Setting The Record Straight

The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s official pronouncements on the new mandatory safety standards for cribs have caused confusion among the press. This post is intended to correct the record.

The new standards ban drop-side cribs. But the standards also prohibit the sale, new or used, of all cribs – both drop-side and fixed-side – that are not tested to the new standards by a private laboratory. Because very few cribs that were not originally manufactured to the new standards will ever be tested, the new standards essentially ban all such cribs – drop-side and fixed side. As reported in today’s press, millions of drop-side cribs have been recalled. On the other hand, tens of millions of fixed side cribs manufactured to previous standards have never been recalled, never been found to be unsafe, and now also cannot be sold new or resold used.

Drop side cribs have been banned since 2009 by the voluntary standard followed by the vast majority of crib manufacturers offering cribs in the domestic United States market today. Therefore, although it is true that the new standards are the first “mandatory” federal crib standards in 30 years, very few new drop-side cribs have been available in the United States market for two years. That problem was largely solved already through recalls and a change to the industry voluntary standard.

Tomorrow You May See Tens of Thousands of These

Last week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission had an opportunity to act in a sensible manner and provide important and immediate relief to retailers in the crib industry who requested an extension of the effective date of the new mandatory crib standards. The retailers of these cribs, which the Commission deemed were safe enough to continue to be used for another two years in day care facilities, stand to lose at least $32 million dollars when they are required to throw out noncompliant cribs on June 28. We all agree that the economy is growing painfully slowly, with high unemployment, minimal job creation, and a crushing national debt due in part to the reduced tax revenues associated with a weak economy. Among the central factors economists attribute to the reluctance of private sector employers to hire employees and invest capital are the costs and uncertainty of complying with new regulations. By failing to provide relief to crib retailers, the Commission continues to create over burdensome regulations without a safety justification.

I urge you to read my most recent statement on this issue and comment with your thoughts. If we at the Commission continue to ignore the voices of small businesses, sooner or later there won’t be any small businesses to ignore.

Ribbon Cutting

Yesterday I had the pleasure of joining my fellow Commissioners in opening CPSC’s brand new state of the art testing facility in Rockville, Maryland. The Ribbon Cutting Ceremony gave us an opportunity to discuss many of the benefits of the new facility as well as get a glimpse into the work that is conducted there.

During the tour, I was able to witness first-hand the important technological steps that CPSC staff are taking to ensure the safety of the products that we use on a daily basis. Unlike the prior facility, this new center allows agency scientists and engineers to work together in a central location with the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. In particular, I was impressed by the center’s ability to conduct carbon monoxide alarm testing as well as their new mattress flammability testing chambers.

I want to congratulate all those who put in the time to make yesterday such a success. I am confident that this new facility will help us in our continuing efforts to ensure safety.

Advancing Change

As many of you are aware, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade recently reported favorably the Enhancing CPSC Authority and Discretion Act of 2011 (ECADA) to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee. The ECADA would correct many of the unintended consequences of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) and help to refocus the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on its core mission of identifying and eliminating hazardous children’s products.

To help illustrate my position on this legislation, I recently sent a letter to each Member of the Committee identifying not only the strengths of this legislation, but also some suggestions as to ways in which we can make a good bill even better.

On balance, I strongly appreciate the Subcommittee’s efforts to resolve the unforeseen problems caused by the CPSIA, and I look forward to continued progress before the Full Committee. The bill makes great strides toward addressing many of the problems with the CPSIA, including its overregulation of lead, imposition of huge third-party testing costs, and a mandate to create a public database using language this Commission subsequently construed to allow the placement of inaccurate and unverifiable information in a government sanctioned database. I therefore support passage of the ECADA and look forward to the day when all of the CPSC’s resources can once again be directed to protecting the public from unsafe consumer products.

Hearing Recap

Earlier this week, I mentioned that the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade would be holding a hearing on a draft version of fixes to the current CPSIA. I appreciated listening to the testimony of all the witnesses and feel confident that the Committee can work in a bipartisan manner to continue this discussion moving forward.

To illustrate some of the important changes this bill would make, I want to draw your attention to a recent article from Bloomberg news entitled “Toymakers Would Get Regulatory Relief Under Republican Plan.” This article helps outline many of the current problems with CPSIA as well as the important fixes that this legislation will address.

Drafting A Change

As some of you may know, the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee recently released a draft version of a bill designed to fix many of the unintended consequences of the CPSIA. This important piece of legislation will be the focal point of tomorrow’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade hearing.

From my perspective, this legislation will go a long way to reduce some of the unnecessary and over burdensome mandates of the CPSIA. For instance, the bill establishes limits for children’s products that are too large to be swallowed, alternative lead limits for metals and a de minimis exception for other materials. It also limits third party testing to specific categories of products with known risks. These changes would free the Commission to focus its efforts on hazardous products, rather than on the enforcement of non-risk based standards and procedural compliance.

Further, I want to note a key provision regarding the Public Database. The bill narrows the definitions of “consumer” and “public safety entity” to persons who either used a product or are closely associated with someone who did. In addition, the bill requires that the name and contact information of the affected individual be included in the report. I believe these simple changes would address many of my concerns regarding the veracity and verifiability of information submitted to the public database.

Finally, I want to commend Chairwoman Mary Bono Mack and members of her staff for their hard work on drafting this piece of legislation. While I know bills can change significantly during the legislative process, this draft reflects the Committee’s commitment to correct the problems with the CPSIA about which there is strong bipartisan agreement. I look forward to sharing my impressions of tomorrow’s hearing and welcome your comments about this legislation.

Funding Debate

Last week, I had the honor of representing the CPSC as a witness before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. The hearing, which focused on the CPSC'S 2012 Performance Budget Request, afforded me the opportunity to testify about ways in which I believe we can reduce our budget while actually improving our ability to fulfill our core safety mission.

In my prepared testimony, I illustrated several points where I believe the CPSC is inefficiently using its resources, focusing on the requirements of the CPSIA. For example, I discussed the Commission Majority’s decision to broaden the scope of what falls under the definition of “children’s product.” That decision unnecessarily increased the number of products that must undergo third-party lab testing for compliance with the statutory lead content limits applicable to children’s products. Moreover, the majority failed to meaningfully define “absorption” for purposes of excepting from the third-party testing requirements products that contain no risk. As a result, the rule makes no distinction between products containing lead that is likely to be consumed and products where the lead content cannot cause harm. These regulatory decisions by the Majority have actually increased the economic damage caused by the CPSIA, in areas where the Commission had the discretion to limit that damage.

In addition to my prepared testimony I was able to highlight two points that I believe would be instrumental in reducing both the size of the Commission’s budget and its regulatory burden, especially on small businesses:

First, I urged the Committee to prohibit funding for the new public database until the Commission’s regulations ensure that the information contained in a report of harm is verifiable, and the Commission has established an effective procedure for resolving a claim of material inaccuracy before a report of harm is put on the Database.

Second, I urged the Committee to prohibit funding for the Commission to implement any new third-party testing and certification requirements of the CPSIA. Of course, the Commission would still have its authority to impose such requirements where necessary to address a risk. This will ensure that our focus is on ensuring safety rather than on enforcing standards and paperwork requirements entirely unrelated to risk.

Finally, I was pleased with the discussion by Chairwoman Jo Ann Emerson of the need for a cost-benefit analysis of regulations promulgated under the CPSIA. I believe such an analysis would reveal that much of our CPSIA mandated regulation cannot be justified. This will not only help to save businesses throughout the county that are struggling, but it will also ensure that we are using the resources provided to us by the taxpayer in a logical and substantive manner.

Click here to view last week's broadcast.