Behold: "The Database of Doom"

The Washington Times gets it...

"Consumer agency endangers employers with rumor and innuendo"

EDITORIAL: CPSC's database of doom

WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM…WITH AN ALTERNATIVE

Given the many flaws of the Commission’s draft final rule for the public database, my colleague, Commissioner Nord, and I have proposed an ALTERNATIVE DATABASE RULE. This rule more accurately reflects the law Congress provided us and it will address some of its key flaws.

Our alternative rule will:
- tighten up who can submit information so that the reports coming into the database are more reliable;
- improve the procedures for correcting inaccurate information so that consumers are not misled by bad information in the database; and
- put in place procedures for review of reports so that the database does not become a “post it and forget it” exercise.

There is still time for the Commission to make these changes since the database vote is not until November 17th. I hope this alternative will receive due consideration.

More details to come on the Database rule’s main flaws…

Click here for Commissioner Nancy Nord's blog post regarding our alternative

Garbage In...Garbage Out

Over the next few weeks, I will explain in detail the *MAIN FLAWS* in the database rule as currently proposed. It is my hope that this Commission will listen to the commenters and make significant, necessary changes before finalizing this rule:

Flaw #1: WHO CAN SUBMIT A REPORT

The CPSIA only mentions five categories of submitters: consumers; local, State, or Federal government agencies; health care professionals; child service providers; and public safety entities. Anyone looking at this list would see a common thread—these are all people who might have first-hand knowledge of the incident. Why would Congress have included this list, if it actually intended anyone to be able to submit a report? The answer is, it didn’t. Thus, the rule’s list of submitters should not include those who have no relationship to the incident in question.

But as currently conceived, anyone will be able to submit a “report of harm” to the new, public database—even if the submitter does not know who was harmed, the particular product involved (let alone the exact model), and did not see the incident occur. As of right now, in a national database full of incidents across all consumer products (everything from toasters, to ATVs, to furniture), we are not even limiting who can submit to people who have first-hand knowledge of an incident!

Why is this important? Because Congress intended to create a useful, accurate database for consumers wishing to make a purchase. But this database will not be useful to consumers if random bystanders, attorneys, advocacy groups or even well-intentioned citizens without key facts can fill it with unreliable reports. It will simply be garbage in…garbage out.

More to come…

"I can't hear you...I’m not listening"

This week’s consumer database hearing confirmed what I have feared since the NPR was released….this commission simply is not interested in listening to your concerns. More than 2/3 of the comments we received indicated that a more narrow definition of “consumer” or “others” would improve the accuracy and reliability of the database---something that is imperative for both consumers and manufacturers that will be using it. A massive public database with unverified complaints and no limits to what can come in (with a self-verification check box and disclaimer that barely pass the laugh test…) is useless to just about everyone but perhaps trial lawyers and advocacy groups looking for someone to sue or a new industry to regulate…..

I hope there is still a chance that the final rule will contain enough improvements to bring some common sense to this massive endeavor.

Definition of “Children’s Product:” Whether you’re in, might be in, or still confused...Welcome to the black hole of CPSIA regulation!

Today, the Commission had a golden opportunity to put a fence around those products definitely covered by the CPSIA as well as exclude those products which we know pose no risk and which do not HAVE TO fall under the statute. The comments received by the public on this proposed interpretive rule defining “children’s product” by and large asked for just this type of clarity. They also made the case for how a number of everyday, safe products could be reasonably excluded from the requirements of the CPSIA—given, of course, that the law has nothing to do with risk.

But instead, the Commission went in the opposite direction, adding in more products than required and adding products even beyond what was first proposed to the public.

The consequences for whether a product is “in” or “out” of the definition are tremendous: if you’re in, you must pay to have your product (every piece of it) third-party tested, certified, and have a tracking label—which has led many small businesses to leave the children’s market or simply close their doors. Oh, and if you make a product for ages in the grey area (age 10, 11, 12….and older) and really needed this rule to let you know where you stand, you may just now be realizing that the final answer is “it depends!” –which means, somebody out there (i.e., the CPSC, a state attorney general, a retailer) may consider your product a children’s product. Manufacturers of furniture, clothing, or products made for the “tween” years may be learning for the first time that they’re even subject to the law’s non-risk-based lead-content standards.

So much for trying to reduce unnecessary government regulation, protect jobs, and preserve choices for consumers—so much for common sense.

Click here for my official statement on the Final Interpretive Rule: Interpretation of a Children’s Product

ALSO: Read the AP story and New York Times Front Page story covering this issue

“I’m from the government and I’m here to help you!”

A brand new “Office of Education, Global Outreach, and Small Business Ombudsman” at the Commission is being advertised as a way to help small businesses impacted by the CPSIA—something that may be taken as a cruel joke by those businesses that have already been forced to close their doors or are exiting the children’s product market. What help will a new government office for “outreach” be able to provide, if we as a Commission continue to do very little to mitigate the unintended consequences of the law through our own regulations? Not much……

That is why I could not support today’s vote to create a new government office at the CPSC dedicated to outreach and education.

Furthermore, new government offices or programs, no matter how small, take on a life of their own. They grow and grow—no matter how innocent the original intentions of their creators. It is precisely such mission creep in federal spending that continues to make headlines every day and with which the American people are fed up. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks said it best in their recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal:

"Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time."

Are we listening? I don’t think so…

Click here to read: "The Size of Government and the Choice This Fall"

Click here to read my official statement

Egg-stra regulation!

Creating knee-jerk federal regulations in the name of safety isn’t the answer…

Check out Wally Olson's take on calls for more federal regulation of food-making due to the salmonella outbreak
The egg and I

The National Swimming Pool Foundation weighs in on pool safety

The National Swimming Pool Foundation® (NSPF) recently sent a letter endorsing the Commission's implementation of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act.

“NSPF believes the Commission has taken a sound technical position on this topic and it is correct in the assertion that vacuum release systems do not protect against most forms of entrapment to the degree an unblockable drain.” - NSPF

Because some special interest groups continue to generate press to the contrary, I thought it was important to circulate feedback from NSPF, a group with a long history of promoting pool safety.

The full text of the letter is copied below or you can enlarge the picture to see the original.

Click here for my statement on the Implementation of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act

August 11, 2009

The Honorable Anne Northup
Commissioner
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear Commissioner Northup,

The National Swimming Pool Foundation® (NSPF) has read and supports your position statement on unblockable drain definition relative to the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act. NSPF believes the Commission has taken a sound technical position on this topic and it is correct in the assertion that vacuum release systems do not protect against most forms of entrapment to the degree an unblockable drain. In addition, we applaud the CPSC’s efforts to fulfill the Act’s educational requirement since prevention of drowning and entrapment is paramount!

We understand that the Commission has been challenged by petition, letters and public media efforts to influence the Commission to change its ruling. We urge you to maintain your position.

NSPF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the health and safety of those who use aquatic facilities. NSPF has given over 3.7 million dollars in grants since 2003 to prevent drowning, illness, injury and entrapment and to demonstrate the health benefits of aquatic activity. The Foundation works towards its mission to encourage healthier living through aquatic education and research with its collection of educational materials training over 240,000 professionals since 1982.

It is important that we stand united to implement solutions that will work rather than those that may appear positive - yet have limited value. We applaud your efforts and admire your sound reasoning.

Please let us know if we can provide any assistance in this matter.
Respectfully,


Thomas M. Lachocki, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer

Tracynda Davis, M.P.H.
Director of Environmental Health

cc: I. Tenenbaum, CPSC; T. Moore, CPSC; N. Nord, CPSC; D. Lamborn, US House of Representatives

4775 Granby Circle • Colorado Springs, CO 80919-3131 719.540.9119 • 719.540.2787 (FAX) • www.nspf.org

Here It Is: Popular Toys Parents Can No Longer Buy for their Children Because of the CPSIA…

For some time now, we have been worried about the impact of the CPSIA on jobs, cost and fewer choices. We worry about the number of businesses leaving the children’s product market, the increased costs of new testing requirements that are completely unrelated to risk, and global companies that simply stop selling in the United States because the costs are too high. Now you can see for yourself right off of this company’s website: popular toys that are no longer available to parents in the U.S. due to the CPSIA.

Endangered and Extinct Toys

Summer reading:

Thought you might find this editorial in The Washington Times regarding excessive regulation interesting.  The author got it exactly right. Excessive regulations kill jobs.  I have seen it first hand: some businesses just leave the market, small businesses struggle to comply and new startups will never be able to enter our market.  So sad.

EDITORIAL: The red tape stimulus

New costs, no common sense

Even though the safety considerations for mattresses, clothing textiles, carpets, and plastic vinyl are exactly the same for children as for adults, the current successful testing requirements for these products will no longer be enough. Now the Commission’s decision to treat “general product safety rules” as “children’s product safety rules” will require new third-party testing of the children’s versions of these products in CPSC accredited specialty labs. These additional testing costs are being layered on top of testing that has been carefully designed based on science-based protocols that are already known as the “gold standard” in safety.

I do not believe that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act requires this new, additional third-party testing that the Commission’s recent string of decisions mandated. These tests will not reduce risk and will ultimately harm productivity, increase cost and limit consumer choice. For instance, government regulation is cited as a major obstacle to new business start-ups or to expansion.

Most Americans will never learn about highly technical regulations that our agency recently passed. But they will be paying the price in higher costs, fewer choices and lost jobs. So, the next time you hear a commentator ask a guest, “What would you do to increase jobs or reduce government spending?”…think about the cost of government regulation…

•Commissioner Northup’s Official Statement on 3rd Party Testing for Flammability of Carpets & Rugs, and Vinyl Plastic Film: Requirements for Accreditation

•Commissioner Northup’s Official Statement on Testing the Flammability of Clothing Textiles, Mattresses and Mattress Pads, and/or Mattress Sets: Requirements for Accreditation of Third-Party Conformity Assessment

ALERT - the Commission needs your feedback regarding moving to 100ppm lead!

As many businesses may not yet know, the CPSIA requires that the lead content limits for children’s products automatically be lowered to 100ppm (from 300ppm) by August 2011. Essentially, all children’s products will have to be “lead-free” by that time, even if becoming lead-free provides zero additional safety benefit for children. The Commission is now asking for industry feedback on the “technological feasibility” of reducing the lead in their products to 100ppm—is it even possible? And what will be the consequences? Please see the link below on our website. I strongly encourage those that are affected to respond!

Draft Federal Register Notice: Request for Comments and Information - Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm Lead Content Limit for Children's Products, July 13, 2010 [PDF]

Have a safe weekend at the pool!

Myth #3: “The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (VGB Act) focuses on entrapment because that is the leading cause of drowning.”

Facts: Unfortunately, an average of 385 children lose their lives playing in the pool each year and the CPSC has made preventing these terrible tragedies one of our highest priorities.

Are entrapments the primary cause of these incidents? No. While entrapments are the main focus of the VGB Act, they are a very serious but rare type of drowning incident. Of the roughly 3,400 drowning deaths that occur each year in the United States, entrapments account for about 1 per year. Of the 12 entrapment deaths since 1999, only 5 occurred at public pools or spas. Since only public pools and spas are addressed by the VGB Act, over half of entrapments would not even have been prevented by the Act.

That is why I am so excited that the CPSC has launched “Pool Safely,” a national public education campaign designed to raise public awareness, support industry compliance, and improve safety at pools and spas. Pool Safely emphasizes the importance of alert adult supervision and swimming lessons for children as well as learning CPR, installing pool alarms, and placing gated barriers around pools. Through Pool Safely, we are able to educate the public about many water safety practices to reduce the risks associated with children in and around pools and spas – not just entrapments.

Conclusion: The VGB Act addresses a rare, but serious type of drowning incident and we have implemented the law to address this issue. But the Commission has gone further to raise awareness and promote drowning prevention through a national public education campaign because entrapments are not the leading, nor even a significant cause of drowning. It’s too bad that the Pool Safety Council has not done the same and has only dedicated one sentence on their entire website to prevent the other ninety nine percent of the child drowning cases that were not due to entrapment.

Stay tuned next week for more myth’s!

And check out http://www.poolsafely.gov/ to learn more simple steps to save lives!

Some More Facts...

Myth #2: “But Congress said all pools should have back-up systems.”

Facts: Actually, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (VGB Act) specifically exempted pools and spas equipped with unblockable drains from having back-up systems. Did Congress make a mistake? No, it makes perfect sense not to require back-up systems because as I said yesterday, unblockable drains are the safest, best way to prevent entrapment. Fortunately, there is a new and affordable technology available known as an “unblockable drain cover” that converts a blockable drain into an unblockable drain. Because the Commission found these covers to be equivalent to an “unblockable drain,” people will be able to choose the safest option. If we didn’t, people would be unlikely to install unblockable drain covers in addition to costly back-up systems, and therefore they would not have the safest pools possible.

COMING SOON: Myth #3 - "The VGB Bill focuses on entrapment because that is the leading cause of drowning."

For more information, click here for my statement.

To the Class of 2010: Beware of the CPSIA

Successful entrepreneur Phebe Phillips was invited to speak at the Texas Women’s University Commencement in May and shared with the graduates how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act has Forced her to close down her business...

Wally Olson at Overlawyered.com brought this story to my atention and I wanted to be sure to share it with you.

Click here to read Phebe Phillips' speech

Anyone noticing a pattern here?

I thought you may be interested in Hugh Hewitt's recent article, "Regulation costs jobs, slows growth" in the Washington Times...

Hugh Hewitt: Regulation costs jobs, slows growth

Survival of the fewest...

Why save a few and let the rest drown?

That’s what the Waxman proposal (CPSEA) would do since it only helps relieve some thrift stores and possibly ATVs and bikes from the burdensome costs of complying with the CPSIA.

It’s not that I disagree with relief for these few – but why not craft a proposal that fixes the problems with the CPSIA for everyone who makes safe products? One criteria in this proposal for granting relief is that it cause no “measureable adverse effect” on a child’s health. Well, of course. In reality, the only criteria that should ever matter when it comes to the CPSC regulating a consumer product is whether it poses a risk!

I don’t really want to beat up those getting relief, but I do want to point out the ridiculousness of letting off a few and not everyone. The fact is, if these children’s products were actually unsafe, there would be relief for no one.

The clock is ticking....

Today the CPSC released the proposed rule for the notorious Public Database (aka the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database). I’m sorry to say that it was drafted exclusively by the Majority Party Members of the Commission with next to no input from the Minority Members. As a result, the draft rule is very one-sided in its treatment of accuracy, privacy, and usefulness concerns. Here is an unsolicited (though I believe correct) view that was published independently or you can click here to read my official statement.

The public now has 60 days to comment, so please do yourself a favor and examine this rule carefully! AND COMMENT!

Don't confuse me with the facts...

Despite the high costs of compliance, loss of jobs and declining product selection due to CPSIA, Chairman Waxman is pursuing his amendment to provide a very narrow exception to only two groups while small businesses are being driven from the children's product market even though their products do not pose genuine risks to children.

As Congress debates ‘too big to fail’ here’s what the government is doing to Main Street…

As a Kentuckian who knows how badly we need more jobs, it's a shame to hear from a local hometown business who is genuinely trying to comply with the CPSIA, but finding that the costs are so great that they simply cannot afford the testing. Please read the letter I received below and if you have a similar story, email it to me at Commissioner_Northup@cpsc.gov.

"Last week we selected several more products to eliminate from our product offerings. The products are safe, do not violate any of the CPSIA standards and have been around for over 50 years, but they are too complicated and have too many different parts. Therefore they are too costly to have tested and retested over and over again to prove they are safe. I hope some small companies and some decent product selection can survive in this new world where all products are presumed to be guilty. The only survivors will be the ones that are safe and can also afford to prove they are safe.

The group of items that we decided to discontinue are several kinds of dolls that have lots of different colors and accessories and some plastic to test for phthalates. We would have an average about $1500/doll each time we had to test due to a batch change. If we order them 3 times per year it would be $4500/doll in testing costs to be certain that nothing had changed from any of the suppliers that provide the raw materials that make up the doll parts and/or colors and accessories. With 26 different types of dolls, that would come out to $117,000 per year we would spend on testing. Based upon our sales volume we would lose money every time we order the doll.

This week we are dealing with another toy item that had a piece of PVC pipe as part of the toy. We tested the pipe which is a common pvc pipe like millions of people have in their homes and drink water from each day. We found that the pvc is slightly over the minimum acceptable for one of the phthalates. We are now spending $12,000 (more than doubling the cost of the toy) to replace the pipe components and to expedite shipping so we minimize the amount of money and customers we lose to competitors for this item. If phthalates in water pipes aren't hurting anyone, then how can the pipe in this toy cause a problem? We are spending the money, delivering a revised toy at a loss and complying with the law because we fear being put out of business with a large fine, not because we are saving some child from a dangerous encounter with this product.

I guess we and other small companies will continue to shut down product offerings, reduce employees, reduce our income taxes and eventually there may not be enough money to fund the wasteful efforts from Washington. Nature has a way of correcting problems even if we aren't clever enough to do it on our own. I hope somehow we can find a way to curb this monster and get back to focusing on safety issues.”