn't seem like it.  What motivates them, then?  It's certainly not children's safety, by all appearances.  My best guess is that they want to be reelected as their top priority and feel that taking a reasoned stand to repair an idiotic law ostensibly "protecting" children is too politically dangerous to risk.  The public can't be expected to actually think about the details, after all, and the rabid and equally uncomprehending media will certainly take the other side of any effort to bring relief to this suffocating law.  Data be damned.

Or, you, your company, your market and your customers be damned.

PASS ECADA AND END THE CPSIA CHARADE!

CPSIA - Three Dem CPSC Commissioners Accuse Industry (You) of Dosing Kids with Lead

In a revolting display of cowardly fear mongering, the three Democratic CPSC Commissioners yesterday wrote the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade to protest the proposed CPSIA amendment.  In this letter, in defense of the lead-in-substrate provisions, the Dems sow fear by suggesting what you might do:

"The CPSIA set one of the most protective lead limits for children's products in the world. The public health community continues to hold its overwhelming consensus: There is no safe level of lead.  We oppose any change in the law that would lead to an increase in the DOSES OF LEAD to which our children are exposed on a daily basis, particularly when the marketplace has for the most part already adjusted to lower lead levels and is well on its way to getting the lead out of children's products." [Emphasis added]

Hmmmm.  Apparently we evil toymakers, sinister educational product makers, monstrous t-shirt and jeans producers, venal shoemakers, diabolic rhinestone merchants, demonic ATV purveyors, fiendish motocross enthusiasts, vile vending machine operators, corrupt jewelers, slimy resale shop owners, worthless book publishers, perverse pen companies, satanic carpet weavers - we all are just waiting for the CPSC to look the other way so we can "dose" children with lead.  

This kind of asinine accusation normally would be something to deride and lampoon in this space, but in this case frankly, it's not at all funny.  Here you have three CPSC Commissioners with a majority vote (including Chairman Inez Tenenbaum) going national with serious, maligning insults of our values and our integrity.  They can hardly restrain themselves - they go further to assert that we have only "for the most part adjusted" to the new rules - you know, by firing people, cutting products, withdrawing from markets.

This is your "leadership" on the Commission.  I want to vomit.

CPSC Commissioners are appointed by the President.  I wonder if a better word is "planted".

The letters make clear where children have lead exposure risk.  Lead in D.C. tap water, no, that's fine - what can anybody do about THAT?  House paint, environmental sources - nah!  No, the real problem is industry and its "dosing" through children's products.  The last line of defense is the CPSIA.  The three Dem Commissioners put it succinctly - change the law and poison children. Better to over-regulate than under-regulate because it's a zero-sum game, right? 

As usual, the Dems don't mention that THEY CAN'T PRODUCE EVEN ONE INJURY VICTIM FROM LEAD-IN-SUBSTRATE IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.  There are more than 50 million children in this country in the regulated age group and no one can find a single injury victim - EVER. Nonetheless they apparently think it's perfectly fine to wag their fingers at us and accuse us of unspeakable acts.  

Who'd say anything, anyhow?  Won't get fooled again. . . .

I guess we have a hint here how these people might vote on the technological feasibility of 100 ppm.  Giving them an extra year to lower the boom won't do anything to protect my employees or my customers - they are TELLING US that the die is cast.  That's because you and I apparently want to "dose" children with lead the first chance we get!  They reinforce the hyperbolic tone by standing pat on the age limits under the CPSIA - we NEED the 12 year old limit.  Why? Because Mommy says so.  Junk science to the rescue! We can't have kids eating their ATVs, can we?

Does anyone wonder why trust in this agency is destroyed beyond repair?  Who in the business community would ever expect to get a fair shake from these consumer group front men?  Government for all us?  Hardly.

Defending themselves on a weak point, the Dems contend they are sympathetic to small business. Myself, I can't measure commitment by limp and syrupy words of consolation - I look at what they do, not what they say.  These people have done precisely ZIPPO for small business after three years of begging, pleading, screaming.  I am tired of hearing about how much they CARE about small business. [Guess who drafted the letter?] As a friend of mine used to say, it's bullpucky.

Here's a shocker:  I actually agree with one thing these people say - that parents deserve safe products regardless of who makes them. Of course that makes sense (no one cares whether a tortfeasor is a big company or a small company) which is why I want sensible standards that apply equally to everyone. In this case, the government should stop telling us how to run our businesses.  Make a reasonable set of standards based on a real and defined "substantial product hazard" standard and go from there.  This is parent-friendly and quite workable for small business.

Of course, my suggestion would make these Democrats much less important and certainly less heroic.  Their letter makes clear who "saved" America - the CPSIA, the Dems in Congress and the Dems on the Commission.  They're the ones who really CARE.  

Won't get fooled again . . . .

Fittingly, the letter wraps up with words dripping with insincerity:  "Nevertheless, while it is true that no one, including us, wishes to over-regulate, similarly we cannot support under-protecting the American consumer, particularly our nation's children."

In other words, the Democrat Commissioners are daring Congress to loosen the nose around out necks and are prepared to blame them if anything goes wrong. This also provides cover for zealot Senators who will make sure you have a great opportunity to go bankrupt or remain under the thumb of their out-of-control agency.  I don't think it's much of a stretch to say it looks like a conspiracy - Democrats against you.

It would be wrong to call this letter disillusioning.  That happened a long time ago.  It also conveys little new information. Anyone truly shocked by this letter by these authors has been asleep at the wheel for the last three years.  This merely confirms or updates what we already knew.  I don't have a solution to people like this running the show.  I can't do anything about it.  One of them, Thomas Moore, is now about six months past the end of his term.  Maybe Congress forgot about him.  

Pay attention today.  The stakes are high and getting higher.  The CPSC is working against you.  We will need keep fighting to survive.

CPSIA - Correction to Klobuchar/Tester ATV Exemption Amendment

Darn it - I thought we could only trust websites ending in "dot gov".  In my last post, I noted an amendment submitted by Senators Klobuchar and Tester to save ATVs the trauma of complying with the CPSIA on lead.  Three years later and they decide to do this . . . .  Anyhow, I found the draft in the Congressional Record and thought that's it.  My bad.

Apparently, you CAN'T believe everything our sainted government spews out on its website.  Go figure.  he reference to deleting the word "any" in subpart (b) is apparently NOT part of the bill.  Here is the document actually submitted by Ms. Klobuchar and Mr. Tester and subpart (b) is gone.  Where did it go?  Who knows.  Anyhow, the provision made no sense so I won't miss it.  The sneaky effort to change the CPSIA in an amendment to a moving bill remains active nonetheless.

Please keep all this in mind the next time you place all your faith in a "dot gov" website!

CPSIA - The Senate Wants to Save ATVs . . . What about the Rest of Us???

Yesterday Senators Klobuchar and Tester offered an amendment to S. 493, a moving bill to reauthorize the small business administration ("SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011").  This amendment is intended to exempt ATVs, dirt bikes, motocross and snowmobiles ("All-terrain vehicles") from the lead restrictions of the CPSIA.  To my knowledge, this amendment has not been voted on yet.  The text of their amendment reads as follows:

SA 259. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. TESTER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 116, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 504. EXEMPTION OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES FROM BAN ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.

(a) Exemption.--Section 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:

(5) EXCEPTION FOR OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an off-highway vehicle.
(B) OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DEFINED.--For purposes of this section, the term `off-highway vehicle'-- (i) means any motorized vehicle--(I) that is manufactured primarily for use off of public streets, roads, and highways; (II) designed to travel on 2 or 4 wheels; and (III) having either -- (aa) a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering control; or (bb) a nonstraddle seat, steering wheel, seat belts, and roll-over protective structure; and (ii) includes a snowmobile.

(b) Additional Amendment.--Such section is further amended in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``any''.

This is pretty stunning, really.  Did you notice that they are "fixing" the CPSIA by making two changes (one surmises that they think these are the only needed fixes), exempting All-terrain Vehicles from the law, and ALSO knocking out the word "any" from the lead exemption process.  If their amendment were to become law, the CPSIA Section 101(b)(1)(A) lead exemption would read as follows:

"The Commission may, by regulation, exclude a specific product or material from the prohibition in subsection (a) if the Commission, after notice and a hearing, determines on the basis of the best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that lead in such product or material will neither— (A) result in the absorption of any lead into the human body, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product by a child, including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children’s activities, and the aging of the product . . . ."

I must be stupid, but in this context, I don't think anything is achieved by deleting "any" (assuming "plain English" is the language of choice for legislative interpretation).  The word "any" is implied in "the absorption of lead into the human body", at least I think it is.  This is the kind of legislative change I am used to from the Dems in the last three years, a change that brings no relief whatsoever.  After all, they are plainly deaf.

Perhaps more interesting is why they chose to make these changes now.  I have long asserted that ATVs have no business being regulated under the CPSIA.  Klobuchar was a prime mover for the CPSIA but apparently found out later that her state of Minnesota is deeply affected by this awful law because of the ATV ban.  Oops!  Minnesota is home to several large manufacturers of these products.  Jobs, jobs, jobs are the key nowadays, especially if you are running for reelection.  Oh no, did I say that?  How cynical of me!  Tester is also running for reelection - last time, he won by by 3,662 votes.

There must be some reason why Klobuchar and Tester think legislation relieving these industries from the burden of regulation.  Since I know the Senators are ALL ABOUT safety, I can only conclude that they figured out that these products are already safe.  Aha.  I wonder how they made this determination.  Perhaps they took note of the fact that lead in these products has never injured any children EVER.  That fact suggests that it is wasteful to regulate the presence of lead in these products - it would not make anyone safer.  Even if there were one or two injuries, wouldn't the argument be the same?  After all, we are a country of 300 million, with 50 million-plus kids in the age range enveloped by the CPSIA.  A tiny handful of injuries over a decade of use by perhaps 75-80 million children passing through the age range would hardly justify the billions in expense and disruption caused by the CPSIA. Good thinking, Senators!

Have I ever mentioned that the CPSC cites one death and three unverified injuries from lead over an 11-year period from 1999-2010?  Hmmm.

If THAT'S the standard now, then I think Senators Klobuchar and Tester should expand their amendment to exempt ALL other products classes and components that have the same safety profile.  Rhinestones?  T-shirts and shoes?  Educational products?  Rocks and fossils?  Books?  Pens?  Musical instruments?  CDs and DVDs?  Steel and other metal parts? 

Isn't this proposed amendment just what we have always wanted - a concession by zealot Democrats that the law makes no sense and needs to be sharply revised?  If they are rational legislators (that's a big "if"), let them tell us WHY it makes sense to NOT regulate All-terrain Vehicles and STILL regulate everything else for lead in children's products.

Senators Klobuchar and Tester, you owe us an explanation!  This regulatory torture has gone on for three years, not in small part because of your unwillingness to do the right thing.  Now that you are sufficiently motivated to propose giving a pass to certain favored products and industries, you must tell the Electorate why this is GOOD LAW and why the rest of us deserve to stay in Purgatory.

'Fess up - we've had enough!

CPSIA - Star-Tribune Op-Ed Blasts CPSIA for ATV Effects

[Editor's Note: I have a postscript to add to this Op-Ed. See the bottom for an additional fact to consider.]

Mike Larson: Toy lead ban puts kids on ATVs at risk

By MIKE LARSON
March 27, 2011
Commentary

In a month or so, the snow will be gone, the Twins will again be fighting for a pennant and thousands of families will be hitting the trails on ATVs looking for fun and adventure.

Unfortunately, this year more kids are likely to be riding larger, adult-sized ATVs because thousands of dealers like me can't sell youth model ATVs or mini bikes.

Why? Because of a ridiculous political fight in Washington, D.C., that is putting our kids in danger.

ATV dealers and others in our industry are caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war because of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), a law that included new, strict standards for lead in toys -- but created such a broad definition of "children's products" that it ended up banning the sale of youth model ATVs, mini-bikes and other off-highway vehicles because they contain small amounts of lead.

Yes, you read that correctly: ATVs and motorcycles designed to meet the size and performance needs of young riders ages 6 to 12 became "banned hazardous substances" under the new law.

Because lead must be ingested in order to be a health risk, the small amounts of lead that are embedded in metal parts, like the frame and the battery terminals to enhance the safety and functionality of these components, pose no risk to kids.

While not one case of lead poisoning can be documented from children riding youth model ATVs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's own data shows that more than 90 percent of youth injuries and fatalities occur on larger, adult-size vehicles.

In fact, the CPSC, the ATV industry, safety advocates and parents all agree that it's critical to keep youth riders off adult-sized ATVs, and have cooperated for years to educate ATV riders that children should ride only ATVs that are the correct size for them.

The CPSC's own scientists agree that the presence of lead in these products does not present a health hazard to children. CPSC staff wrote to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who helped write the bill:

"The possibility that children will suffer significant lead exposures from [youth model ATVs] appears to be remote at best....A child using an adult ATV as a substitute would face a far graver and more immediate risk than that of the possible lead exposure from the youth ATVs."

Dingell is now calling for Congress to fix the law.

The CPSC also tried to temporarily address the ban by issuing a stay of enforcement in 2009.

Unfortunately, this hasn't helped because the many manufacturers and dealers have chosen not to sell the smallest youth model ATVs because of the risks of selling under the stay, and there's now a limited availability of these products for consumers.

In fact, half of the major ATV manufacturers are no longer selling youth model off-highway vehicles.

The financial impact on our industry has been devastating. Many dealerships throughout the country have closed because of losing the sales of youth-sized machines on top of an already depressed market. Many dealerships have had to lay off workers to stay open. These actions add job losses to an already challenging economic environment.

ATV and motor-sports enthusiasts have sent hundreds of thousands of letters and e-mails to Congress urging an end to the ban. Sen. Amy Klobuchar has pledged her support, and we urge her and other Minnesota members of Congress to take a leadership role in resolving this ridiculous situation. We've heard a lot of talk from both Republicans and Democrats that this ban must end, but for two years nothing has been done as politics has prevented Congress from addressing this problem.

Kids aren't licking or eating their ATVs, but they just might ride adult-sized ATVs thanks to this ban. Congress is putting kids in danger by refusing to address this problem.

Mike Larson is owner of Larsons Cycle in Cambridge, Minn.

Editor's Postscript: I attended a meeting of stakeholders on January 6th in Washington hosted jointly by Republican and Democratic staff for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to discuss possible changes to the CPSIA. [I wrote about this meeting a couple times earlier this year.] At this meeting, Cindy Pelligrini of the AAP admitted that the fact that the CPSIA tacitly banned youth model ATVs was fine with her and her employer. Why? As she noted, the AAP has long wanted youth model ATVs banned. Changing the law would only open the door to a reversal of this other policy objective of theirs. In other words, the AAP is using its standing with Democratic legislators to push an agenda with a "double benefit". Rather than fighting to ban youth model ATVs directly, a battle it would certainly lose, the AAP used the indirect route of overselling a lead standard that they knew ATVs could not meet. ATVs weren't banned under this law by accident. They were hardly an "unintended consequence." The damage to Minnesota businesses has been significant under this law. Next time, Ms. Klobuchar should pick her allies more carefully.

CPSIA - CPSC's Shameful Failure of Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

So now the Commission is poised to kick the can down the road until September 14, 2011. Why that date? The CPSC Staff report notes that this gives the Commission time to sort out the new, lower lead standard due to be imposed on August 10, 2011. The CPSC is holding a hearing on February 16 on the feasibility of the 100 ppm standard. As Staff notes, if the Commission doesn't determine that 100 ppm is feasible, then they will have to set a standard between 300 ppm and 100 ppm that is feasible. "Feasibility" was defined in the CPSIA, lest there should be any disagreement, to exclude ANY consideration of economics. In other words, if it's possible at any price or under any condition, it is considered "feasible" and thus mandated by the law. I can save the CPSC some time - under that definition, it's definitely feasible. Completely unreasonable and unnecessary but "feasible".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make them pay for their sins. Call your Congressman.

CPSIA - New Waxman Amendment Draft Issued Tonight, Mark-up Set for Wednesday Morning

The third draft of the Waxman Amendment 2.0 was released this evening. I have attached a clean copy of the legislation, as well as a redline for your convenience. The powers-that-be also released a draft of their "report language". The report language is interpretative language and is not included in the law mainly to keep future law clerks busy doing research. It should also give us something new to argue about.

This is the Committee Briefing Memo accompanying the draft legislation.

Consistent with past practice, this draft was issued with the usual coercion. A mark-up has been scheduled for Wednesday AM 10:00 a.m. in Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building BUT the Dems will decide tomorrow if they will proceed with that process. All talk of a hearing to vet this legislation has been quashed by the Dems who are scrupulous in managing the record. [I will never get to testify, that's for sure.] There will be a meeting on Tuesday at 4 PM to discuss this draft, at which point the Dems will either pull the plug or move forward. Presumably, this depends on the enthusiastic response to this draft. The Dems say they want a bipartisan bill and further want to send it to the Senate with the news that the bill is "supported by industry". In other words, Mr. Waxman is not interested in negotiating with the Senate, just wants their rubber stamp. He's not big on "jawboning" if that means he has to listen to others and make concessions . . . .

You are right to consider this another patented Waxman "take it or leave it" offer.

In response to complaints that this bill ignores the many legitimate concerns of the small business community, Waxman staff has advised that they "can't help everyone". That means you, guys.

Changes in this Draft:

a. Functional Purpose "Exception" - Minimal changes, mainly reverting back to the "public health or safety" test formulation. References to "all foreseeable users" is gone now. The "town hall" provision allowing "interested parties" to intervene in every proceeding has been eliminated. The "Previously Denied Petitions" provision is unchanged and still makes no sense.

The report language clarifies the meaning of "practicable", noting that excessive or unreasonable costs should be considered not "practicable". Specifically, they note: "The Committee does not consider a mere increase in the cost of manufacture or production, in itself, to be excessive. The Committee does expect that the Commission will consider compliance to be impracticable where compliance would place the viability and continuation of a class of products or materials in jeopardy, such as youth All Terrain Vehicles or youth bicycles made with recycled steel." [Emphasis added]

In case you were wondering about the purpose of the functional purpose exception, it is a gift to the noted industries. It's not for you. Remember, this relief is only available to those who are capable of mounting an exception application. Not a small undertaking.

Remember that the applicant for a functional purpose exception must apply for relief for a "specific product or material". You must also PROVE that your costs are not "practicable". Can you see some wiggle room there? A true believer Commission might have very little incentive to interpret these terms permissively. [You can count on that one with the Dems in charge.] This will be a costly and technical process. Think of this in the context of your business - is this realistic? With our 1500 products, it's just inconceivable. Too bad for us. Let's also not forget the stringency of the three-prong test.

The report language specifies that a "measurable adverse effect" on public health or safety refers to changes in blood lead levels. The language is pretty specific and will require a toxicologist's report to justify any exemption. Here are the magic words: "Given that there is no current blood level at which the scientific community considers lead exposure to be 'safe,' the Committee understands that a very small adverse effect may theoretically occur at any level of exposure. The Committee intends, however, for the Commission to deny requests for exception under this section as having a 'measurable adverse effect' on health or safety only in the case of those adverse effects that the Commission determines to be empirically, as opposed to theoretically, measurable. At present, the Committee understands that there is scientific consensus to interpret the phrase 'measurable adverse effect' from lead exposure to mean a measurable increase in blood lead levels."

This is a form of legislative filter to make sure that the exception is only for the chosen industries or companies. Again, this isn't meant for small fry, just big business. That's equity these days, I guess.

Anyone remember how hotly the Dems defended the inclusion of ATVs and bikes in this law back in '08 and '09? It was intentional, they insisted, necessary to protect the public against deadly lead. There's no safe level of lead, blah blah blah. Guess they got over that one . . . after they received 170,000 emails from ATV'rs.

b. Thrift Store Relief: Virtually no change, other than minor clarifications.

Not unlike the workings of other parts of the CPSIA, this new provision will be good for large scale thrift organizations like Goodwill or Salvation Army who are presumably able to centrally evaluate complex laws and implement system-wide responses to changes in law. i wonder how the smaller independent Mom-and-Pops will react to this provision. In any event, the provision tacitly bans resale of children's jewelry, painted toys and vinyl children's products. Stores will have to keep straight which items are in and which are out. With many resale stores staffed with minimum wage workers, I question how effectively most owners can prevent violations without just avoiding the category (at least in part).

Resale of childcare articles, including cribs, seems unaffected. The real gotcha is the risk the stores will bear from recalls. For that reason, I think many stores will stay away from reselling this category of goods. Clothing may make a reappearance in resale shops, finally.

It is incredible that the Democrats let this industry flap in the wind for almost two years before acting to save them from CPSIA oblivion. Think of the economic devastation these insensitive legislators wrought on small businesses all America, not to mention the patrons of this important industry - through two cold winters. This is just inexcusable, a true demonstration of stubbornness or being completely out of touch. Those who suffered at the hands of the Dem inaction have no recourse, either. Shame, shame.

c. Relief for Small Batch Manufacturers: The sham of this "relief" is perpetuated in this new draft. The definitions of "covered products" and "Small Batch Manufacturer" were left structurally intact but the thresholds were tweaked upward meaninglessly to 7500 units or $50,000 sold per item per (calendar) year, with an overall cap of company sales of $1 million. "Covered Products" oddly continues to refer only to manufactured items but Small Batch Manufacturers are defined by sales of manufactured OR imported goods. Go figure.

As I pointed out earlier today, Mattel and Hasbro have quarterly revenues of $880 million and $672 million, respectively. The so-called relief here is for companies with annual revenue of under $1 million. If these little companies pop over that revenue hurdle, they will be held to the same standard as Mattel and Hasbro. Don't worry, the CPSC plans to coach the little guys! Now if only they could provide non-recourse financing . . . .

Even if you are salivating over this pathetic crumb of "relief", I encourage you to reread what goodies Mr. Waxman is giving you. Here's the meat of it: "Any such alternative requirements shall provide for reasonable testing methods to assure compliance with the relevant consumer product safety standards." The reasonable TESTING METHODS must ASSURE COMPLIANCE. You tell me what this English sentence means. I think it means the small fry will be testing. I know the rest of us will, too. Testing and testing and testing and testing. It's time to buy stock in Intertek, I think. Later on, the bill instructs the Commission to work "cooperatively" with the little guys to "impose the least burdensome testing requirements . . . consistent with goals of statute." And those goals are, what exactly? Comprehensive, prophylactic testing.

Oh, the bounty of this relief!

d. Phthalates and Inaccessible Components: No material changes.

e. Subpoena Power: No changes whatsoever. Somebody's going to be sorry someday that this procedural speed bump was removed. Unfettered power of government was always un-American . . . until we met these Democrats.

Conclusion:

I wish I could recommend this bill. It has some good stuff in it. Unfortunately, it is utterly ineffective to arrest the damage being inflicted by the CPSIA. It is a gift to large industries but leaves the hammerlock on American small businesses catering children's markets. It sustains the fantastic notion that those of us in this business have somehow been poisoning kids for years or decades. That's a slanderous notion, something deeply offensive to me, but for the Dems to admit otherwise would mean a mea culpa. And there's no chance of that.

If the Dems manage to tempt enough corporate entities to sell out for this low price, it will be the biggest gift ever given by the corporate community to Mr. Waxman. He should host a champagne party for himself if he buys off the resistance. There will be no remaining organized opposition to the bulk of his CPSIA handiwork, and the focus will shift to surviving a manic CPSC bent on enforcing voluminous but ineffective safety rules and ladling out massive penalties for infractions without injuries. And once the action moves permanently to Bethesda, we'll see finally how much Cassandra got right.

I'm not looking forward to finding out. Vote NO on Waxman.

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.