Posts Tagged 'CPSIA'

Saying Goodbye to Another CPSC Star

Several weeks ago, Neal Cohen, the CPSC small business ombudsman, called to tell me that he was leaving the agency.  Neal created the job of ombudsman and it turned out to be one of the most difficult and most under-appreciated but critically important positions at the CPSC.

The office of small business ombudsman was set up in 2010 in an effort to respond to the growing cries, especially from the small business community, that the agency’s regulations implementing the 2008 CPSIA statute were imposing a crushing burden on product sellers, notably small businesses.  When the office was set up, I argued that it should be a true ombudsman, bringing to the agency the concerns of small businesses as well as developing and advocating for solutions to the problems that community faced because of agency action.  Instead, the office was designed to be an outreach and education office—to help the small business community understand and comply with regulations.   While not fully meeting the true definition of an ombudsman, this still was a very important role, especially given the complexity of the rules the agency was in the midst of writing.  And Neal was just the right person to fill the position.

Over the past five years, Neal has worked tirelessly to make sure that businesses, especially small ones, understand their safety obligations as product sellers.  He has designed educational programs, given presentations throughout the country, answered thousands of emails and phone calls, and through that process, has helped the agency put a human and caring face on its work.  The latest achievement of his office, development of the Regulatory Robot, an on-line tool to help businesses understand what regulations they are subject to, will continue to be a testament to his dedication and hard work.

Whoever follows Neal in this role will have big shoes to fill but also a very good role model for how to get done a difficult but important job.  February 19, 2016 will be Neal’s final day at the agency. And as Neal leaves federal service to go into the private sector, no doubt he will come to understand even more the important public service he provided.

Advertisements

Measure Twice; Cut Once

A couple of years ago, I did an addition to my house.  Everyone who has done this knows the steps.  I sat down with an

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

architect to discuss exactly what I wanted to accomplish with the project.   A rough design was done and then refined in a set of blueprints that was put out for bid.  Since my budget was limited, the plans had to be readjusted to fit both my needs and my resources before they could be finalized.  Only then did we go to the relevant regulatory bodies to seek the required permits and approvals to do the project.

I thought of this process last week while I listened to the CPSC Chairman and Commissioners describe their desire to greatly expand the agency’s import surveillance system at an oversight hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee.   In 2011, in response to Congressional direction, the agency initiated a pilot program to identify imports that violate safety standards.  The current pilot program subjects certain products from certain countries/suppliers to surveillance prior to import under a computer rule set that predicts the possibility of violations. In other words, the computer looks at what is coming in and, using the rule set, flags those products that should be further examined by CPSC personnel.  As a pilot, it has worked well.  The agency now seeks to extend the program to all imports under its jurisdiction.  Such a program will be expensive and the agency has asked Congress for a significantly increased appropriation to build out the program and the authority to impose user fees on importers as a way to fund the program on a continuing basis.

The agency has a great deal of regulatory housekeeping to do before such a system is feasible.  The program will only work if the agency has the statutorily-required certificates of compliance from importers available in an electronic form.  These electronic certificates will provide the basic information to allow both the CPSC and its sister agency, Customs, to make initial judgments about compliance.  In 2013, the agency proposed to update its rules governing the creation and filing of e-certificates (at 16 C.F.R. §1110).  Unfortunately, the agency, in a good example of “wants” exceeding “needs”, proposed a rule that goes well beyond what is required by the statute, and, if finalized, would require importers to redesign reporting systems and impose many new and costly requirements.  I looked at the cost of the proposed system when I was a Commissioner and using agency estimates, determined that it would cost annually over $400 million – that is almost $1/2 billion—for importers to compile the paperwork to document tests and generate the certificates that reflect those tests. That is a lot of money for paper!

This rule has been one of the most controversial in the history of the agency.  Many comments have been filed and most of them have been critical of the proposed rule.  The agency now proposes to establish a pilot program to see if the rule will work.  Unfortunately, rather than establishing a pilot based on the learning found in the comments to the rule, the pilot will look much like the proposed rule.  And because it is so tied to the expanded import surveillance system, this rule remains on the agency’s near-term agenda for completion.

At the hearing last week, several commissioners discussed the agency’s import surveillance activities.  Chairman Kaye argued that seeking authority to expand its import surveillance activities is consistent both with Congressional desires expressed in the CPSIA and with the Presidential direction for closer coordination among agencies that handle imports.  However, the ever-thoughtful Commissioner Beurkle pointed out that the agency has yet to undertake a requirements analysis to identify the capabilities of an expanded system.  Both she and Commissioner Mohorovic expressed grave concerns about the status and substance of the agency’s proposed rule on electronic certificates with Commissioner Mohorovic suggesting that the agency was greatly underestimating the number of certificates that it would have to process. He also argued that the agency has yet to demonstrate how the rule would improve targeting of violators and suggested that a “trusted trader” program should be part of any final program.    Commissioner Beurkle suggested that an “incremental” approach to building out the system was a more prudent one than what the agency proposed.

While the Senate Committee did not dwell on the subject of user fees, there were differences of opinion both on the Committee and among the commissioners.  Again, Chairman Kaye voiced strong support for the notion of user fees to fund import surveillance activities while Commissioner Beurkle expressed concerns about the wisdom and the constitutionality of such a system.

It seems pretty apparent that the agency has much more planning to do before it should get the permits to build out this addition to its regulatory house.  The fact that so much of the planning and preparatory work that needs to proceed such a program is still “under construction” should give policy makers pause.  And the issue of how to fund the program does raise many policy issues.  User fees have a certain attractiveness and have been used before.  But the policy and legal implications of such an option should be more fully explored.  In this regard, last month the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center published a study looking at the on-budget cost of regulations.  Among other things the study found that “in general, agencies that are at least partially funded by fees on the entities they regulate continue to grow at a faster rate than those that depend on appropriations from general funding” and that “agencies with independent funding authority will have significant increases in their outlays over the two-year 2015-2016 period.”  While this may or may not be a bad or a good result, it is something that should be understood before Congress, the agency and its stakeholders go down this road.

Planning is important.  It appears that the agency needs to work on its blueprint before it jumps into this new undertaking, not matter how important.

Shopping the Global E-Mall, Round 2

In my last post, I discussed the growing phenomenon of e-commerce sales directly to consumers from foreign (Chinese) manufacturers. My concern is that the regulatory stance of the CPSC—asserting that a foreign manufacturer is legally responsible for compliance with all U.S. safety standards when a U.S. consumer buys a product directly from that manufacturer—is both naïve and unenforceable.

Therefore, I was interested to see the announcement last week from the CPSC that it has entered into a voluntary agreement with Alibaba, the Chinese e-commerce direct sales company, to work with the agency to try to monitor its platforms for dangerous products.  Kudos to the agency for negotiating this agreement, as modest as it is.

According to press reports, Alibaba handles more e-commerce business than Amazon.com and eBay Inc. combined and, as a platform for third parties, it controls as much as 80 per cent of the Chinese e-commerce business.  Obviously, Alibaba can be a potent ally in policing the marketplace for unsafe products.

Looking at the reported details of the agreement, it is not clear whether it will prove to advance consumer safety in the global e-mall or merely serve as a fig leaf to which the parties can point to show they are doing something.  Alibaba has apparently agreed to block sales of up to 15 recalled products upon request from the CPSC.  Since a substantial number of the over-400 recalls the CPSC does each year are of products from China, there should be no problem finding candidates for this list.  All concede that this agreement is not enforceable. It remains to be seen how aggressive Alibaba will be carrying it out over time.

More interesting is the company’s agreement to make available information about safety requirements to importers into the United States.  U.S. safety requirements are not easily understood, especially those issued since 2009 in response to the CPSIA—see the labyrinthine regulations dealing with testing and certification for examples. Any way to get information to those who are honestly trying to comply can do nothing but help.

Whether this agreement is a modest, but effective first step or just another counterfeit product remains to be seen.  Stay tuned.

Happy (?) Birthday

Perhaps someone, somewhere celebrated the 6th birthday of the CPSIA 10 days ago, but it sure blew right by me.  It took the Product Safety Daily publication to remind me that it had occurred. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The American Apparel and Footwear Association posted a short, thoughtful blog about the significance of the CPSIA’s anniversary, noting that the law did achieve some important safety benefits but not without some very significant and unnecessary costs.  And it is my position, as a commissioner who lived through the internal debates at the agency, that the CPSC was complicit in exacerbating those unnecessary costs and complexities.  The good things in the law could have been achieved without the heavy toll extracted.  That the agency has not moved to reduce testing burdens as instructed by Congress is either regulatory incompetence or arrogance run amuck.  But I repeat myself.

Time for Doing the Work, Not Looking for Shortcuts

Those who follow the CPSC closely expect that the President’s new commission nominees will be confirmed soon.  The question is: will new leadership change either the tone or the direction of the agency?  Two exchanges during the confirmation hearings made my ears perk up since they went to that question.  Both exchanges addressed the regulatory approach of the nominees.

The first exchange dealt with testing burden reduction.  Remember that PL 112-28 directed the Commission to undertake actions to reduce the costs of third party testing or report back to Congress if it needed additional authorities.  Senator John Thune noted that the agency has done nothing to implement measures to reduce costs in any meaningful way.  Senator Thune asked each nominee, upon confirmation, to provide the Senate Committee with their plans for implementing efforts to reduce testing costs. Senator Thune has given the nominees a real opportunity to show leadership and provide actual relief from the agency’s overly-expansive and costly testing approach—which does not provide consumers with additional safety but does add additional costs to the products they buy.

So as the two nominees craft their plans in response to Senator Thune’s request, will those plans reflect business as usual, with the agency doing only enough to make it appear that it is doing its legal duty but still managing to avoid any real change?  Or will those plans show a thoughtful and creative approach to fixing a problem that Congress and members of the public have identified but which the leadership of the agency, up to this point, has sought to minimize?

Another interesting exchange during the hearing dealt with procedures for issuing regulations.  While addressing the five-year delay in issuing rules for recreational off-road vehicles, the nominee for Chairman, Mr. Kaye, bemoaned the lack of “express” rulemaking authority in the Consumer Product Safety Act.  He attributed regulatory delays to the findings the agency has to make before issuing a final rule and the cost-benefit analysis that he said was “unique” to the CPSC (implying that such analysis was overly burdensome).  But Mr. Kaye did not identify which findings and what aspects of cost-benefit analysis are overly burdensome to the agency. Having that information would provide the basis for a good discussion on regulatory policy at the agency.

Section 9 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2058) spells out how the agency must go about issuing product safety rules or bans. The law states that before the agency initiates rulemaking it must make some preliminary effort to assure itself that the rule is indeed needed.  Those efforts include:

  • a first-cut at describing the potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule;
  • a discussion of why any existing voluntary standard is not adequate; and
  • a description of reasonable alternatives to the rule and why those alternatives should not be considered.

But which of these points of analysis do those advocating for express rulemaking want to eliminate?  Do we really want federal agencies beginning the rulemaking process without doing initial homework in the form of some upfront analysis to assure the public that the proposed direction is correct? To my ears, the complaint that doing your homework is too hard rings hollow.

But perhaps it is the cost benefit analysis that must been done during the rulemaking process that is the problem for those complaining about burdens and advocating express rulemaking.  The law states that the analysis must include a description of the potential benefits and potential costs of the rule and a description of the alternatives to the rule that the commission considered, the costs and benefits of those alternatives and a description of why they were not chosen.  But the law merely states explicitly what necessarily should be included in any competent regulatory analysis.  Unless we are willing to agree that the feds are always right in their regulatory approach, would we not want any agency to gather, write down and then actually consider that information before regulating?

I suspect that the real problem for those advocating for express rulemaking is the law’s expectation that the data will be used to inform results–that the agency actually will use the data to tailor or perhaps even change its preferred regulatory approach.  The law tells the agency that it may not issue a rule unless it finds, among other things, that

  • the benefits of the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs; and
  • the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement to adequately address the risk.

In other words, if the agency’s preferred regulatory approach is not the most efficient way to address a risk, then Congress expects the agency to change its approach.

Here are a couple of follow-up questions to the nominees.  Do we want the agency to be able to regulate without regard to costs and benefits? Should not the agency have to change its preferred approach if the costs and benefits are not reasonably related?  Do we want the agency to impose requirements that are more burdensome than they need to be and do so out of ignorance because it did not bother to consider alternatives?  I submit that we do not.  And I believe that experience over the past four years illustrates the importance of these requirements. Several extremely costly and burdensome rules were put into effect without the analysis described above since the CPSIA did not require that analysis.  Indeed, PL 112-28 was passed because the testing rule, not subjected to that analysis, resulted in costs that are excessive.

Regulation is not and should not be easy.  If data shows the need for a rule, then the agency should roll up its sleeves and get to work, not complain about how hard it is and look for shortcuts.  It will be interesting to see if the new leadership is up for doing the hard work.

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

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.

The Use and Abuse of Voluntary Consensus Standards

The CPSC has issued several recent rules about nursery products, each of which was based on a voluntary consensus standard. Congress directed us to do so in § 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, and also wrote special procedures for the voluntary consensus standards under that section. Unlike most voluntary standards—which the agency relies on frequently, without enacting mandatory federal rules—Congress gave the agency the power to modify those voluntary consensus standards as necessary to reduce a risk of injury. The Commission just last week approved a new rule on bassinets and cradles under the § 104 rubric. Although I agreed with my colleagues about most of the rule, one key change made by the staff to the voluntary standard did not appear necessary—in light of all the real-world evidence presented to the Commission. Therefore, I proposed an amendment that would have adopted the standard without that change.

The agency’s staff proposed to adopt a test criterion that differed only slightly from the version in the voluntary consensus standard. (You can read more about the change in my official statement here.) If the change were necessary to advance safety, I could have supported it. If the change made a real and substantial improvement to safety, I could have supported it. But in the end, I didn’t see evidence that supported the change. And as I read § 104, that means that the agency cannot and should not adopt a rule that changes the voluntary consensus standard.

Why not? All federal agencies are supposed to use voluntary consensus standards where possible, because they are likely to increase standardization, encourage long-term economic grown, and save taxpayer funds.  So a general policy in favor of using voluntary consensus standards makes sense. And the CPSC has special reason to hew close to voluntary consensus standards.

In § 104, Congress was not legislating in a vacuum. CPSC is already required to use voluntary consensus standards instead of making up its own rules, so long as the voluntary consensus standard does the job. Section 104 is only meant to change the process so that durable nursery products are covered by enforceable federal standards, because of the special population that uses nursery products—infants. Unfortunately, the way that the CPSC has implemented § 104 has tangled up the voluntary standards process, cutting short debate and perhaps reducing the quality of the draft rules that the Commission gets for its consideration. My amendment would have been a step in the right direction, signaling to standards development organizations that their work product will not be rushed along, nor their debate stymied or stilted, by the CPSC. We should be moving down that path.


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

Join 986 other followers

Archives

RSS CPSC Breaking News & Recent Recalls

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

Nancy's Photos

  • 80,754 visits
Advertisements