There has been a great deal of discussion, and in some circles much hand-wringing, about President Trump’s regulatory reform initiatives and how they will impact independent agencies like the CPSC. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB is a key player in the debate since OIRA reviews and can influence changes in the significant regulations coming out of cabinet agencies. Whether OIRA should have that same authority over rules issued by independent agencies is the subject of “hot” debate in administrative law circles. Neomi Rao, a law professor from George Mason University, is the President’s pick to lead OIRA. Professor Rao has made known her views that OIRA should have greater control over independent agencies.
This coming week, the CPSC is about to hand those who wish to see greater control and oversight of independent agencies by OIRA at major argument to use in that debate. The CPSC is scheduled to vote on whether to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to require that all table saws (including bench saws, contractor saws and cabinet saws) have what is known as “active injury mitigation (AIM) systems” – that is, saws should be able to sense when a user’s finger is coming close to the blade and automatically shut itself off, preventing injury. While superficially this may sound like a good idea, and, at the end of the day, perhaps may even be one, there are a number of reasons why the agency’s actions to start the last stage of rulemaking to require this technology should draw the attention of OIRA.
First, this rule will be a major rule—the type that OIRA usually examines. The CPSC estimates table saw injuries costs the U.S. economy $4 billion annually. It estimates that costs of the rule to manufacturers will be between $170 million and $345 million annually. The CPSC issues very few major rules so both the benefits and the costs the agency proposes are eye-popping.
Second, the AIM technology is patented by an inventor who is now marketing table saws equipped with it. His network of patents is quite extensive and he recently successfully challenged the only other company that had tried to develop a version of this technology. He has stated his willingness to license the technology to the industry should the CPSC mandate it, and the agency estimates that this will result in approximately $35 million coming his way each year in annual licensing fees. The CPSC staff, by its own admission, does not know how extensive his patent network may be and, hence, does not know if it is possible to develop AIM technology without infringing on his patents.
Third, and most important, the agency has not done its homework properly and therefore, issuing an NPR is premature. In 2007 the Commission directed agency staff to study the types and severity of injury associated with types of table saws. In addition to the ’07-’08 study, in 2014, the agency staff looked at injuries reported directly to the agency. As was discussed extensively at its briefing last month, both of these studies are seriously and critically flawed and would not support the rule, if the Commission were to issue it. So the agency is now proposing a rule and asking for public comment even though it does not know such basic information as what type of saw causes injury or whether certain saws can be eliminated from the requirement of the proposed rule. The agency has no information on injury patterns from different types of saws and has little information on whether new safeguards on saws are being used or are working.
The agency proposes to close this embarrassing data gap by doing a study throughout 2017 to develop the missing information, even while it has the proposed rule out for public comment. However, if it proposes a rule and asks the public for comment without providing this vital data, it defeats the purpose of public comment. It may well need to seek further comment or risk a successful court challenge.
It is curious why a majority of the commissioners are so eager to advance a proposal that is missing critical information to make the public comment period useful and that would allow both the agency and the public to better assess the competing issues the rule presents. It suggests that the real purpose of the 2017 study is merely to augment an administrative record that is currently too weak to support the proposed rule and not to influence the direction of the proceeding. And that suggests minds may already be made up. If so, then OIRA is right to take a look at this activity since that is not how rules should be made.