Archive Page 3

It’s He-ere . . .

Today, the CPSC’s children’s product periodic testing and certification rule goes into effect. Perhaps the most sweeping rule in the agency’s history, it was spurred by 2008’s Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Even before becoming effective, it has substantially affected the agency, the regulated community, and consumers. Starting today, those effects will grow.

After much debate about its details (more on that shortly), the rule is now the law. It sets massive new requirements for the CPSC’s regulated community. To comply with it, companies and labs should have developed systems and procedures to comply with the new requirements and these should all now largely be in place.

Even so, tweaks to those systems will, of course, be necessary. Some of those changes are things that manufacturers and labs can take care of on their own. Others, however, will probably require attention from agency staff and from the Commission. As you encounter problems with this rule, make sure that the agency and I hear about them. Your voice can make a difference. Already, based on pre-implementation concerns, both Congress and the CPSC have made changes to the rule. And as the rule now goes into effect, we can only expect more concerns to be revealed. When they arise, let us know about them.

Of course, as readers of this blog already know, this rule is not my ideal rule. During the many debates leading up to today, I have already filled enough of this space discussing my disagreements with the Commission’s decisions to belabor them here in any detail. To sum it up, I believe we overstated the necessity for third-party testing, ignored opportunities to make the rule more effective, created “gotcha” traps for companies, and paid lip-service to Congress’s demands that we look to make it less expensive. The result is an unwieldy rule that (because of its name) might make consumers feel safer, but holds only speculative hopes of actually making them safer. All the while, they now have the certainty of fewer choices at higher prices.

Yet, though I remain concerned about the unnecessary damage this rule threatens—and as I continue to work to improve it—make no mistake: It is the law. Companies must heed it even where they disagree with it, and violators should expect a visit from our compliance staff. We have lots of resources for helping businesses understand this rule and how to meet its demands, especially for small businesses. If you have not already figured out your plans for complying with the rule, hurry up and fix that. We surely will all learn a lot along the way, but there is no more time for waiting.

A Matter of Trust

How does an obscure provision of law—§ 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, which tells the CPSC to make sure that the information it released about specific products is accurate and fair—help the agency, businesses, and consumers? RegBlog, published by the University of Pennsylvania Law School, has posted an article that shows just how. You can check it out here

A Plan to Move Forward

The CPSC recently adopted an operating plan for fiscal year 2013. I voted for the plan, albeit with some hesitation. You can read my thoughts on the plan here. One issue of note that I would like to call out to my blog readers is variability of test results coming from third-party testing laboratories. Public comments on this issue require the agency to better understand what is going on. With the backing of my colleagues, I will host a public meeting on lab variability in the near future.

I look forward to discussing the subject further with members of the public, and I hope that this effort will help us identify whatever problems exist and contribute to an appropriate solution. If you have something to contribute, please tell me! More details to come.

Ports Report

Last week I was in New York to talk with the United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. We discussed importers’ responsibilities for testing and certification as well as the status of several ongoing regulatory proceedings of special interest to importers. The group was keenly interested in these issues as importers are especially impacted by many of our new regulations, and they are eager to “get it right.”

I also had the chance to meet with officials from both Customs and Border Protection and several ports. I was pleased but not at all surprised to hear their praise of the CPSC staff at the ports who are working tirelessly alongside Customs agents to stop dangerous products before they hit store shelves. The ongoing close cooperation that has developed between the CPSC and Customs since our Import Surveillance Division was established in 2008 is a real success story for both agencies. Port officials also gave the agency gold stars for cooperation. Kudos to all our staff, CBP, and the ports for their professionalism and dedication to making consumers safer.

Too Many Cooks?

In a time of budget crises and calls for leaner, smarter government, I’ve spent some time thinking about how the CPSC works and how to make it better. Based on my experience on the commission—starting with three commissioners, then two, then five, then four, and now three again—I have to question the decision to have multi-member commissions—at least here at the CPSC. I have spoken about the subject numerous times, including last fall when I visited with the students and faculty of the Regulatory Policy Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. We talked about whether multi-member commissions provide their supposed benefits, and what we should do about it if they don’t. You can read some more of my thoughts in the latest issue of the Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine.

A New Year’s Resolution

A New Year is upon us, likely my last at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. As I reflect on what the CPSC has accomplished since I’ve been here and what I hope we can do this year, I think there’s one New Year’s resolution I would like to see my fellow Commissioners and I keep:

Collaboration–We should focus more on the ‘should’ and not on the ‘can’.

Had Congress wanted CPSC unilaterally controlled by the party in the White House, it could have placed a single administrator within a consumer product safety agency and left product safety policy to presidential direction. Instead, Congress, by creating an independent Commission, clearly encouraged dialogue and compromise. We should heed that call.

The past three years have been frustrating on those occasions when closed decision-making was favored over negotiation, albeit difficult at times  We need to set aside pointed rhetoric, concentrate on core issues, and replace partisan lines with genuine lines of communication. Collectively, we can and should try to find a way to ‘yes’  by honestly listening to and accommodating differing points of view. We can be better at how we function as Commissioners. If we resolve to do so, we can make consumers safer, give manufacturers a fairer consideration, and allow everyone to have more confidence that our decisions are not just ones we can make, but ones we should make.

Do It Quick Or Do It Right?

One of the biggest challenges the CPSIA presented the CPSC is the requirement, in §104 of the law, to issue four final rules each year regulating durable infant and toddler products. Young children are our most precious “consumers” and it is critical that the products they use for sleeping, feeding, and playing are safe. Having said that, not all these products necessarily present risks or present risks of the same magnitude.

Congress told us to mandate standards for these durable nursery products based on voluntary consensus standards unless we determined that more stringent requirements are needed. As we have worked to push rules out on the timetable mandated by Congress, I am concerned that the quality of the rules we are issuing is being overshadowed by the need to meet this schedule. Sometimes we propose or mandate requirements that have not had a full vetting by the experts outside the agency. If this happens we need to go back and repair the damage, a process that is resource intensive and  inefficient for the agency and for stakeholders.

I discuss my concern in a statement I filed on an NPR on hand-held infant carriers. I am interested in any ideas from others who share my concern about how to make the process work better than it currently does. You can read my statement here.


Enter your email address to subscribe to my blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 149 other followers

Let’s keep the conversation going on Twitter. You can find me at @NancyNord.

  • #CPSC certificate proposal, part of ~$1/2 bil/year for paperwork: where we are & where to go. Got ideas? Mine here: bit.ly/16hm2Eb 6 days ago
  • Happy to talk with AAFA: #CPSC is serious about our import safety strategy. Want to hear thoughts about it, plus our new rules & enforcement 1 week ago
  • Part 1110, part v: My colleagues' questionable certitude that we don't need to ask more questions about certificates. bit.ly/10xBVOG 1 week ago
  • Broken recordkeeping? Is CPSC making sense or making a mess when it comes to retaining compliance certificates? bit.ly/ZRYkK7 1 week ago
  • Should exempt from testing mean exempt from certifying to a test? We want to hear from you. Well, I do, at least. bit.ly/11TeQr6 1 week ago

Nancy's Photos

More Photos

  • 44,169 visits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers