Archive for the 'Testing' Category

Saying It’s a Recall Doesn’t Make It So

Published June 23, 2016 CPSC , Nancy Nord , Recalls , Testing Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

With the CPSC’s blessing, a large furniture company recently sent out wall anchors for its children’s dressers to address a tipping hazard and the accompanying CPSC press release did not refer to the activity as a recall. Subsequently a child was killed when one of the dressers fell. Chaffing under criticism from its decision to allow the company to do a “non-recall recall”, the powers-that-be at the CPSC have now apparently decided that every corrective action or other announcement about a product must be labeled a “recall.”  Commissioner Buerkle has pointed out why this rigid adherence to labels is bad policy.  And this past week we have seen why her concerns are well-founded.

The issue involves the agency’s investigation of flooring made in China and sold by Lumber Liquidators, which allegedly emitted dangerous levels of formaldehyde. After the issue was described in a 60 Minutes segment in March, 2015, the company responded by agreeing not to sell the Chinese flooring and to test the flooring of those consumers who so requested. After over a year of extensive study, testing and investigation by several different agencies, no formaldehyde emissions above government guidelines were found.

Rather than announce this good news and put consumers’ minds at ease, last week the CPSC instead chose to cast the announcement in terms of a “recall.”  The “recall” that the agency announced is a first ever “recall to test”, with the company agreeing to continue what it has been doing from the beginning–that is, test for formaldehyde emissions the flooring of consumers who request that.  No promises of a refund, a repair or return of the flooring are made (although the release does hint that a consumer maybe, possibly could get some replacement flooring under undescribed circumstances at the company’s discretion). Buried in the press release is the admonition that consumers are not to pull up flooring they may be concerned about because that action could be dangerous.

I saw many press stories reporting that the investigation did not find a problem with the company’s product.  I did not see stories that discussed the fact that the company was doing a “recall” (although perhaps I may have missed some). This is a good thing since, by trying to unnaturally shoehorn the announcement of the investigation results into the concept of a recall, the release is both confusing and misleading to consumers.   And it belies the agency’s oft-stated notion that the press will ignore releases that do not include “recall” in the headline. It is an example of what happens when, like a myrmidon, the agency insists on rigid adherence to rules without concern as to appropriateness under the circumstances.  As Commissioner Buerkle notes, the CPSC should never say never.

Testing Assumptions

Published July 2, 2014 Burden Reduction , Children's Products , CPSC , Testing Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

This week I had the pleasure of speaking to the leadership and staff of the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation.  The association accredits third party testing laboratories to a wide range of standards including, but not limited to those issued by the CPSC.  My presentation was an opportunity to discuss how the agency has implemented the CPSIA with a special focus on the agency’s testing requirements.  However, this was also an opportunity to have a free-wheeling conversation about the role that testing and testing laboratories play, and should play, in product safety.

I asked these experts whether third party testing of children’s products was the most effective way in all cases to assure regulatory compliance.  Interestingly, these representative of the testing laboratories agreed that while third party testing is the most expensive compliance tool, it is not always the most effective tool.  They pointed to the EPA’s green appliance regulations as an example of an effective regulatory regime that does not mandate third party testing. They pointed to NIST’s accreditation of first, second and third party testing laboratories to make the point that it is possible to oversee the integrity of in-house testing.

I pointed to the rule to require warning labels on slings—cloth infant carriers—that the agency plans to proposed next week, asking whether sending slings to a third party testing laboratory to “test” whether the label was correct was an efficient use of resources.  While the audible answer was “probably not”, judging by the body language of the folks in the room, the real answer was “are you kidding me?!”

I asked these experts about whether testing variability occurs among different labs or within the same lab.  The answer I got was “Of course it exists.  Everyone knows that.”  Apparently, everyone but the CPSC. This is an issue I tried to get the agency to address when I was a Commissioner but agency leadership was steadfast in refusing to even see lab variability as an issue.

We talked about the feasibility of laboratories discounting prices to small businesses who are suffering mightily under the burden of CPSC-required testing.  Commissioner Adler has suggested that laboratories do that since the testing requirements of the law and the CPSC regulations have provided laboratories with such a business windfall.  The conclusion of these experts was that this is not a workable option for a wide variety of reasons.

However, we did talk at some length about the role testing laboratories could play in assuring that testing resources are directed at those products that pose the greatest risk and are not wasted on unnecessary testing.  I challenged the industry to participate constructively in suggesting ways to reduce testing burdens beyond the rather unimaginative actions now being taken by the CPSC. While the industry may experience some short-terms gains by a system that requires excessive and burdensome third party testing, everyone, including testing laboratories, benefits from a system that deploys resources efficiently and reduces the costs that product sellers (and consumers) pay to assure safety in the marketplace.

 

Betting on the CPSC–never a sure bet

Published June 13, 2014 Burden Reduction , CPSC , P.L. 112-28 , Testing 2 Comments
Tags: , ,

Earlier this week the Senate Commerce Committee had a marathon confirmation hearing with several subcabinet nominees from various federal agencies.  The hearing included in this disparate group Commissioner Robert Adler who has been nominated for a second seven year term on the CPSC.  Because of the number of nominees before the Committee and votes on the Senate floor, the hearing was rather truncated without much probing of Commissioner Adler’s views on issues before the CPSC.

Nevertheless, Senator Thune, the senior Republican on the Committee, did ask Commissioner Adler to explain the agency’s delay in implementing PL 112-28, which directed the agency to work to reduce the costs of third party testing.  Senator Thune made similar inquiries with the two earlier nominees, demonstrating that he has concerns with the manner that the agency is implementing the law.

Commissioner Adler’s response to Senator Thune was both interesting and disturbing for at least two reasons.  First, Commissioner Adler said that because of the way the law is written, it is “not easy to come up with” constructive ways to reduce burdens.  Huh?!  The public has presented many suggestions over the years as has the agency staff.  What is not easy is to get the Commission to devote the staff resources to get the job done.  This is a problem of the Commission’s own making and clearly the Commission does not want to clean up after itself—to do so would implicate several of the rules the agency put in place without regard to the burdens them impose.  The Congress told the CPSC that if it needed additional authorities to get the job done, then it was to come back to Congress with a request for tool to do the job.  No such report has been sent.  In other words, it is too hard to do the job, but the agency will not ask for what it needs to do the job.  In the meantime, scare resources are being spent on testing that does not advance safety.

Second, to demonstrate his commitment to carrying out Congressional direction, Commission Adler pointed to the one proceeding the agency has ongoing to address burden reduction.  This proceeding is to come up with “determinations” that certain products do not and cannot contain phthalates and various heavy metals.  This determinations proceeding, first suggested in 2011, finds precedent in similar action the agency took in 2009 to determine certain materials did not contain lead and so did not require testing.  However, the lead determinations took the agency a matter of months to put in place not the years that the current proceeding is eating up.

Commission Adler also stated that the determinations will solve the problem saying that the “small businesses I have talked to want expanded determinations” as if this is all they want.  Of course, if you are a small business making toys out of natural wood, you do not want to have to test for phthalates and heavy metals when you know they are not present.  That is pretty obvious. However, there are many other small businesses who look to the federal government not to put in place regulations that impose costs without added safety benefits; who want the federal government to consider laws in other jurisdictions and minimize repetitive testing; and who want to be able to have manufacturing processes that are flexible enough to meet market demands without having to stop to do third party testing when this does not add to safety but does impact their bottom line and their ability to expand and create jobs.

If confirmed, Commissioner Adler will be in office until 2021.  I was thinking about starting a pool on whether the agency will actually complete meaningful action to reduce testing burdens before his new term expires.  But given the agency’s pace and progress so far, betting on the agency to act is not a sure bet.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Published April 4, 2014 Burden Reduction , CPSIA , P.L. 112-28 , Testing Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

Yesterday the CPSC held an all-day meeting to again address ways to reduce the costs of third party testing.  Recall that three years ago, in Public Law 112-28, Congress told the agency of its concern that testing costs were imposing an undue burden and directed the agency to identify and implement opportunities to reduce that burden.  Over the past three years, the agency has asked for public comment on opportunities to reduce testing costs three, or is it four, times (but who’s counting).

Yesterday’s meeting focused on whether the agency should make “determinations” that certain substances do not and cannot contain phthalates and the various heavy metals listed in the toy standard, ASTM F-963. This inquiry is patterned after the action the agency took in 2009 when it determined that certain substances, such as natural fibers and untreated wood for example, did not and could not contain lead and so therefore there was no need to test for it.

Perhaps the agency will determine that the same substances that are exempt from lead testing should also be exempted from testing for phthalates and heavy metals.  If it does, then perhaps that action will provide a bit of relief for those companies that have been engaged in such useless testing.

But I have two questions for the agency:

(1)  What took you so long to reach such an obvious conclusion?

(2)  What more are you going to do to carry out Congress’ mandate or do you plan to stop there?

The agency was able to make its lead testing determinations very quickly and with a minimum of regulatory gyrations.  It has taken the current agency three years to even make an inquiry into questions that should have been very easy to answer.  What may come out of this exercise is very minimal relief with maximum patting oneself on the back for reducing testing costs.   I do hope the agency proves me wrong.

 

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Published March 26, 2014 Burden Reduction , Consumer Product Safety , Rule Review , Testing Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

“[I]ndependent regulatory agencies should consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them. . .”.  President Barack Obama, Executive Order 13579, July 2011.

 

mattress on fireA small announcement in the March 17 Federal Register noted that the CPSC would be collecting information on compliance with the mattress flammability standard that deals with fires caused by smoldering cigarettes, 16 CFR 1632. Why would anyone notice or care?

For those who took President Obama at his word when he announced his executive order, this is just another reminder of how one agency, the CPSC, in its push to regulate, has chosen to ignore basic principles of good government.  Here’s the back story.

Years ago, the CPSC promulgated a safety standard for mattresses addressing the risk of fires caused by smoldering cigarettes.  The test in the standard consisted of laying several of the hottest burning commercially available cigarettes—unfiltered Pall Mall’s—on a mattress and measuring char length after a prescribed time.

In 2006, the agency issued another safety rule addressing the risk of mattress fires caused by small open flames from such things as candles, lighters and matches, 16 CFR 1633.  The test for that standard consists of holding two propane burners to the mattress and measuring the time it takes the mattress to ignite.  This test is a much more rigorous test than that required by the earlier cigarette smoldering test.

For several years now, I have been asking the question why require two separate tests when it is likely that one will suffice to measure the flammability characteristics of mattresses.  It is unlikely that a mattress could pass the open flame test but fail the cigarette smolder test. The agency now has sufficient experience with the more rigorous open flame standard to determine whether the cigarette smoldering standard is really needed.  Would it not be a new and interesting experience to see the CPSC consider actually repealing a standard as being unneeded?

A perversely amusing aspect of this question is the fact that the unfiltered Pall Mall cigarettes required to be used for the testing were phased out by the manufacturer several years ago.  Further, all 50 states now prohibit the sale of any cigarettes other than reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarettes—those that go out if the smoker does not continually puff on them.  The CPSC’s reaction to these developments was not to question the need for the underlying regulation but instead to use public funds to develop a new test cigarette.  This new government-developed cigarette is available for purchase from the National Institute for Standards and Technology.

Where does all this leave us?  The CPSC continues to enforce a standard that on its face does not comport with what is happening in the real world.  Mattress manufacturers are forced to buy cigarettes that no one will ever smoke to perform a test that may well be irrelevant. The consumer pays the cost of excessive testing.  And the CPSC, rather than asking the important question of whether this regulation is even needed, instead issues a Federal Register notice telling us about its plans for enforcing it.  Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein

Published February 25, 2014 Burden Reduction , Comment Request , Testing Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

 For the third (or is it the fourth?) time in as many years, the CPSC is again “addressing” the issue of reducing third-party testing burdens.  For those who have already albert-einstein1commented repeatedly on this issue, Einstein’s definition of insanity may seem especially apt.  In spite of direction from the Congress to either address testing burdens on its own or report on appropriate statutory authority needed to do so, the agency has repeatedly asked for comment but done nothing to actually reduce the testing burdens that have been so well documented.

This time the agency has announced that it will be holding a workshop, on April 3, focusing on reducing testing burdens associated with the regulations dealing with phthalates and lead content and the eight substances listed in the ASTM F-963 Toy Standard.  The purpose is consider whether it is possible to determine that certain materials, irrespective of manufacturing origin or process, will always comply with agency regulations and therefore do not need testing.  The agency is interested in worldwide production processes—past, current and, interestingly, future—but only with respect to the three areas noted above.  In other words, tell them how past and current materials and manufacturing processes, and looking into a crystal ball, those that might be used in the future throughout the world show that the existing regulations in the three areas always will be complied with.  Anything else is outside the scope of this inquiry.

Because the agency’s scope of inquiry is so narrow, it follows that any relief coming out of it will also be very narrow.  So while I encourage either comments (due by April 17) or participation in the workshop (sign up by March 13), I do not have high hopes that meaningful burden reduction will be the end product.   At best, there might be a slight adjustment to the list of materials the agency has determined do not and cannot contain lead and, hence, do not need testing.  The further development of a list of materials determined not to have phthalates and the other substances listed in the toy standard may also be of help.  At worst, the information collected will go into the maw of the agency and be digested with the other information the agency has already collected, but with no further useful output any time soon, other than for the agency to look like it is busy doing something.

There have been many practical suggestions made over the past three years that, if implemented, would reduce the needless waste of resources that the testing requirements have added to the supply chain and which consumers have to pay for.  But the agency has been operating in a world that values endless process over meaningful results.

Einstein also said “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  Unfortunately, it does not look like any new thinking will be happening soon.

CPSC Burden Reduction Mantra: “Maybe One of These Years . . .”

Published November 27, 2013 Burden Reduction , Consumer Product Safety , CPSC , CPSIA , Testing 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

An interesting op-ed in last week’s Wall Street Journal pointed to how the regulatory process impedes efforts called for by President Obama, among others, to shore up this country’s infrastructure.  The piece, written by Philip Howard, President of the nonpartisan reform group Common Good, focused on how interminable environmental review can stymy public projects and made several interesting suggestions for change.

As I read Mr. Howard’s article, I could not help but think about how the regulatory process has been used at the CPSC to slow activity, mandated by Congress and required by common sense, to reform the product testing regime dictated by CPSC regulations.  Recall that the testing rules setting the parameters for when products must be tested by independent third party testing labs imposed such impressive costs on the system that Congress told the agency to find ways to reduce those costs.  That was in 2011.  As we head into 2014, the agency has managed to avoid adopting any concrete relief to those who are now required to conduct unnecessary and expensive testing.  The Commission has done this by repeatedly asking for public comment on the same questions over and over again.

Last week the Commissioners met to adopt an operating plan for the rest of FY 2014.  Predictably, the issue of reducing testing burdens came up and, predictably, the Commissioners again punted.  This time, the agency staff was directed to finish their analysis of the public comments on a limited set of suggestions for relief by the end of FY 2014.  A majority of Commissioners rejected the notion of asking Congress for statutory changes suggested by the agency staff to make operation and review of safety processes more efficient.  Clearly, a majority of CPSC Commissioners do not see reducing unnecessary testing burdens as a core duty of the agency.

It is remarkable that for the past three years, product manufacturers have been conducting expensive testing that most (outside of a handful of advocates with a political agenda and several CPSC Commissioners) do not see as necessary to assure the safety that American families rightly expect.  That those families have to shoulder the costs of this added weight to the system seems to be a forgotten fact. I know that I have written about this issue before.  But as a consumer, I am mad.  I am mad that my choices are being limited and that, for example, I cannot buy beloved toys that are safe but are no longer being imported only because of the CPSC testing rules.  I am mad that I have to overpay for safety regulations of questionable value.

Rather than blindly defending regulations that are costing consumers without advancing safety, the CPSC should give them a thanksgiving gift:  how about getting down to work and stopping the procrastination on this.  It is time for big strides, not baby steps.

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

Join 946 other followers

RSS CPSC Breaking News & Recent Recalls

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Nancy's Photos

More Photos

  • 71,476 visits