CPSIA - ICPHSO Update on Compliance and Field Operations

Marc Schoem moderated a discussion involving four other heads of department (he is an acting department head, too):

• Dean Woodard, Dir., Defect Investigation Div.
• Mary Toro, Dir., Regulatory Enforcement Div.
• Dennis Blasiua, Eastern District Div., Field Investigations Div.
• Kathleen Lisius, Compliance Investigator, Import Surveillance Div (standing in for the director today).

DW: This division has four teams. Fast Track Recall program does not let you off the hook for reporting violations. It does avoid a "Preliminary Determination". This is a very "successful" and very "positive" program. Less bureaucracy and less "red tape". "Saves lives" and "limits your exposure" to whatever issues there may have been.

[RW: It is ALSO one of the most remarkably coercive programs administered by the CPSC. You are very often, if not always, given a short period of time to decide whether to participate. By "short", this could mean HOURS to decide. Hope you are always at the ready!]

MT: Four teams based on hazard. Four team leaders and 16 compliance officers. Different backgrounds on the team, lots of tech know-how and skills. This team does a lot of advising and gives a lot of guidance to industry. Have more than double the previous total of regulations that they have to enforce. Field staff goes out to do inspections. Develop field investigation programs for the year. Now MUST report under Section 15 for a violation of a mandatory standard. [Them's a lot of reports!] All such items also have a certification requirement.

DB - Does hundreds of inspections annually. Surveys, too. Visits to consumer homes and "no one leaves in handcuffs". [He said this in a joking manner.] Has roughly 100 investigations but gets tens of thousands of complaints annually. [RW: Now all that crap will go into the database. Can we see any issues here?] Emphasizes the politeness of his investigators. [RW: I appreciate this approach. I take him at his word.]

DB: Says we need to monitor the Internet for consumer complaints online. The CPSC is monitoring it so you better. Hmmm. DB says this may warrant investigation or spawn an investigation. More and more will send out investigators or ask for proof of destruction of recalled merchandise. Apparently, the re-export of recalled merchandise is up to Tim Geithner. [Fortunately, he's not too busy . . . .]

KL: Import Surveillance Div: Last year, not surprisingly, set a record of samples taken at port. 91% of the samples were violations, but only two products were recalled. Stopping at the port prevented the recalls. [This is interesting data. Are they clairvoyant or does everything coming into this country violate this godforsaken law in SOME way?] In apparel imports, the "first thing they look for" is drawstrings. Don't go there. . . .

Q&A: What if you disagree with the conclusions of your compliance officer? What are your due process rights?

MS: You are encouraged to call "up the chain". We are concerned to be responsive and want to know if you feel something is amiss.

60% of recalls come in under the Fast Track Recall program. In other words, this decision is made to pick up the "benefits" of the FTR program but also muddy the water about the state of the law on "substantial product hazards".

[RW: This is a total cop-out on the part of the agency and contributes significantly to the confusion on the workings of the law. In addition, the defects in the FTR program make everything worse. Marc Schoem admitted during Q&A that you often have only a DAY to decide whether or not to participate, which is inherently coercive. For most companies, unprepared for a federal agency descending on them with an "offer that you can't refuse" with an eight hour time limit, the pressure can be overwhelming. It is not unusual to get this "fine" offer before all relevant facts are known, and even when basically NO relevant facts are known. One wonders if the Shrek glasses recall was one such event. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?]

Why call everything a "recall"? MS: We like the word "recall" and think it's most effective to "get the word out". [See Nancy Nord's blogpost from earlier today. The word also has tremendous under the CPSIA - perhaps Mr. Schoem's favorite word needs to be revisited since things have changed. It is also a tough word when there is litigation going on.]

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!

CPSIA - Let's Pretend We're a Resale Shop!

Who wants to play a fun game? Let's pretend we are the Salvation Army Resale Shop in your neighborhood and process some newly submitted children's products. We have to figure out if we can sell them legally because we know the CPSC is about to stop by. Sound like fun? Of course it is! I know you like to play Store.

Here are the rules of the game: I have reproduced ten children's items here. These images came from eBay and from the CPSC website. Yes, one or more of the items has been RECALLED - oooo, CPSC Chairman Tenenbaum says recalled items "[put] children's lives at risk." So in this game, you can make children in your neighborhood so, so safe if you find the "dangerous" recalled product or products. Of course, you will also avoid going to the pokey. . . . As you well know, it's illegal to resell something that was recalled, so you have to go through the drill of figuring out which of these $3.00 items are okay to sell. In today's Product Safety Letter, Randy Swart informed us: "Culling out recalled products adds another level of processing for the small retailer of reused products, but it can be done by just checking against a list."

Everybody has been saying that it's so easy to figure out which items have been recalled. After all, the CPSC has a nifty website and all you have to do is check it. Right? Let's find out. Mr. Swart gave you the link. Thanks, Randy!

I want to know how you like my contest and how quickly you were able to finish all ten items. Get out your stopwatches! No cheating - I want to know how long it took to thoroughly check each of the ten items, and how many items you think were recalled. Please don't say which one(s) were recalled since that would spoil the game for everyone else.

Btw, my contest is open to all contestants - even CPSC Professional Staff, CPSC Commissioners and Members of Congress. Don't be shy!

Ready, set, go!

CPSIA - Randy Swart Takes My Spot in PSL!

Never tiring of a good thing, the Product Safety Letter today published an Op-Ed by Randy Swart entitled "CPSC's Guidance Is Not as Confusing as It May Seem". Mr. Swart is the founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. In this article, Mr. Swart replies to Rob Wilson's Op-Ed in PSL on Resale Shops and Inez Tenenbaum in a way not exactly reminiscent of my rejected Op-Ed on the same subject. Recognizing the PSL's reputation for "neutrality" and "accuracy and clarity", I am trying to figure out why Mr. Swart got the nod over me. Could it be that Mr. Swart's views might be more pleasing to the regulators that feed the PSL its life-sustaining information? Golly, that's a head scratcher. . . .

Mr. Swart: "CPSC's Guidance Is Not as Confusing as It May Seem"

RW: "Tenenbaum Silence on CPSIA Speaks Volumes"

Mr. Swart: "As all readers of Product Safety Letter know, CPSC is struggling to maintain any level of enforcement at all, and will not be going after yard salers!"

RW: "Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the agency, said it wouldn't be dispatching bureaucratic storm troopers into private homes to see whether people were selling recalled products from their garages, yards or churches. ‘We’re not looking to come across as being heavy-handed,' he said. 'We want to make sure that everybody knows what the rules of engagement are to help spur greater compliance, so that enforcement becomes less of an issue. But we're still going to enforce.'"

Mr. Swart: "In fact, [the CPSC] would have no more idea than the parent which old toys contained phthalates or had lead in the paint, and would have to test to establish that. Finding recalled product would be looking for needles in haystacks. It just will not happen."

RW: "After all, didn’t NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer secretly inspect resale shops in 2003 and then release names and addresses to the media? Interestingly, Spitzer was joined by some of the same consumer advocates who are behind the CPSIA. The CPSC has the same power to embarrass."

Mr. Swart: "It is not fair to blame the Commission or Congress for not grandfathering the dangerous toys in our market. We need to get them out of circulation [Ed. Note: Who, the Commission or Congress?], and that fact is independent from the enforcement of the CPSIA legislation. It will impose a hardship on some retailers, but that pales in comparison to the alternative--to tolerate the continuation of poisoning our children for years to come until those toys are worn out."

RW: “'The [West Michigan] Salvation Army does not have thousands of dollars to spend on lead-testing equipment, so anything that looks suspicious — plastic toys, painted toys, toys with magnets or small parts, toys made in China — is pitched, said Robert Pierce, director of operations for the Salvation Army stores. Only about 20 percent of donations to the Salvation Army — compared to about one-third before the law — make it onto the store floor.' The CPSC’s tough talk on enforcement is having a chilling effect on the business community – and that cost must be weighed when regulators get 'tough'”.

Mr. Swart: "In fact, any threat of CPSC retribution is probably less real than the possibility of being sued by the buyer if someone is injured by a recalled product. That should give the yard saler pause if nothing else does. Many people trash some items that they would have sold or Freecycled because of that risk." [And this guy thinks he is helping make a case for the CPSC and the new law???]

RW: "The agency previously played a critical role in setting safety priorities, assessing risks and interpreting the law. . . . The Chairman can show she is a leader by providing an honest assessment to Congress of the problems with CPSIA and mapping out the necessary changes. Ironically, none of this is about safety – it’s about a law that just doesn’t work."

Okay, I can't figure it out! Can you?

A couple final thoughts (can't resist): Mr. Swart says "The chemical detoxification of America is just beginning, and this is one of the early skirmishes in a long war." Please remember this blather. This is the mantra of the "everything-is-bad-for-you" crowd. If you want to see this mania in action, watch this video (and if you have the time and energy, the three other segments). This outlook is extremely dangerous but with Mr. Waxman as champion, threatens to infect federal regulation of many markets besides toys. This is the so-called "Precautionary Principle" and is the basis of the proposed amendment of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Second, in response to Mr. Swart's comment "It will impose a hardship on some retailers, but that pales in comparison to the alternative--to tolerate the continuation of poisoning our children for years to come until those toys are worn out", I want to reprint the words of a staffer from the office of Illinois' own Senator Dick Durbin:

April 16, 2009: "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). . . ." [Emphasis added]

I can hardly express my joy at being a Congressionally-selected victim for the greater good of our country! Their "larger calculation" sounds so sophisticated. I will go out with a smile on my face.

The barf bags are over on the shelf on the left.

CPSIA - Rob Wilson's Op-Ed in PSL on Resale Guidance

October 9, 2009

Consumer Confusion Comes From CPSC Guidance, Not the Media

By Rob Wilson

Product Safety Forum recently published an article by Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman Inez Tenenbaum intended to reassure thrift stores and families holding garage sales that the CPSC will not punish them with million dollar fines for sales of recalled items in violation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). Those of us who manufacture children's products support the CPSC's effort to rid the market of recalled products, but Ms. Tenenbaum's essay vividly illustrates her misunderstanding of the fears generated by the new product safety law.

Why are families and resale shops pulling children's products from their stores and garages? It's not for fear of selling recalled products; after all, it's relatively easy to go on the CPSC website and learn which items have been recalled.

It's not the media causing confusion and panic in the marketplace, as Ms. Tenenbaum asserts in her article. In fact, the fears were caused by the CPSC itself, originating in its recently published guidebook, CPSC Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers.

The handbook explains that the new law not only prohibits the sale of recalled products at yard sales or by thrift shops, but also any product that doesn't meet the CPSIA's strict new lead standard, contains any one of six prohibited phthalates (found in plastic), or violates any other CPSC standard, ban, rule, or regulation. The possibilities for violating the law seem endless.

The handbook lists many products that may fall into this category: painted products, wood products with any varnish or paint, clothes with rhinestones, metal or vinyl/plastic snaps (including buttons), zippers, grommets, closures or appliqués, inexpensive children's metal jewelry (ie. children's jewelry not made from gold, platinum, sterling silver, precious stones, pearls, or other absurdly expensive materials), books printed in 1985 or earlier, or any book that can be played with. In a nutshell, the items that you typically see at a family's garage sale or a thrift store.

Yet resellers and families holding garage sales have no idea whether the buttons on a child's shirt contain lead above or below the new standard, or whether a plastic toy contains phthalates. The only way to tell is by testing it, and families aren't going to spend hundreds of dollars per product to test a $5 tinker toy. In many cases, including tests for phthalates, the product must be destroyed. If families could afford to test products, even the most entrepreneurial might find it difficult to sell the product once it's turned to dust. The CPSC's handbook offers a good solution: don't sell the children's product if you are not sure.

But perhaps you are thinking, "this doesn't apply to me." Back to the handbook for guidance: "You are not required to test your products for safety. However, resellers (including those who sell on auction Web sites) cannot knowingly sell products that do not meet the requirements of the law. You can protect yourself by screening for violative products. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." The handbook then goes on to advise: "If you should happen to sell or offer for sale a product in violation of the CPSIA or other law, CPSC's response will vary depending upon the circumstances, including the nature of the product defect, the number of products, the severity of the risk of injury associated with the product and the type of violation. The Commission's response would also take into account the fact that you may be a small business."

In other words, the "guidance" is clear as mud. You don't have to test, but you better not sell products that don't meet requirements of the law, which you can only determine if you test. If you do violate the law, CPSC may take it easy on you if you are a small business or a family holding a garage sale . . . unless they decide not to.

The heart of the problem for the resale community is the retroactive nature of the law. If the law were not retroactive, all items manufactured according to the rules before February 10, 2009 would be deemed safe, and anything made after the implementation would be certified compliant (and safe). Without retroactivity, thrift stores must follow CPSC guidelines and eliminate most of their children's products, since most fit the profile of a "risky" product (meaning there is even a slight chance they might not meet the new standard), they must be presumed not compliant unless proven otherwise.

If Chairman Tenenbaum wants coats, toys, books and children's products to remain in thrift stores this Christmas season, she needs to stop being a mouthpiece for the authors of the legislation who claim the law is absolutely perfect. If she wants families to be able to sell their kids' old clothes and toys on the weekends and remain law abiding citizens, she must start being an advocate for a common sense approach to implementing CPSIA. If she wants consumers to still have access to handmade, natural or educational products, she needs to take a serious look at why this law is hampering their availability.

Chairman Tenenbaum vowed at her Senate confirmation hearing to bring a common sense approach to CPSIA implementation. We are still waiting for signs of common sense from the agency regarding CPSIA. Now is the time for the Chairman to end the confusion and dysfunctionality in the marketplace by advocating for common sense changes to the CPSIA.

Rob Wilson is vice president of Challenge & Fun, an importer of natural toys, founder of CPSIA-Central, and a board member of the Handmade Toy Alliance. Contact him at rob@challengeandfun.com

CPSIA - Wanted, a Demonstration of CHARACTER

I hear from readers of this Blog practically every day. It is obvious that I am not alone in my strong opposition to the CPSIA. In fact, the pain seems to be widespread, across many industries, forms of business and channels of distribution, and feelings of disenfranchisement and loss remain intense. I get the sense that you recognize that Congress is deaf to your concerns, having made up "its" mind a long time ago. [In fact, this is not entirely true since many members of Congress are on record with strong reservations about the law. It's the Democratic leadership who closed their minds and closed their doors to us.]

Because Congressional leaders (Dems) won't talk to us and aren't motivated to do anything to fix the mess they made, much of the angst now focuses on the CPSC. I have said many times that I don't envy their job. The CPSC is paid to enforce this stupid law, and inevitably, enforcing a stupid law . . . well, it doesn't make you look good. Much frustration and anger has been directed at the agency for doing their unpleasant job, a burden replete with inflexible and uneconomic regulatory limitations, unreasonable workloads and unrealistic deadlines. In addition, the agency is acting in a disciplined way, writing rules to implement a stupid law in the stupid way Congress wanted it implemented. Of course the new CPSC rules look stupid - given where they came from. This could be anticipated - as a Federal agency, the CPSC must simply fill in the holes in the law, not re-write it. [There is Supreme Court law on this topic (Wayman v. Southard (1825): "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details.").]

If Congress won't act and the CPSC can't help us, either . . . what do we still want under these circumstances?

I have an answer: we want a demonstration of character by the CPSC. I know those are strong words but it's time to stop beating around the bush. Congress is deaf - face it, if Mr. Waxman gave a damn about you and me, he might have found a couple hours to call a hearing in the last year. He has no intention to act, no matter the pain or waste we have proven (as our dear friend in Senator Durbin's office acknowledged last May). That means that unless we want to wait for someone to save us that isn't going to come, we need the CPSC to rise to the occasion. Notwithstanding the legal analysis above (which I happen to believe is correct), we need MORE from the CPSC and its leadership. They know as well as we do how misguided this law is. They know about our pointless losses and the incredible, wrenching disruptions in our businesses. They also know the law is causing MASSIVE misallocation of their limited resources away from real issues of safety and toward nonsense (like the agency's contemptible Resale Roundup program which has a zero percent chance of preventing an injury or saving a life, or the senseless devotion of hundreds or thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars to the prosecution of safety investigations of ballpoint pens, rhinestones and bikes and ATVs for their lead content). They know this law is ruining their agency and the markets they are supposed to patrol.

The agency's inability or unwillingness to find a way to steer this law to sanity is not as compelled as they might want you to believe. To argue such is nothing more than a cop out. Any lawyer worth his salt can read a law to mean anything he wants. In fact, the agency's tilt toward Congress might be remarkably shortsighted. Is it really in anyone's best interest, including the CPSC's, to play footsie with Congress on such a defective law? The outcome seems pre-ordained to me. Of course, the route of least resistance may be to try to convince America that policies like sending inspectors to garage sales are necessary to "keep kids safe" but how long will that illusion last, and when the mania finally passes, who will still respect the CPSC? They are hitching their wagon to legal lunacy that they themselves recognize clearly.

The solution is character. The CPSC can resist. Notably, they have been given permission by 28 Senators to use their "common sense". Perhaps a little more creativity in legislative construction is needed. Perhaps a little more skepticism about the perfection of Congress' legislative process or Congress' knowledge of safety issues is merited. There once was a day when the CPSC's principal concern was doing the "right" thing (as opposed to trying to please Congress), and the mission of safety was their guiding light. Unfortunately, today's mission seems to be maximizing bureaucracy, not safety. Guys, you are letting us down. We have no one left to turn to but you. Trust, faith and hope in the agency has not been entirely destroyed, despite low points like the pen decision, the ATV decision and Commissioner Moore's recommendation to sequester library books. I, for one, want to continue to believe that I can trust the CPSC, as I have for almost 20 years. I will admit my faith is wavering.

CPSC leadership can strike a different chord, can write different rules and can take more personal risk in pressing Congress for a restoration of rationality to our national standards of safety. This is an issue of character - I think it's time for action.

CPSIA - Your Government At Work! [Feel Safer Yet?]

From today's Kansas City Star:

Garage sales covered under new product safety laws

By SARA SHEPHERDThe Kansas City Star

Selling any used cribs or playpens at your upcoming garage sale? Children’s clothes with drawstrings or zippers? Pre-1985 books? Rubber duckies or pool floaties?

Better check them twice.

Just like megasize toy manufacturers and stores that sell products from China, the notoriously broad and confusing federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act applies to you and your front yard.

Anyone selling products, even used ones, that have been recalled or banned by the act is in violation. The act covers everything from toys with lead paint to cribs that might strangle babies.

“Ignorance of the law is not an excuse,” warns a 27-page Consumer Product Safety Commission resellers’ handbook, released this month. “But more importantly … you do not want to sell products that have the potential to harm anyone, especially a child.”

Besides people holding yard sales, the law applies to thrift or consignment stores, charities, flea markets and people who sell on auction Web sites, the handbook says.

Unlike manufacturers, resellers aren’t required to test used products for lead and phthalates.
However, they are supposed to educate themselves about safety standards and, somehow, ensure none of their products violates them.

The safety commission will not patrol garage sales, commission spokesman Scott Wolfson said. But store proprietors who knowingly or repeatedly violate the law may be fined.

All sellers — and shoppers — should learn about the rules, Wolfson said.

“You could be passing on a danger to an unknowing family,” he said. “We do a great job at CPSC of getting dangerous products off of store shelves. Our challenge has always been getting those same dangerous products out of people’s homes.”

The commission studied thrift stores nationwide in 1999 and found that 69 percent were selling products that had been recalled, banned or failed to meet safety standards, according to the handbook.

After millions of lead-tainted toys from China were recalled in 2007, Congress enacted the sweeping and complicated Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in August 2008. It took effect in February.

The new handbook, available at http://www.cpsc.gov/, summarizes the law for everyday people who sell used products.

It includes resources and guidelines for identifying risky products, plus horror stories — some with illustrations — of what has and could happen to children because of certain items:

•Drawstrings on hoods have caught on playground equipment and bus doors, causing children to be strangled or dragged and killed.
•Magnetic toy parts, if swallowed, have attracted one another inside children’s intestines, perforating them.
•Children have been hanged when their bodies, but not their heads, slipped between rails of top bunk beds.
•Others have suffocated when foam pellet stuffing from bean bag chairs clogged their mouths and noses.

Throughout Mission’s recent citywide garage sale, piles of used children’s clothes, playpens and bassinets, dolls and toys ranging from elaborate sets to cereal-box prizes were on sale — cheap.
Some sellers were mothers who said they policed their own products for their own children’s safety, but they either hadn’t heard of the new act or didn’t know it applied to them.

Karen Laughton’s wares included a bassinet and a large Fisher-Price toy once used by her children, now 4 and 7.

Laughton said she’d heard of similar products being recalled but that when she checked the list she learned hers were different models or years.

Otherwise, putting them out “wouldn’t feel right,” she said. “I would feel terrible if a kid got hurt because I sold something that I shouldn’t have.”

Stephanie Matchett was selling used toys and clothes her 1-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son had outgrown.

None of the clothes had neck drawstrings. Matchett said she assumed the pajamas were nonflammable because they were new not long ago.

Matchett said she has recall Web sites bookmarked on her computer but admits, “It changes so often...it’s so hard to keep up with everything.”

Stores that sell used products also are having a hard time keeping up.

As the safety act’s Feb. 10 compliance date loomed, frustrated manufacturers and retailers — including book publishers, toothbrush makers and bicycle suppliers — lobbied to have their products excluded from the act, or to be granted stays of enforcement until they could figure out how to comply.

Some succeeded. Others, including the resale industry, did not.

Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops, said member stores are now doing the best they can to follow the law.

“It’s just the way it was written, it’s almost impossible to abide by this law,” Meyer said.

Some stores, to avoid any risk, quit accepting children’s products altogether, she said. Some that sold only children’s products have “reinvented themselves” by adding adult clothing or furniture to make up for lost inventory.

Stores have always checked recall lists, Meyer said, but some now call manufacturers directly to find out, for example, if a certain product contains phthalates.

Meyer said the safety commission doesn’t have the manpower to police the law among retailers, much less garage sale operators.

Merriam resident Meredith Mullen perused a table full of baby clothes at a recent sale in Mission.

Mullen, who was shopping for gifts for her nieces, said buyers should take responsibility, too: “If you purchase something at a garage sale, you should probably check it out when you get home.”

_____________________________
Some things you shouldn’t sell •Any recalled product, for children or adults. Cribs, playpens, bunk beds, baby walkers and board books are among commonly recalled products.

•Toys, other children’s products or furniture with paint containing more than the legal limit of lead. Potential culprits include inexpensive children’s metal jewelry and clothes with metal decorations or closures.
•Toys or child-care articles containing more than the legal limit of phthalates. Balls, bath and pool toys, dolls, bibs and teethers are examples of risky items.
•Books with metal spiral bindings or designed primarily for play, like plastic bath books, which may contain lead or phthalates.

Some things you can sell •Items made entirely of wood, without paint or hardware.

•Clothes, blankets and other items made entirely of yarn or textiles such as cotton, wool and nylon. Thread, elastic and closures must be non-metallic.
•Traditional books printed after 1985.
•Vintage children’s books and other collectibles not primarily intended for children.

The new CPSC handbook for product resellers can be downloaded free at http://www.cpsc.gov/.