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 - Shams and the People Who Perpetrate Them

As far back as December 2009, CPSIA zealots have been promoting the notion that a "functional purpose" exemption is the centerpiece of any fix to the CPSIA.  See Henry Waxman's first attempt at a middle-of-the-night amendment to the CPSIA.  Chairman Inez Tenenbaum chimed in in January 2010 to support the need for a functional purpose exemption:  "I have learned through our implementation of the law, however, that there are circumstances where the exclusion of lead in certain materials or component parts is extremely problematic. Accordingly, it would be helpful for Congress to create a new exclusion to the section 101(a) lead content limits that would allow some flexibility in cases where lead is required for a functional purpose and the elimination of the lead is impracticable or impossible."  At their insistene, this term has always been part of each draft of CPSIA amendment being discussed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This same approach lives on in ECADA today.  Does it really make sense to offer an "out" for items or materials which "[require] the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture" without violative lead levels?  How might that judgment be made? 

No matter - the exemption sounds like a nice gesture by the powers-that-be, doesn't it?  Leaves the door cracked just a bit so that companies in the children's market can preserve hope, right?  The provision also addresses the unfortunate but predictable fact that the CPSC has been "unable" to grant even one exemption to the CPSIA in the last three years.  Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothin'.  Advocates insist that this exemption process solves the problem of an overly-inflexible law without unnecessarily "endangering" children from dreaded lead.

I wonder if you would feel differently if you knew that there are no conceivable materials or products that meet this standard.  The CPSC Staff confirmed it in writing.  The CPSC report on 100 ppm released last week confirms once and for all that the functional purpose exemption is an outright SHAM.  This darling of Rep. Henry Waxman and his minions (including Adler and Tenenbaum) will never be used to grant even one exemption, thus perpetuating the hoax that the CPSIA has exemptions.  It doesn't, it never has and if the Dems get their way with this provision, it never will.  This is no accident.

The CPSC Staff report concludes that the 100 ppm lead level is "technologically feasible" for all products and all materials.  Thus, they recommend the implementation of the new standard on time on August 14 to apply to everything.  This is critical - they conclude that every material and every product can be produced at the 100 ppm level. 

This is actually a narrow judgment under very specific conditions set out in the CPSIA.  "Technologically feasible" is a term of art under the law - it does not have the ordinary English language meaning you might otherwise expect.  Of particular note, the definition does not refer to cost or economics in any fashion.  In other words, if it can be done (at any expense, regardless of how ridiculous), it must be done.  As the staff discovered, almost anything is "technologically feasible" under this definition in a low tech business like children's products.  Of course, you might have to spend a lot of money or take a lot of economic risk.  The law is indifferent to these pedestrian concerns. 

To reach this conclusion, staff also dispensed with the notion that anyone "used" lead at these trace levels. They note that intentional uses of lead were always at concentrations well above 300 ppm:   "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."  In other words, lead is never "included" in children's products at these levels. 

[Note to the Dem Commissioners - you can now officially apologize for your insulting remark that we manufacturers intend to "dose" children with lead if standards are even slightly loosened.]

Staff also confirmed the obvious on health issues relating to these trace levels:  The contribution of products with lead levels of between 100 ppm and 300 ppm is "minimal".

In so concluding, the staff apparently rejected the testimony of the AAP's estimable Dana Best that IQ points were being lost left and right from trace levels of lead. 

So why are the Dems still insisting on a "functional purpose" exemption process?   Well, substantively, there is no rational justification for it anymore - it cannot be granted given staff's conclusions.  That said, who is going to figure that one out?  It sounds good, makes good press for an easily-duped media, and allows Dems to adopt the stump-worthy posture of "listening" to corporate victims while still protecting children against evil companies out to poison them. 

As I said, who is going to connect the dots and figure this one out?  Expect every draft of the pending CPSIA amendment to include this obsolete notion no matter the facts.  It's good for you, remember!

This is called leadership in Washington today.

CPSIA - Comment Letter on the "15 Month Rule"

August 3, 2010

Todd A. Stevenson
Director, Office of the Secretary
Room 820
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Re: Docket No. CPSC–2010-0038 Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification.

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

I am hereby submitting comments in response to the Solicitation of Comments on Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (Docket No. CPSC–2010–0038) published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (the “Proposed Rule”).

The End of (Business) Life As We Know It:

As I sit down to record my comments on this rule, I take comfort in knowing that the CPSC admits what it is doing here. In a section entitled “Caveats and Possible Market Reactions to Third Party Testing Requirements”, the agency acknowledges the severe impact of its new rule on manufacturers:

a. Significantly increased costs,
b. Incentive to redesign (presumably successful) products,
c. Incentive to reduce features on products,
d. Incentive to eliminate (presumably useful) components in finished goods,
e. Incentive to reduce product lines,
f. Exit the market altogether,
g. Go out of business,
h. Create barriers to entry for future business expansion, especially in specialty markets (non-mass market),
i. Devastate niche markets (noting particularly the “special needs” educational market – sorry, blind kids!), and
j. Incentive to delay or forgo product or manufacturing process improvements (to avoid testing costs).

Quite a stimulus program! Of course, the CPSC knows we can’t meet this challenge alone. In “The Potential Effects of the Proposed Rule”, the agency advises us to hire a few helpers:

a. Lawyers to review CPSC regulations,
b. Engineers and chemists to develop product specifications, conduct tests and design a program for production testing,
c. Statisticians or consultants to determine the frequency, sample size and collection method for production testing, and
d. Technicians, “perhaps working under the supervision of an engineer, chemist or similar professional”, to perform production tests.

This certainly is a Brave New World for us. Luckily we have the CPSC to tell us what to do. Unfortunately, we can’t afford an in-house legal department or teams of engineers, chemists or statisticians. We don’t even have technicians. Incredibly, somehow we bumble on in our blissful, almost charming ignorance, having had only one recall of 130 pieces (we recovered every unit) out of perhaps 1,000,000,000 units sold in the last 26 years. No doubt all the pain the CPSC is promising us will be worth it . . . gotta keep everyone so safe.

Seriously, Is Anyone Listening?

On page 28338 of the Federal Register, the Proposed Rule reproduces the “reasonable testing program” as it stood before the December 10-11, 2009 workshop at the CPSC. The workshop (which we attended with three people who were each asked to appear as a panelist) was ostensibly for the purpose of giving “stakeholder feedback” on the so-called “15 Month Rule” (the Proposed Rule) and the component testing rule (also up for comment today, posted under separate cover). We gave detailed feedback on these rules – none positive – yet the Proposed Rule seems to have preserved the original, deeply-flawed concepts intact.

It is difficult not to conclude that the process of providing feedback to this CPSC is a sham. While Chairman Tenenbaum has long touted her “policy” of seeking feedback from all stakeholders including industry, judging from this rule, the commitment to seeking feedback does not involve maintaining an open mind. It appears that the most likely feedback to be well-received is feedback that ratifies what the agency already plans to do. Other feedback is “wrong”, I guess. I doubt you will find this letter useful.

As time ebbs on and as the drumbeat of a CPSC bent on our destruction becomes more and more clear, the incentive to waste a few days preparing detailed comments also ebbs. Nevertheless, owing to the importance of this Proposed Rule, I am hereby submitting comments. I have no reason to be optimistic that you will consider my point of view with an open mind. This rule has all the earmarks of a fait accompli.

Deeply Flawed Economic Analysis.

The Proposed Rule devotes pages and pages to a tortured analysis of its purported compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). This section of the Proposed Rule is a virtual admission of how unworkable the rule is (and the CPSIA testing scheme in general). As a starting point, the rule states: “The objective of the rule is to reduce the risk of injury from consumer products, especially from products intended for children aged 12 years and younger.” In my recent study of CPSC recall data posted on its website, I have found exactly ONE DEATH and THREE ASSERTED INJURIES from lead or lead-in-paint from 1999-2010. Please keep this statistic in mind as I review the economics of your “injury reduction” effort.

The flaws in the RFA analysis are clear in its discussion of testing costs for toys. The analysis acknowledges that it only accounts for out-of-pocket testing costs, nothing else. Significant additional (and ignored) costs include samples destroyed or damaged in testing, transportation of samples, administrative costs for managing testing, administration costs for managing the testing data, administrative costs for managing recordkeeping, an allocation of general management time, legal expenses relating to testing and so on. Depending on the scale of the business, I estimate that these costs (and distractions) will add 15%-50% to the out-of-pocket testing costs.

The RFA analysis concludes that testing a typical toy will cost $1,262 per product. As an average, this might be a good number for our business. I would note, however, that the Proposed Rule posits that we will test multiple samples, sending in perhaps four separate samples per item to satisfy the bizarre “required high degree of assurance” standard. [The rule states clearly that testing one sample is never enough. Interestingly, we have never had the experience in the last 20 years that multiple safety tests of the same product reveals anything useful other than rapidly approaching poverty.] The rule’s four-sample regime takes the testing cost per toy up to $4,848 (by the calculation in the document) plus another $2,500 for mechanical tests (because the rule posits that we will submit FIFTY samples for mechanical tests). That brings us up to $7,348 per item, plus 54 destroyed samples. This implies a rough “all-in” cost of $10,000 per item. We have 1,500 catalog items in our product line. Without a “reasonable testing program” in place (see below), we will have to test each item annually. This is a cost of $15 million for our company EVERY YEAR. [We also sell custom items, a business that would presumably be terminated by this testing rule. That’s several jobs down the drain.]

Does it surprise you to know that $15 million in testing costs exceeds our annual profit? By far?

The RFA analysis is deeply flawed in other ways, too. The rule duly reports that “[a]ccording to a representative of a trade association, there are an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 individual toys on the market.” Oh, really? Perhaps the CPSC shouldn’t have consulted the International Hubcap Manufacturers Association for this information. A quick visit to the Amazon.com website reveals listings of 808,465 toys and games on August 3rd (http://amzn.to/djtTVX). Amazon is a customer of ours – I estimate that they list about one-third of all toys and games sold in the consumer market. Call it 2.5 million toys and games available to consumers in the U.S. But that’s not all – the category also includes specialty items not present on consumer sites. For instance, our industry, the education industry, is largely invisible on consumer sites. I estimate that about one million SKUs are available to purchase at the annual convention of the International Reading Association. Millions of other SKUs are displayed at the national math show, the national science show and the national early childhood show. Add in special needs and other sub-markets – and you get well in excess of 4-5 million toys and games. So the RFA analysis might be off by 100x in its assessment of the toy market ALONE. That’s not close. . . .

The RFA analysis goes on to conclude that the ENTIRE MARKET of products affected by the rule is 100,000–150,000 products. This includes “wearing apparel, accessories, jewelry, juvenile products, children’s furniture, etc.”, plus non-children’s products and other children’s products like ATVs, bikes, bunk beds and so on. It is hard to dignify this ridiculous data with a retort, except to note that it is absurd on its face. The apparel industry ALONE offers as many as 8,000,000 different children’s SKUs for sale. The RFA analysis is fatally flawed.

At $10,000 per SKU, the projected children’s product testing costs will easily exceed $50 billion per year. Remember the 11-year CPSC statistic on lead deaths and injuries – one death and three ASSERTED injuries? [There are no recorded injuries from phthalates or cadmium, by the way.] The 11-year compliance cost will exceed $550 billion (in 2010 dollars), expended by U.S. companies to “reduce” this risk of injury. It would cost a lot less to wrap every American child in bubble wrap.

Small Businesses CANNOT SURVIVE THIS RULE.

Assuming we are supposed to take this rule seriously, the Proposed Rule is perhaps the best friend of the mass market yet invented by an agency seemingly bent on the destruction of the small business community. This letter documents again and again the unrealistic expectations and assumptions made by the authors of this rule with respect to businesses in general and small businesses in particular. Thousands of small businesses of every stripe and color will be affected by this rule. Are you seriously thinking that they will all hire statisticians, chemists and engineers to prepare the reams of data, plans and reports the CPSC expects? Once this massive, herculean effort is completed, who will be safer anyhow? I can think of someone – mass market companies who have been handed a game-ending cost advantage on a silver platter by the CPSC. This, combined with mass market companies’ ability to create certified firewalled in-house labs, favors the big guy dramatically. No wonder the rule states again and again how prejudicial this rule is to small business. The CPSC knows what it’s doing.

Small businesses will strain to even understand what is expected of them. The rule is obtuse, long-winded and full of arcania. Small business people may not have the time or skills to master this complex rule. When the CPSC turns to its attention to enforcement (as promised for 2011) and selects a few small businesses to whip into shape, the market will take note of the pain and a mass exit will result. I realize, however, that Cassandra-like predictions haven’t influenced the CPSC in recent times. One of the Commissioners has even been quoted as saying that “anecdotes aren’t evidence”. It feels like we have to die to prove we were right. A few small businesses might just do that, if the agency waits long enough.

The Commission has asked for feedback on how to address these issues. The complexity of the CPSIA safety rules proves that they are unworkable. To repair this damage, the Commission must ask Congress to restore its ability to assess risk. I am assuming that the Commission would exercise this discretion with more common sense than is embodied in this rule. CPSC rules should be trimmed back to things that MATTER, only. Second, the agency should build its rules and its enforcement activity around DATA. Injury statistics tell the agency what is important. If a particular hazard generates ONE DEATH AND THREE ASSERTED INJURIES OVER 11 YEARS, you can safely relax your rules quite a bit (there are worse problems out there). Education might make a difference, however.

Finally, the Commission should NOT take ANY step if there is EVEN A SHRED OF DOUBT about the impact on small business. Small business is the major jobs creator in America. When you promulgate rules that choke the life out of small business or sharply reduce their incentive to invest, you are killing our economy. You have a heavy responsibility to keep this place running, even if it’s an imperfect world. While it’s sad that a child ever dies, the pain and suffering imposed on countless families from lost jobs, lost capital, lost access to needed products, and so on likely far exceeds it.

Reasonable Testing Program – Busy Work to Keep Us From Running Our Businesses.

The “Reasonable Testing Program” (“RTP”) represents a choice presented to manufacturers of children’s products under this rule. If we endure the expense and disruption of a RTP, we can cut our testing frequency (read, testing costs) in half. A very tempting prospect but the cost of a RTP seems too high, leaving us with a Hobson’s Choice. We can’t afford annual testing and we cannot afford a RTP. What should we do? What will anyone do?

Owing to the burden and complexity of RTPs, I predict EVERY REGULATED COMPANY will violate these rules. Since Ms. Tenenbaum has promised to turn to enforcement in 2011, the CPSC regulators should have a pretty easy time finding juicy targets. Every company will provide wonderful enforcement opportunities.

Although our testing program has been highly-effective over the last 26 years, our program would never meet these standards. We do not maintain the volume of paperwork that the new CPSC rule now requires. We know what we’re doing, but we have not organized our files into a how-to manual. Perhaps the agency thinks every company in the country is an ISO 9001 company. They’re not, and this kind of documentation is rare and breathtakingly expensive to prepare.

Having endured the CPSIA spectacle for two years now, I do not trust the seemingly flexible definition of necessary documentation. The pattern is that these seemingly open-ended terms (which may or may not describe our current recordkeeping) will mature into something rigid down the line. Even if they don’t, we still face the risk that we will not measure up to the expectations of the CPSC enforcement officer at the time of reckoning. The feeling that we are being set up is inescapable. As noted above, given our record of performance, the agency should have NO concerns about how we go about our business. Nonetheless, I feel certain that these rules will bite me in the future.

Sample selection under the rule should not be based on any statistical formula (per the baffling presentation of Dr. Michael Greene at the December 2009 workshop). If the overall safety results of the company are strong, the choice of samples by the company or factories should be presumed compliant without further inquiry. Random selection (taking one off the shelf . . . without the assistance of a statistician) works just fine in our experience, and there is no evidence that testing multiple samples will accomplish anything but will certainly raise costs. Better sampling won’t lower injury rates that already approach zero.

We currently do not use production testing and have zero production testing plans in place. With one recall in 26 years, I would assert this kind of testing is superfluous in our business and basically useless from a safety standpoint. It will significantly raise costs, however. The tedious exercise of preparing a pallet load of production testing plans to meet the new requirements is just plain busy work. One must ask what the CPSC was thinking when it penned this description of a production testing plan: “A production testing plan may include recurring testing or the use of process management techniques such as control charts, statistical process control programs, or failure modes and effects analysis (FMEAs) designed to control potential variations in product manufacturing that could affect the product’s ability to comply with the applicable rules, bans, standards or regulations.” Fancy words but . . . what planet are they from?

The requirement to list all the tests applicable to our items, again and again, to satisfy the RTP requirements is typical of mindless busy work asked of us. Does the CPSC think this will make ANY difference? Most businesses confirm safety tests with their testing lab partners anyhow. More bureaucracy, taken to new heights.

We don’t have any remedial plans in place either. We are quite familiar with how to appropriately resolve compliance and quality issues, and have never had a problem with regulators in the exercise of our business judgment. The requirement to prepare a detailed written plan, just in case we have another recall in the next 26 years, is pure officiousness. This is yet another waste of our time, our money, our resources and our intellect.

The recordkeeping requirements of a RTP is well beyond our ability or interest to preserve for 1500 products produced in thousands of lots over the course of a year. Taking a “Dear Diary” approach to how we source, test, move, remediate, repair, investigate and otherwise manage children’s products is completely unreasonable. This is especially ridiculous given our track record.

The Commission has asked what a RTP might cost us. I have a hard time estimating it because all the fun in our business would be gone. If we had to endure the bureaucratic nightmare this rule envisions, if anyone actually expects us to do all this to make simple plastic toys for schools, I would have to seriously consider our alternatives. So it might cost us our entire company. That’s the whole enchilada, guys.

Remember, we don’t have to make children’s products, nor do we have to stick around for the next act of this tragedy. If the CPSC persists in ruining what was once a rather safe industry with a strong track record, the cost will be the entire market for children’s products.

Is that a high enough price to give you pause? I know, I know, more anecdotes . . . .

The Requirement to Document Procedures against Undue Influence is Unreasonable.

The “Undue Influence Procedures” requirement (“UIP”) is essentially a requirement to document efforts to avoid fraud. If you’re not inclined to commit fraud, there’s little reason to set out your plan to not commit fraud. Here’s our current policy – “Don’t break the law or commit fraud”. This has worked well for us, as we have never exerted undue influence in the last 26 years and have no plans to start now.

I am really sorry that there are bad people in the world, some small number of which may have at one time attempted to exert undue influence over one or more test labs. Perhaps the CPSC should concern themselves with the bad guys and leave the rest of us alone.

Material Change Rules Place Too Much Risk on Manufacturers.

The CPSC’s rule on when to test after a “material change” is sufficiently open-ended to render the judgment on when to test fairly obvious – ALWAYS TEST. Deep within the Proposed Rule, Section 1107.10(b)(2)(ii) instructs “A material change is any change in the product’s design, manufacturing process, or sourcing of component parts that a manufacturer exercising due care knows, or should know, could affect the product’s ability to comply with the rules . . . .” “Due care” is defined as “the degree of care that a prudent and competent person engaged in the same line of business or endeavor would exercise under similar circumstances.”

In other words, the agency’s 20-20 hindsight can construct a case for testing for a material change for just about anything that “might” or “could” affect results or that a hypothetical “prudent person” might think of investigating. Of course, this issue only comes up in the context of an injury or a recall, so what are the odds that any judgment to NOT test would withstand inquiry by an angry CPSC? Zilch. So either you always test or you take a big risk. This is completely unfair and unreasonable.

Testing Frequency Must Be Left to the Manufacturer and to the Market.

A rule requiring manufacturers to test according to these standards every year is going to kill us and many other businesses. No one can afford the testing scheme outlined above, we least of all. If we must test according to these standards, we will be out of business quickly. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that testing cost savings from maintaining a RTP will hold much appeal since that project is so wasteful and gargantuan. Of course, a firewalled in-house lab would be nice for all of us small businesses, but that’s unrealistic, too (not to mention undesirable). We have no realistic way to moderate these costs. Please see my other August 3 comment letter for an explanation of why I believe component and composite testing will likewise provide no relief.

Testing is supposed to assure product quality and compliance. If we have a good, long term record of safety, why can’t we just carry on as we have, and deal with issues as they arise? That worked for 26 years. The new way is just unaffordable.

The “High Degree of Assurance” Standard is Unreasonable and Not Derived from the CPSIA.

The rule seems to conclude that a “high degree of assurance” is a necessary element of any “reasonable testing program”. The importance of the “reasonable testing program” which was incorporated into the CPSIA as an alternative to third party testing for non-children’s products, has been imputed to the children’s product area as a way to reduce testing frequency, and with it, the “high degree of assurance” standard (“HDA”) was likewise imputed. Thus, sliding down this slippery slope, the HDA standard has become part and parcel of the “15 Month Rule”. Abracadabra.

The Commission has requested feedback on the meaning of the definition of HDA in Section 1107.2. Happily, the agency has rejected a strict statistical interpretation requiring “95% probability” of compliance. What should the definition be interpreted to mean? The “high degree of assurance” should be based on an overall assessment of the safety record of the company. It should NOT be based on the results of an individual product, even if recalled or deemed dangerous. In our case, we have done business for 26 years, had one recall of 130 pieces of out of about 1,000,000,000 pieces sold. All of these units were recovered. Thus, we believe there is zero probability that a recalled product is in the market. Our historical recall rate is approximately 130/1,000,000,000 or 0.00001% over a 26-year period.

With this record over so many years, our company should be deemed to have satisfied this HDA requirement and be endorsed as having a reasonable testing program without further inquiry. And if we DON’T deserve the HDA designation, then the CPSC should articulate what level of safety achievement would earn the designation.

Notably, the entire children’s product industry also meets this requirement. Of the 899 recalls of children’s products from 1999-2010, only one death and three asserted injuries from lead were recorded by the CPSC. Thus, the probability of being injured from lead by a children’s product is nearly zero, given that literally billions of children’s products are sold every year. [The apparel and footwear industry claims annual sales of about 4 billion units ALONE.] Industry recall rates are likewise well under 1% per annum. With injury statistics and recall rates in hand, the CPSC should GREATLY loosen the strictures of the “high degree of assurance” standard to focus its resources on activities that might actually injure someone.

One-to-One Product Testing Will Punish the Smallest Companies.

The prophylactic approach to testing adopted by the CPSC will inevitably put many small or micro businesses into bankruptcy, or drive them into unregulated markets to avoid the CPSIA’s wasteful bureaucratic costs. If the law does not permit the agency to adopt sensible rules that allow businesses to manage their compliance risk as best they can (where the standards remain in place, but the government stops trying to tell businesses HOW to comply), then the Commission must finally tell Mr. Waxman what he doesn’t want to hear – that his law is broken and can’t be fixed. [Notably, these mini businesses most at risk have an exemplary record of safety and very low recall rates. NOTHING is gained by rules that crush the little guy.]

We in the small business community have suffered for two solid years while regulators have sought any possible way to avoid delivering this “unpleasant” message. I get the impression that the demise of our businesses would not be too great a cost for the agency to incur to avoid telling Congress what it doesn’t want to hear. If the Commission is genuinely interested in a fix, it must take action with Congress. I do not believe the agency can devise sensible regulations to fix this problem short of a legislative change.

Ban on Retesting Will Unnecessarily Create Crises at Small Businesses.

In our experience, test labs are neither infallible nor definitive in their understanding of U.S. safety laws and regulations. It is not unusual to experience failed test reports for reasons besides safety problems. In addition, children’s products are not so pure and perfect in their composition that every test produces the same result. The CPSC itself instructed manufacturers to audit their test labs in the ironically-dated April 1, 2010 version of the Proposed Rule in response to industry complaints that test results varied from test lab to test lab. By forbidding retesting, the Proposed Rule removes discretion and appropriate problem resolution techniques from a commonplace quality event. You don’t need to manage a very large portfolio of products before the probability of an ordinary course testing problem rises exponentially. This is a matter of mathematics. If retesting is banned, the CPSC is legislating a crisis of the week.

Again, CPSC injury data informs us that the nature of the problem is extremely modest. Historical injury rates are VERY low. This retesting rule is completely unnecessary and penal to all companies except perhaps mass market companies with greater resources. Small businesses won’t have teams of engineers or statisticians around to save the day. Many small businesses will naively call the CPSC for “help”, only to find out that they have created a worse crisis. Some small businesses may miss this point in the Proposed Rule and continue to retest, only to be punished later when the CPSC finds evidence of retesting at the time of a recall. Is this really how you want to regulate?

I would note that the justification for all this is bad acts: “[Retesting] may tempt unscrupulous parties to attempt to ‘test the product into compliance’. . . .” To my knowledge, this behavior has little precedence and even so, it is an abuse that can be dealt with other ways. If honorable and law-abiding companies use retesting to resolve honest problems, no harm is being done. Punishing good guys because you are afraid that otherwise bad guys might benefit is excessive and inappropriately harsh.

The 10,000 Piece Limit for One-Time Testing is Arbitrary and Unfair.

The CPSC has failed to persuade that the 10,000 limit is an appropriate break point for testing. First of all, the limit is cumulative, not related to sales in a period or per annum. Second, the threshold bears no relationship to risk of injury. In other words, it’s completely arbitrary. Why 10,000? Why not? In my view, that’s not enough to justify this rule. Many of the micro businesses that might benefit from this rule have NEVER had a recall. These are the people this rule will restrict. And the logic of this is . . . what, exactly?

Even more remarkable is the rule’s insistence that these low volume items be tested annually after passing the 10,000 piece threshold. Small companies will never have a RTP so annual testing (or more frequently, if for instance the item is hand-assembled) will be mandated. Consider a product selling 2,000 piece per year. Under these rules, the incentive to drop it once it crosses the 10,000 threshold will be powerful. This reminds me of the incentive on small businesses to not hire a 26th employee to avoid an onslaught of Obamacare obligations. A tacit cap on sales will be imposed by this rule. Nice!

The solution to this problem is to require one-time testing before sale, and thereafter according to the business judgment of the manufacturer. Remember, the retailers that buy from the manufacturer will also have something to say about testing frequency, too. Not all solutions are better if imposed by the government.

Alternative Testing Technologies.

The ability to test at low cost with XRF is attractive. For our business, it is tempting to use an XRF gun but for two reasons: (a) cost, and (b) health risk. XRF guns cost $30,000 each and have high annual maintenance costs (several thousand dollars a year). We might need several guns to manage our inventory volumes, a very costly prospect. XRF guns are portable x-ray machines. Notwithstanding the assurance of XRF gun manufacturers, I am quite reluctant to place an x-ray machine in the hands of a warehouse worker in our facility. This is an invitation to disaster. We likewise have no interest in hiring a highly-paid technician to wield the gun, or technicians to wield the guns. In any event, we cannot expose our employees to a possible risk of x-ray genetic damage. I am surprised that the CPSC doesn’t take this risk more seriously. Is lead a worse problem than x-rays?

In any event, I fail to understand what would be accomplished by a XRF solution for small businesses. The process of XRF testing may be inexpensive, but would be disruptive. In any event, I don’t see a connection to safety so I prefer a solution that restores sanity to our safety practices. Burning in a wasteful and disruptive process will only bog down our economy and our competitiveness. Until the CPSC can point to a risk factor relating to the little guys, one cannot rationally conclude that XRF makes this regulation better, just somewhat less worse.

In sum, the Proposed Rule is a dangerous rule with the acknowledged prospect of doing severe market damage. The CPSC knows this, having admitted it in writing in the text of the rule. There is no excuse to push forward with a defective rule on this scale. The Commission must talk honestly with Congress . . . before it’s too late.

Thank you for considering my views on this important subject.

Sincerely,

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

CPSIA - Anyone Interested in Dialogue? Apparently not . . . .

The American Enterprise Institute's Center of Regulatory Studies invited me to participate in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C. on April 19th about the CPSIA. At least, I thought they did. . . . The purpose of this meeting was to debate the following statement: "Many argue this new law [the CPSIA] has unintended consequences and in some instances has done more harm than good. AEI will host a panel discussion of the impact of the law and needed changes."

For the panelists, all grizzled veterans of the CPSIA war, this is old hat. We could debate this in our sleep.

The composition of the AEI panel was in flux. At some point, the panel became packed with advocates for the law, so to achieve better balance, the AEI reconstituted the panel with two "pro" and two "con" speakers. The other panelists were to be CPSC Commissioner and former Acting Chairman Nancy Nord, Commissioner Bob Adler and Rachel Weintraub of Consumer Federation of America. I was the last addition. [I was penciled in as a "con" panelist, in case you haven't caught my drift yet.]

And when the Dems found out that I was to be the final panelist, well . . . first Bob Adler bailed out. And ten minutes later Rachel Weintraub withdrew. Ouch.

AEI was forced to cancel the event. And, believe me, I was ready to take on Nancy Nord, too!

Isn't that great? What do you suppose would make CPSIA advocates pull out of an unstaged open debate on the merits of their favorite law? The panel discussion was to be filmed, btw, and would have been available for any and all to watch, again and again. Get it yet? Do you think anyone in favor of the CPSIA wants to defend the exemption decision on brass or the rhinestones ban on camera in front of a room full of impartial policy experts? I was ready to stand for that test. The CPSIA'rs were not.

It's sad that it is apparently impossible to sit in a room and debate this law like civilized adults. The issues under this terrible law deserve discussion but the "have's" (those that favor the law) seem to consider the matter closed. Under those circumstances, a debate on neutral ground presents lots of downside but no upside for them. After all, they already won the game.

So what does this mean for you? Well, minds certainly seem to be made up, so let's hope you never need to plead your case. When the CPSIA saga began, I would have told you to trust the process and the agency. But as the meaning of the word "safety" became blurred over time and then lost all meaning, my feelings changed. Today I pine for the old days, when I believed the agency would listen and could be a partner in safety. Unfortunately, I feel they have become an angry police force now. The withdrawal of a Democrat Commissioner and a consumer advocate from the AEI debate after my appointment is just another signal that a true exchange of views is unwelcome.

Dialogue - it's overrated. Do you think that's the change we can believe in?

CPSIA - Waxman's New Amendment Progress Report

In the last couple weeks, Rep. Henry Waxman's staff on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has been approaching Republicans and various stakeholders for feedback for a "bipartisan" approach to fixing the CPSIA. In these discussions, the staff has acknowledged that the law is "flawed" and requires surgery, not just tweaks. An interim (artificial) deadline of this week has been established for comments on their planned amendment. A draft of this amendment has not seen the light of day yet. No one knows what it will say.

While this may sound "good", the Waxman staffers have also attempted to constrain the development of the amendment. For starters, they insist that the amendment be based on the failed Waxman amendment of last December. [Last year's try was covered in several posts in my blog from December 11-16.] They have also drawn quite a few lines in the sand, such as no change to age limits in Children's Products. They favor exemptions for individual product categories or even individual products, a Swiss Cheese approach. [I hate this approach, as does just about everyone else other than the Waxmanites.]

The Waxmanites seem interested in helping out the ATV'rs. Apparently, the legislative logic is that if the amendment caters to the ATV'rs, who have been quite noisy and enjoy wide support among members of Congress, no one will be able to vote against the amendment for political reasons. Thus, the makings of a Democrat victory and the appearance of bipartisanship. I can see it now: "The two parties worked together and fixed the parts of the law that caused unintended consequences. All is well!"

Among the "have-nots" in this approach:

• "Common Sense". This case-by-case or product-by-product approach means that the Waxmanites refuse to even consider trusting the CPSC to do its job and assess risk for itself. The only people the Waxmanites and consumer groups can trust are . . . are . . . themselves. You won't be able to draw a line between those that are "in" and those that are "out" in any rational way.
• Rhinestones. On the subject of rhinestones, my understanding is that they are so resolute on keeping these innocent stones in the bill that they would be willing to write rhinestones in explicitly. This is the opposite of case-by-case exclusion - it's a case-by-case INCLUSION.
• Educational Products. While the Waxmanites say they want to exclude educational products, they can't figure out how to do it since you might use an educational product in your home. Horrors! Again, without a simple notion of what's safe and what's not, how do you expect a sensible rule to emerge from this primordial goo?
• Bikes. They really want to figure out how to help bikes but can't seem to do it. For this reason, they are chatting about an indoor/outdoor exclusion. In other words, and I am not kidding, they have suggested a rule that if you keep something in your garage, it's "out", and if you keep it indoors, it's "in". So everybody - move all your toys, children's clothing and shoes, furniture, books, pens, appliances and so on into your garage, quick, so you can qualify for this great new exemption! [Try to resist holding a garage sale, though, because that presents special risks under the law!]

Not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I am happy they are thinking of an amendment, but I am not happy that we still find ourselves adrift without any sense of what's safe and what's not. It is hard to foresee an amendment that does much good with this kind of inflexibility. Bipartisanship promises to be hard to obtain or a sham staged by Democrats for their own benefit.

Remarkably, a hidden issue that may weigh on these proceedings is the growing awareness of paralysis at the CPSC. The agency saw a massive increase in its budget last year, to match its massive new responsibilities, but still finds itself mired in open projects and conflicting priorities. Simple things are taking forever. Agency paralysis cannot be prevented in this environment without a significant paring of CPSIA priorities, something that the Waxmanites have a hard time conceding. And Obama won't give the agency more money, so they're stuck. And we're stuck.

That's not where you want to be.

Something to think about as we go forward:

1. Principle One: Your silence is deemed to be your approval. Silence = approval. You must swing from the rafters to get their attention, too. No, don't do that - too dangerous.
2. Principle Two: An unopposed view, particularly a document with footnotes, is considered definitive. After all, if it were wrong, why didn't anyone point it out, with footnotes? This is really how the Waxmanites think.

You need to keep these principles in mind. Your loud involvement can help a lot.

To Be Continued . . . .

CPSIA - It's 2010, Our Fourth Year of Travails

I can't believe it's 2010. We are now entering the fourth year of the CPSIA mess. The children's product safety fiasco began in 2007 with large scale lead-in-paint recalls by a limited number of companies. The perceived betrayal of trust was enough to set off an unstoppable legislative tsunami, giving birth to the noxious CPSIA. Today, years later, we find ourselves beleaguered by

1. An inflexible law which is especially penal to small business,
2. A deaf Congress, resolute in its refusal to hold a real, open hearing or to foster debate,
3. A paralyzed CPSC so hobbled by the problems and tasks of the new law that it cannot even meet deadlines with 15 months lead time, and
4. A demoralized manufacturer community, numbed and confused by the process.

On the bright side, Henry Waxman floated a CPSIA amendment last month, apparently publicly conceding that the law needs to be changed and that the CPSC cannot fix the problems by themselves. In addition, the CPSC will be filing its own requests and recommendations on January 15 to satisfy a requirement in its appropriations grant.

Our struggle to foster change is producing results but we are not done. This terrible, distracting journey is not at an end, and we must steel ourselves for more fighting if we want to be governed again with common sense and rationality. So with a hearty Happy New Year, I wish you strength of character and a head of steam for the fight that lays ahead.

I will close this post with a poem by Paul Eldridge published in 1945 entitled "I Bring a Sword":

To the beasts preying upon my people
To the hyenas mocking their grief
To the hounds barring their gates
To the ostriches burying their heads
To the crocodiles shedding tears
To the snakes hissing malignities
To the monkeys chattering diplomacies
To the asses braying profundities
To the cocks crowing prophecies
To the owls hooting defeat -
I BRING A SWORD!

Let that be our motto for 2010!

CPSIA - How Important is Testing After All?

Let's zoom up to 40,000 feet and look down on the CPSIA mess. If Martians were watching this affair unfold before their uncomprehending eyes, what would they think?

In 2007/8, a large number of toy recalls and jewelry recalls dominated the newspaper headlines. A closer examination of these recalls shows that they were largely restricted to lead-in-paint and lead-in-jewelry, but few people bothered with the details - hysteria was a lot easier. Sold on a rationale that it is "impossible" to know if something's safe without testing it, Congress wrote up legislation to require prophylactic testing of all children's products, a mind-boggling array of products ranging from pens to t-shirts to science kits to ATVs to shoes.

Being entirely unable to anticipate any problems with this brilliant construct, Congress was shocked to find that the CPSC couldn't implement these requirements without crushing small businesses (among others). A finger-pointing contest broke out, where Congress insisted that the CPSC had the power to implement the new law with "common sense" (read, make up law to make the whiners go away) and the CPSC pushed back that it lacked regulatory flexibility under the CPSIA and legally was forbidden to assess risk. Standoff!

Of late, a weary and perhaps more sensitive CPSC is now taking a more conciliatory stance, expressing an interest, in the words of Ms. Tenenbaum, "to get it right". Aside from soliciting feedback from stakeholders, the agency is clearly trying to draft rules permitting small companies to reduce their compliance costs. The net effect: testing is ebbing away. Now with component testing, it is possible for companies to get out of testing altogether for many of their products. Other rules, like flexible rules on rules on sampling and testing frequency, among other rules being crafted, are further reducing the testing burden. [I strongly support this movement by the CPSC, let there be no doubt.]

But I am confused now. Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America famously taught us that "Businesses’ assertion that they’re having to test products they know are safe is absurd. You only know if a product is safe if it’s been tested." [Emphasis added.] Yet the CPSC seems to be pulling away from Ms. Weintraub and her wisdom on testing. Is testing critical or not? Is safety achievable in other ways (perhaps various elements in combination)? If testing isn't so essential after all, what's really going on here?

I have a theory to share on this question: The recent movement by the CPSC on testing is tacit acknowledgement of our argument that there is more to safety administration than testing. Furthermore, the ebbing of testing requirements is a further acknowledgement that we are not facing a massive public health crisis in children's products - and never were. Yes, that means poison zippers, brass bushings, ATVs, pens and bikes really is a joke, as you thought. So why the big fuss, why isn't everyone linking arms and singing Kumbaya, if there is acceptance that a lesser standard will be sufficient to ensure safety?

It's simple - the issues go beyond this law, and that's why the Dems in Congress will budge. In fact, we are pawns in a bigger game, namely the battle to establish the precautionary principle in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is Mr. Waxman's dream legislation, his effort to rein in the chemical industry. The folks behind the TSCA reform legislation are deeply suspicious of chemicals in our lives and want to regulate them on a precautionary basis, not entirely unlike the way we approve drugs. It's the "fear of everything" all over again but BIGGER.

How does this tie back to the CPSIA? We are the test case, kids. The CPSIA was the first skirmish in the TSCA war. The two substances regulated on a precautionary basis under the CPSIA, lead and phthalates, either make or break the case on TSCA. If the Dems give in to our demands and acknowledge that their precautionary scheme didn't work, that it ate up the regulatory agency (now nicknamed the Children's Product Safety Commission), then how can they win approval of TSCA?

This is why the Dems are so resistant to rational change of this ridiculous law. This is why they won't listen to reason or consider facts. The facts are contrary to their larger goals, so they need to ignore them or deny them. In this context, it is better to send us down the river than deal with our issues. Although their tough testing scheme is being unraveled, they won't admit that it means that the crisis never was; without a crisis to fix, the entire logic of the CPSIA and their precautionary trial balloon fizzles. The Dems must insist that the crisis is still severe and that there is only one solution, the precautionary principle. Otherwise, they don't get TSCA.

[Side note: There was a "telltale" in the Waxman amendment to the CPSIA last week on TSCA. A big issue in TSCA reform legislation is the possible use of "junk science" to justify removing valuable chemicals from use in our country. With all the self-appointed consumer representatives clamoring for a chemical-free world, there is good reason to fear manipulative use of science under TSCA to disrupt the chemical industry. It's no different than the misuse of lead toxicity and antimony health effects by consumer groups to attack toys and other children's products under the CPSIA. Some people have been insisting on a "peer-review" standard for these scientific challenges to chemical use - which Mr. Waxman fear may hobble his precautionary principle law. This term is used in Section 101 (b) in the CPSIA to make it more difficult to get exemptions - but was stripped out of the law in Mr. Waxman's unilateral amendment. See my first blogpost on his amendment. His "generous act" in removing this ridiculous stumbling block wasn't a signal of increasing sympathy with our problems. No, in fact, it was simply aimed at resolving one of his problems with TSCA.]

I have no easy answers for how this ends. If you feel your anger welling up, you're not alone. Actually, I think the regulators are sick of it, too. The CPSIA has truly consumed the CPSC and made the daily affairs of that agency some kind of purgatory for the staff there. I can't imagine it's much fun being a Commissioner either. Frankly, the biggest shame of all is that by Congress (the Dems, really) insisting on an unworkable scheme for reasons unrelated to children's product safety, the agency has been rendered ineffective, bureaucratic and stuck in gridlock. The CPSC's essential role has been mooted. That's bad for everybody - in a perfect world, the agency is free to do its job and look for real safety problems to solve. Instead, it has to spend its time figuring out whether water slides are primarily intended for children and the like. What a tragic waste.

In the wake of last week's demise of the Waxman amendment and the extension of the lead content Stay, we must retain our focus and continue to push hard for a change in the law. The facts are piling up and the excuses for inaction are fading. It's time for action - for the good of consumers, for the good of industry and for the good of the CPSC.

CPSIA - Waxman To Amend the CPSIA . . . Who Can We Trust?

In a remarkably-timed event, an amendment to the CPSIA was unveiled right on the heels of the two-day CPSC workshop on the "15 Month Rule". The amendment, expected to be attached shortly to the Defense Appropriations Bill (believed to be S. 1390 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), was developed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Democratic majority (Waxman and his staff) WITHOUT consulting with the Republicans on the Committee. Attaching the amendment to a moving bill in another committee is a procedural way for the Democrats to amend the law without hearings or discussion by the committee that drafted the CPSIA - and thus never lose control of the process. This maneuver is particularly outrageous given that Rep. Joe Barton, the Ranking Republican on the Committee, has a bill pending to amend the CPSIA (H.R. 1815, co-sponsored by 29 Representatives) and also has requested hearings on the CPSIA (which requests were ignored).

The outrages of this new bill extend beyond discourtesies in Congress. Equally remarkable is Waxman's apparent consultation of the General Counsel of the CPSC on the text of the amendment without informing certain of the Commissioners. This shocker to the Commissioners is quite extraordinary and possibly poisons the well for Inez Tenenbaum's CPSC Commission. There seem to be big issues of trust here. It is not known how many Commissioners knew of the existence or terms of this amendment, but it is strongly believed that this language was drafted in consultation with and perhaps under the supervision of Ms. Tenenbaum and her staff. It is also known that the Republican Commissioners were entirely in the dark as recently as 3 PM EST today. The apparently schism in the Commission has now broken into the open with the exclusion of Commissioners from this critical collaborative process along strictly party lines. Apparently safety IS a partisan issue.

The amendment tracks the little-publicized admission by Chairman Tenenbaum in response to the written questions of Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) that a "functional" exception to the CPSIA lead restrictions is needed. [See paragraph 16(b) of the attached document.] This amendment is primarily focused on her request. The subject of a "functional" exception to the law has been discussed behind closed doors by many stakeholders but no common vision of such language emerged. As recently as a few days ago, Congressional staffers were denying that language would be attached to the new appropriations bill. Ah, truth in politics!

The draft language, said to be "final", can be summarized as follows:

• Redesigns Section 101(b)(1) by adding a VERY limited "functional" exclusion.
• The new language now permits a component to be excluded.
• Gives the Commission the power to exclude WITHOUT a hearing. Evidence no longer needs to be "peer-reviewed".
• Preserves the loathed "result in the absorption of any lead into the human body" language in the exclusion provision.
• Allows exclusion for product, component part or material "by reason of its functional purpose because it is highly impracticable or not technologically feasible to remove or make inaccessible the lead in such product, component part, or material" if "contact by a child with the lead . . . may reasonably be expected to be infrequent" and it is not expected to be mouthed.
• Each product, component part or material excluded must be labeled to indicate the presence of "accessible lead".
• The Commission may by regulation require the reduction of lead in the excluded item or material and/or establish a schedule for full compliance.
• The new amendment restricts the ability of the Commission to exclude "an entire product" if ANY part of the product does not meet the foregoing requirements. This provision is entitled "NARROWEST POSSIBLE SCOPE OF EXCLUSION".
• "Ordinary books" and "ordinary paper-based printed materials" are excluded from the lead restrictions under the CPSIA. This exception seems to include "quick copy" print materials, too. Materials not meeting the strict definitions of these terms are NOT excluded.

This language is not likely to make anyone particularly happy other than publishers and the library people:

The Pro's:

1. Waxman acknowledges, finally, that the law produced by a "perfect legislative process" needs some tweaks.
2. There is no denying now that the CPSC can't fix all the problems, and Waxman apparently concedes this point.
3. The Commission can now grant exclusions without a hearing.
4. Books were inadvertent inclusions in the CPSIA, and libraries were unfair victims. That has been corrected.
5. An awkward path for fixing ATVs, bikes and perhaps pens now exists. It is also possible that even rhinestones can be addressed, at least in part, under this language.

The Con's:

1. The amendment leaves in place the terrible "any lead" language, making exemption requests a (bad) joke.
2. Exclusions will be hard to get and require a great deal of expense to obtain.
3. ALL exclusions come with a Proposition 65-like "consumer right to know" label, making the sales of the product highly unlikely. Few products can carry an accessible lead label and still be sold in volume.
4. The narrowness of the exclusion inherently limits the freedom of the Commission to act according to common sense.
5. The Commission and the CPSC are still not empowered to assess risk.
6. Small business issues were completely ignored, as were testing cost, liability and labeling issues.

Some additional observations:

• The approach of Waxman to fixing this law demonstrates that the CPSIA is now a House Democrats' law. I will spit every time someone mentions the original 424-1 vote - the illusion of bipartisanship has been snuffed out once and for all. The exclusion of Republican Congressmen and Republican CPSC Commissioners from this process speaks volumes about how Washington intends to administer this law.
• Ms. Tenenbaum's technique in obtaining this "relief" makes her look like Mr. Waxman's bag man. The close alignment of Bob Adler and Ms. Tenenbaum on the Commission puts Mr. Adler into this camp, too. [When this subject comes up, Mr. Adler's prior job on Waxman's staff always has heads nodding.] The quiet development of this language breaks the illusion that talking to the Democrats on the Commission will somehow bring changes independent of Mr. Waxman. This bill makes it look like he maintains staffers on the Commission.
• The exclusion of books is nice, but smells a bit funny to me. The American Association of Publishers appointed Tom Allen as its CEO in April. Mr. Allen, a Democrat, served under Henry Waxman on the Energy and Commerce Committee and often followed his lead as a Congressman. Small wonder he got this job, right? It wasn't a real shock then that books were excluded in this amendment. Despite the holier-than-thou rhetoric, it's "business as usual" in Washington under Obama and Pelosi. A friend in need is a friend indeed.
• The narrowness of the exclusion process and the requirement of labeling despite the apparent admission that such exclusions pose few health risks strongly suggests that the legislative process is being controlled by zealots who will not yield to reason. The "true believers" who now dominate Washington have a world view that you need to take on board - Californiziation. There is no compromise on these issues, regardless of common sense or hard reality. Given the exposure of the axis between these Congressional leaders and the control block on the Commission, there seems little reason to be especially optimistic of serious advances in implementation of the CPSIA by the agency.
• The Chairman and Democratic majority on the Commission lack the political will to take on Waxman in an effort to fix the CPSIA. This potentially sacrifices the long term effectiveness of the agency in its stated purpose to protect consumer safety and possibly also the vigor and competitiveness of the American children's product industry, all to avoid the unpleasantness of a contentious job. Complaints at the CPSC that it should be renamed the "Children's Product Safety Commission" or the "Consumer Product Compliance Commission" will likely gain traction. The lack of political will to fight the good fight and to stand up for common sense create the conditions for a terrible legacy. Will these Commissioners be able to say they left the agency better off than they found it? An interesting question. Guys, there are no free moves in this game . . . .

I continue to shake my head over the timing of this development. Were I Chairman Tenenbaum, I might have told Mr. Waxman that I didn't need this kind of help. Consider what may have been lost: (a) the bonhomie and trust built in the last couple days at the workshop as CPSC Staff and all sorts of stakeholders mingled in good faith and with open dialogue, (b) the goodwill generated by the CPSC efforts to protect Cepia LLC and their Zhu Zhu Pets from unfair consumer group attacks, goodwill that now must be reevaluated, and (c) the general appearance of a new cooperative, open-minded wind blowing through the CPSC in the last six weeks. I now have my doubts about the candor of discussions and the legitimacy of stated intentions to "fix" the system. The good intentions and well-meaning of the CPSC Staff is not really in question here - but the leadership must be held accountable. You can't ask for trust and then expect this kind of thing to be ignored. You are either a partner . . . or you aren't.

The Stay is now on the table. The CPSC Commission has been meeting behind closed doors with a sense of purpose and urgency to figure out what to do with it. Your letters and emails are being read . . . but the open question is whether enough Commissioners care. The Republicans on the Commission have been open in their support for extending the Stay, but the three Dems are unaccounted for. One is said to feel strongly that the Stay needs to go away, on the grounds that Congress wants it gone. Let's not make any bones over this - it's not Congress, it's Henry Waxman. If it were Congress (in other words, a bipartisan movement supporting the existing CPSIA), then perhaps Mr. Waxman wouldn't have to sneak around to get a CPSIA amendment through Congress without hearings or discussion. So when you hear that "Congress" wants something with this law, connect the dots.

A very disappointing way to wrap up a promising week.

CPSIA - Washington Times Clubs the CPSIA and Congress Over Brass Decision

Brass attacks
Consumer 'safety' law strikes bad notes

Seventy-six trombones left the big charade. A thousand and 10 store debts are close at hand. There are zippers, keys - so many amenities - all outlawed because Congress is blind. With apologies to Meredith Willson's 1957 Broadway show "The Music Man," such could be the latest fallout from the draconian Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

Congress passed the misnamed CPSIA in 2008 to protect consumers, especially children, from all manner of supposed dangers in ordinary products. The CPSIA's most stringently targeted danger is lead, which clearly can be a health hazard. The problem is that the CPSIA leaves all reason behind, setting allowable lead limits so low, with so little room for common-sense exceptions, that it effectively bans huge numbers of harmless products used in everyday life.

A veritable smorgasbord of business groups and grass-roots activists have arisen to fight the CPSIA - among them an outfit called the Alliance for Children's Product Safety. Its Web site, Amend the CPSIA, used the "76 Trombones" motif to complain about the Consumer Product Safety Commission's latest ruling concerning the CPSIA, which effectively outlaws all brass used in children's products. (One component of brass is lead.) By a 3-2 vote on Nov. 4, the commission decided that Congress had left no leeway for common-sense exceptions to the brass ban.

Result? To quote at some length from the alliance's Web site, "In addition to brass zippers, grommets and other apparel and footwear components, victims of this decision include brass instruments, musical bells and certain strings used in a string instrument. By in effect outlawing brass in children's products as defined by CPSIA, ... the CPSC's actions call into question the future of school bands. Will young musicians in their school band's brass section now have to hum along with their peers, or switch to the recorder or a (plastic) kazoo?

"The fact is that brass is routinely used in countless products used and touched by children daily, including door knobs, locker handles, and much, much more. There is no danger of lead poisoning from brass. CPSC staff wrote that they consider brass bushings safe. ... However, staff believed that CPSIA offers no flexibility to the CPSC to assess risk."

Commissioners Nancy Nord (former chairman of the commission) and Anne Northup (former congressman from Kentucky) dissented from the hard-line anti-brass vote. Wrote Ms. Nord: "This does not advance consumer safety, diverts staff resources from real safety issues, and puts an unnecessary burden on manufacturers and sellers of children's products." Ms. Northup chimed in that "unless [Congress] act* soon, more small businesses will be forced to shut down."

Ms. Northup is right to put the onus on Congress, which passed a truly counterproductive law. For well over a year now, Congress has been flooded with specific and reasonable complaints about multiple aspects of the CPSIA. These consequences include the destruction of children's books published before 1985, the silencing of charitable auctions and the shuttering of thrift shops nationwide.

Yet the congressional leadership has turned a blind eye to all the evidence that its handiwork is awful. Neither congressional committee with jurisdiction over the law has held a single hearing featuring a single critic of the CPSIA.

With more than 10 percent of the American work force officially unemployed, Congress should be jumping through brass hoops to fix any laws, such as CPSIA, that hobble the economy. But when it comes to putting practicality over rigid ideology, it seems Congress' top brass can't be bothered.

CPSIA - CPSIA Casualty of the Week for November 9

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

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

CPSIA Casualty of the Week for November 9

♪ ♫ 76 Trombones Taken Away by the CPSC… ♪ ♫
CPSC Ruling: The Day the Music Died for Elementary School Brass Bands?

In an unfortunate but widely expected decision last week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted 3-2 to reject a petition to exempt brass from the new CPSIA-mandated lead standard.

While the petition was specifically submitted for brass bushings that hold a wheel onto the axle of a toy truck, the CPSC's vote will have widespread repercussions. In addition to brass zippers, grommets and other apparel and footwear components, victims of this decision include brass instruments, musical bells and certain strings used in a string instrument.

By in effect outlawing brass in children's products as defined by CPSIA (any product used primarily by a child 12 and under) the CPSC's actions call into question the future of school bands. Will young musicians in their school band's brass section now have to hum along with their peers, or switch to the recorder or a (plastic) kazoo?

The fact is that brass is routinely used in countless products used and touched by children daily, including door knobs, locker handles, and much, much more. There is no danger of lead poisoning from brass. CPSC staff wrote that they consider brass bushings safe and that the lead transmission from brass bushings is inconsequential and certainly not rising to the level of a hazardous substance. However, staff believed that that CPSIA offers no flexibility to the CPSC to assess risk.

Members of Congress who have refused to amend the CPSIA claimed that all would be well once new Commissioners were in place. These new Commissioners had another opportunity to vote for common sense. Unfortunately, two of the three new Commissioners believed CPSIA does not allow this - common sense has been thrown to the brass heap for now.

To see a webcast of the CPSC's public hearing on the brass exemption petition, click here.

To read the Wall Street Journal's stinging editorial about the brass decision, click here.

Do not accept the status quo! Tell Congress and the CPSC to restore "common sense" to our nation's product safety laws. Click here for instructions on how to contact the CPSC and your representatives in Congress.

For more information, please contact Caitlin Andrews at (202) 828-7637 or e-mail caitlin.andrews@bgllp.com.

CPSIA - WSJ's 6th Editorial BASHING the CPSIA

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

NOVEMBER 7, 2009

Congress's Brass Knuckles
Another casualty of the lead toy 'safety' law.

The wheels on the bus won't go 'round and 'round in many playrooms this year if the Consumer Product Safety Commission has its way. On Wednesday, the Commission voted against a petition to exempt small pieces of brass used in the wheels on toy cars, tractors and buses from draconian lead standards. The fiasco is one more sign that Congress must address the chaos created by its 2008 law regulating lead in toys.

Lead is a typical component of brass but poses minuscule risk to children through toys. As the CPSC's own staff remarked, "the estimated exposure to lead from children's contact with the die-cast toys would have little impact on the blood lead level." But no matter, the language of the law says the Commission can't consider risk in granting exclusions. Any potential absorption of lead at all is grounds for a ban, despite its presence in other common brass fixtures kids get their hands on regularly, like doorknobs and keys.

Democrats in Congress have insisted that problems with the law they wrote are the fault of the CPSC charged with implementing it. How's that going? Following the Commission's 3-2 vote against the brass exemption, CPSC Commissioner Anne Northrop noted that the decision not to grant a brass exemption shows that "the Commission does not believe there is any [flexibility] written into the law." Without action from Congress to address the chaos it created, Ms. Northrop said, "More small businesses will be forced to shut down."

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum has insisted that changing the law would be "premature." Yet it has already been more than a year of bedlam for manufacturers and retailers negotiating these rules. In February, the CPSC's one year stay of enforcement on testing will expire, opening the field to more crackdowns on small businesses.

Many of the worst problems were apparent when the bill was written but lawmakers ignored the warnings in order to satisfy Naderite interest groups. Democrats have refused to fix this mess, at great cost to businesses, and further underscoring government's reputation for unfairness and incompetence.

CPSIA - Brass Bushings Petition Rejected - Now What?

Disclaimer: I am in a bit of a rush today, but wanted to get this out to you. I normally give you quotes and citations, but today am working on a deadline. If I get a small detail wrong, my apologies - please correct me. I will try not to put the wrong words in people's mouths . . . .

PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE ADDED A POSTSCRIPT TO THIS ESSAY (11-5-09).
______________________________


As expected today, the CPSC Commission rejected the petition of Learning Curve to exempt brass bushings in the wheel assemblies of its toy cars. I have written about this several times in recent weeks, most recently issuing my own "ruling". This innocent request was a loser from the start, not because of any safety issue but because of a very rigid and technical law that caught up brass bushings in its terrible web.

Some quick comments and tidbits:

a. Anne Northup emerged as the beacon of rationality in this debate, constructively offering a lawyer's argument that the word "any" means de minimus amounts of lead, not none. She pointed out that Congress okayed 300 ppm lead content in substrate suggesting that it considered some amount of lead to be tolerable. Adler called this analysis "brilliant" but disagreed with it, contending that the clear meaning of the word "any" is . . . "any". [The word "any" is critical to derive meaning from Section 101(b), the lead exemption section of the CPSIA. He also pointed out that the precedent in prior Commission decisions is that "any" means "any". [Who knew they'd read all those old decisions anyhow?!] Mr. Adler dipped into the consumer group handbook and stressed the health dangers of lead and repeated the "no safe level of lead" mantra. [It is hard to defend lead, and I have no intention of doing so, but as a matter of science, I think this is flat out wrong. Aside from the fact that we all consume lead by breathing, eating and drinking every day and must therefore being slowly poisoned with the government's apparent permission, toxicologists will tell you that the dose makes the poison. Thus, there are in fact safe levels for lead, notwithstanding that lead is a known neurotoxin.]

I agree with Adler's legal analysis and support reading the law using the plain English meaning of the words. I prefer the OUTCOME offered by Northup, but a rational set of laws depends on use of the plain meaning of the words. I am also supportive of respecting precedent if we want to maintain a sense of the Rule of Law. So . . . this means we are stuck with this awful law and its awful strictures until it is amended.

b. I wasn't the only one who realized that Congress needs to get engaged for the Commission to emerge from this corner. The debate on this topic was vigorous and fascinating. I recommend that you check out the video at your convenience. Adler pointed out that the language of the law is stringent ("rarely seen anything this emphatic"), intentionally so. Nord expressed severe reservations over this removal of discretion, noting that the CPSC is "the expert agency".

Nord and Northup wanted the vote on the LCI petition delayed or enforcement stayed until the CPSC could seek guidance from Congress or feedback from OMB. Adler would have none of it. He cited the super-majority that voted for the law and expressed the view that Congress didn't need to hear from the CPSC on this subject because of its decisive action. There were echoes in Adler's argument of assertions by House staffers that the CPSIA didn't need amendment because of its "perfect legislative process", implying an all-knowing, never incorrect or regretful Congress. He said Congress "shot real bullets" and went so far as to state that not only would Congress refuse to act if CPSC approached it, but that it might actually harden its stance ESPECIALLY if the CPSC reached out. In other words, according to Adler, going to the Hill to get relief or guidance might not make things better, it might antagonize them and make things worse. Believe it or not.

c. Northup noted that she was the only Commissioner who has served in Congress and confirmed . . . (are you sitting down?) that some members of Congress do not master every nuance of every bill. Some might not read the bills at all. OMG! Anyhow, she says that the exemption section was likely considered by members of Congress voting for the CPSIA to be a real, if stringent, exemption process, not the inert and impotent process that it has become. This argument did not seem to persuade Adler or Tenenbaum. Adler said he had seen no indication yet that Congress was interested in changes to the law. This got a hot reply from Nord who offered him her file of letters from members of Congress asking for change in the law (including a letter from Senator Klobuchar (MN) specifically on the point of the meaning of "any").

The meeting veered off in a schizophrenic direction at the end when Northup and Nord asked for a public debate to be scheduled on the meaning of this precedent and its far reaching implications. Adler replied that he wanted to see their "letter" because he said he might be "very sympathetic".

I found this last exchange extremely confusing. Adler gave me the impression of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Tenenbaum remained basically silent, which was disappointing, given the importance of this decision and of her leadership role on the Commission. She can provide more leadership to this group than by simply presiding over the meeting. A lack of coordination among the Commissioners or perhaps off-line dialogue seems to be missing. In any event, I may be some kind of political idiot but the Commission's strategy or even the thinking about how to resolve this terrible impasse is not apparent to me. For them to reject the LCI petition (voted down 3-2, with the deciding vote cast by a MIA Thomas Moore), refuse the opportunity to kick the can down the road by asking Congress for guidance and then to seem interested in reaching out in some way anyhow, left me utterly confused. Should we trust them to guide us home, or are they lost, too? What's the path forward, and why won't they 'fess up to both their problems and their strategy? What happens next and who will protect us? These are troubling questions.

The business community will be understandably horrified and demoralized by this decision. The strict interpretation of the CPSIA has now been blessed by a full Commission. They have hardened on the plain meaning of the law. While the Rule of Law has been upheld, and that's a good thing, it also means that the worst parts of the law will be respected, too. Thus, the economic destruction that we have been predicting based on the plain meaning of the law was given a boost today by the Commission. If you want to see the future, read the law. It's all in there. Until proven otherwise, this Commission has yet to signal an interest in going across town to talk to Mr. Waxman and his lot.

Interesting Side bar: Learning Curve apparently brazenly and openly continued to sell these items during the pendency of this petition. That risky strategy involved knowingly selling a product that they believed was illegal (that's why they asked for an exemption). That's a no-no, although it had no safety consequences for anyone (as acknowledged by CPSC Staff and certain Commissioners in today's debate). Notably, Mr. Adler asserted that the CPSC Staff would let their own kids play with these cars even if the kids' blood lead levels were right at some sort of hypothetical lead "tipping point" - in other words, the cars are perfectly safe, no point denying it. Nevertheless, Mr. Adler upbraided LCI for this procedural faux pas. He cited them for bad "optics".

Bad optics - after today's decision, I think that's something for the Commission to think about.

POSTSCRIPT - Mr. Adler retracted his accusation of LCI above. Please see this blogpost for details.