New Report by Congressional Research Service

I just received a copy of a report issued by the Congressional Research Service regarding the implementation of the CPSIA by the CPSC. It gives a reasonable history of the basic issues that have arisen and about some of the dissenting voices. It does refer to the April 1st Rally. It is a good document because it is written from a very matter of fact---neutral---perspective; while it doesn't go into enough of the details of the problems, it certainly makes the point that there are serious problems, and from my reading these problems go far beyond Nancy Nord and the lack of a third Commissioner.

One aspect that struck me is the history of the CPSC.  One of the statutory purposes of the CPSC when it was founded was to “develop uniform safety standards for consumer products and minimize state and local regulations.”  There is an entire section in this report about how the CPSIA was designed to “strengthen the CPSC.”  However, it then goes on to describe how the CPSC has actually LOST flexibility interpreting and enforcing the CPSIA…AND how it is powerless to force states to follow its lead on stays and other actions.  In effect, the CPSIA has taken away very important element of regulatory power that the CPSC once had…that is “authority.” 

One can argue that provisions are included in the law to give them adequate authority.  However, the short history of the CPSIA does not reflect that.  Nor does the act of the CPSC to actually break the law to give a stay to the ATV industry convince me.  If someone can cite a source in the CPSIA that gives them the authority to give that stay, I might think twice, but then you would have to back it up with a reference that would require State AGs to follow the CPSC’s lead.  It doesn’t exist.  As such, the CPSC is not longer an authoritative regulatory body.  Certainly it can enforce the law and make a business owner's life a living hell.  However, it no longer has a monopoly on that.

The important issue is; as an agency that is supposed to help companies to understand and follow a complex set of rules...in order to ensure the safety of products used by children, and actually, to protect me as a business owner, because I can then know that I am in compliance with the law;  it has no authority for defining those rules, because their interpretations are not binding on the states.  So where does that leave the CPSC?  Where does that leave me?  Where does that leave you as a consumer?

 

Comments

[Robert Barker]

Consistency has been a rare commodity from both the CPSC and Industry groups from the gestation phase of the CPSIA to its current incarnation.

Originally, industry groups were pushing hard for greater regulation, including independent lead testing. http://tinyurl.com/d9hhol http://tinyurl.com/c95ols

Then industry groups resisted the new legislation for fear of lawsuits (and not, by the way, out of concern for small businesses). http://tinyurl.com/coe45a

Then Nancy Nord et al., went to great lengths to say her "hands were tied" in terms of having any discretion with respect to implementing the law. http://tinyurl.com/dcn38j

I really think the situation has become so chaotic, so intellectually inconsistent, that all sides should take a deep breath, a step back, and attempt to gain some fresh perspective. I happen to believe the first step in doing that is getting rid of Nancy Nord.

[Challenge & Fun, Inc.]

Thank you for commenting. However, I must take issue with you on a number of points.

1. Although I will be a TIA member until my membership expires at the end of the year, it will not be renewed, because I do not feel they speak for me or companies of my size that were not part of the recalls. I cannot speak for Mattell or Hasbro. What I do know is this is having a devastating effect on a huge swath of businesses that have never had a recall, and who Americans turned to in 2007. Won't it be a shame when we can no longer sell our natural toys?

2. Accorcding to the NY Times Europe has a similar system of testing and products are marked to meet those standards. Their system is much different, and is much more reasonable, yet effective. Perfect? No. But a complete disaster like this one? Definitely not. It doesn't require a test of every batch and every finished product regardless of the fact that the same materials are used over and over again. It accounts for quality assurance and supplier certificates in the production process.

3. What "industry" applauded in 2009 is irrelevant to the complaints of regular mom & pop business owners trying to make a good and safe product to feed their families, and the consumers (many consumers, which are in special markets such as the blind and other special needs) who will soon find the products they rely on no longer available.

4. This issue of lawsuits is real. I fear it and anyone in the children's products business should fear it. The fact that the CPSC is no longer the sole regulatory body to interpret and enforce this law is scary. The fact that they have essentially broken the law to give the ATV industry is scary. The CPSIA is complex and difficult to understand enough as it is. Who can I turn to to interpret it and ensure I am in compliance? The CPSC? NO. My non-existent lawyer? NO. When 50 AGs and the CPSC are in charge, NO ONE is in charge. That is scary. I wont even get into the unverified consumer products database which will be online next year.

5. Nancy Nord said her hands were tied because they were. This law does not give the CPSC flexibility, and Thomas Moore has agreed with this. The NRDC and the US District Court of NY have confirmed this when they didn't like the decision by the CPSC on retroactivity of phthalates. Read all about it at www.learningresourcesinc.blogspot.com

6. You clearly do not have a business affected by this, or you would realize we do not have time to sit back and take a deep breath. Our businesses, livelihood, and if I may be so dramatic...the American free enterprise are at stake here. This law is a disaster; the fact that Nancy Nord has the guts to say it, I applaud her. Not only that, her career staff have also exposed the limitations and the defects of this law in their letter to Rep. Dingell. Why then would we want to get rid of one of the few sane people in Washington? By the way Nord and Thomas have a history on voting together, not against each other, so this issue of Nord being a trouble maker really does not hold water.

Again, I appreciate your comments, but they are completely unfounded and if you don't believe me, have a chat with the thousands of work at home moms that are going to lose their livelihoods because of a law that doesn't improve safety, rather it will hurt the level of safety in this country, AND consumers will not have alternatives like they did in 2007.

If you really cared about consumers you would work to fix it...because without a fix, we are doomed to mass produced cookie-cutter products from China.

[Jen DeGrace]

I was one of those work at home moms - until I closed my business due to the CPSIA. While others have chosen to work through the stay of enforcement and hope for more lasting reform, the simple fact that SAGs are not legally bound to the stay means that should any one of 50 SAGs choose to enforce it today (and several have stated their rabid intent) there is nothing stopping them. I was not willing to expose my family to such potential liability. I started my business to help support them, after all.

While I regret the impact on my own business, I’m even more upset about losing access the unique, safe, handcrafted-in-the-US products I value for my kids. It’s not easy teaching them that respecting the planet includes making careful purchasing decisions. How will we teach them when all that is available are the mass-produced plastic junk toys we are force fed by the giant toy companies that abused consumer trust and started this avalanche in the first place?