EU-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation: Strides Made but More Should Be Done

Today the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center released a significant report, “International Regulatory Cooperation:  Benefits, Limitations, and Best Practices.”  This report builds on earlier work done by the Center and examines opportunities to improve regulatory cooperation between the European Union and the United States.  The report is timely because negotiators from the U.S. and the EU this week are continuing their discussions to hammer out the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.

The study examines the efforts of three federal agencies to foster regulatory cooperation, including a case study on the efforts of the CPSC, which I authored.   The case study builds on my experiences over an eight-plus year time span as a CPSC Commissioner, when I saw first-hand the need for collaborative efforts among jurisdictions internationally to address the issue of import safety. The study looks at the potential benefits of and the limits of and barriers to regulatory cooperation.  I also have made recommendations for changes that I believe would improve the agency’s ability to work with its foreign counterparts to improve safety.  The report identifies ways to reduce unnecessary regulatory divergences (and related wasteful regulatory costs) such as convergence on testing and standards, sharing of data and more active consideration of unnecessary differences when promulgating or reviewing regulations.

The CPSC has a good track record working with its foreign counterparts to enhance consumer safety. However, given the complexity of both consumer products and the global marketplace, consumer safety will demand even greater and more creative work among regulators but that work needs to minimize the unnecessary regulatory burdens that come from an unimaginative approach to regulation.

I would welcome feed-back to the recommendations made in this report.  Give me your comments here or at nnord@ofwlaw.com.

It’s Not Just Size That Counts

Today, the CPSC announced a civil penalty settlement agreement for an eye-popping $15.45 million.  The settlement involved dehumidifiers sold by Gree Electrical Appliances Inc.  The penalty is the statutory maximum that could be imposed and is well beyond any penalty imposed by the agency at any time in its history.

CPSC alleged that Gree:

• knowingly failed to report a defect and unreasonable risk of serious injury to CPSC  with dehumidifiers sold under 13 different brand names (the dehumidifiers were recalled in 2013);
• knowingly made misrepresentations to CPSC staff during its investigation; and
• sold dehumidifiers bearing the UL safety certification mark knowing that the dehumidifiers did not meet UL flammability standards.

Given the size of the penalty, one should expect that the alleged misconduct to be off-the-charts in terms of the severity of injury to consumers.    Yet, even though the earlier related recall involved well over 2 million items and significant property damage from fires caused by the defective product, there are no reports of injury.  In fact, there is little to distinguish this hazard pattern from others involving defective appliances posing serious fire hazards where penalties have been fractions of the amount imposed in this case. Certainly there was potential for serious injury but the fact remains that there were no injuries.  While there was substantial property damage, presumably this was covered by insurance and it is not the purpose of the CPSC to protect insurance companies.

There is nothing in the agency’s press release or the settlement agreement itself to tell us why this case was so more egregious than other cases involving violations of the requirement to report hazards to the agency.  One has to assume then that it was the alleged misrepresentations to the government and the unauthorized use of the UL mark that bumped the penalty up to the limit.  But other than these general statements and based on what has been made public, it is not clear what actual conduct triggered such a huge penalty.  For those trying to stay on the right side of the law, the government has an obligation to be more transparent in describing the activity that warrants this type of penalty.

Certainly the allegations in the settlement agreement are very serious and, if true, warrant a significant penalty.  But it would be helpful to know whether this penalty is unique to a particular set of circumstances or is just a very large scalp from another “failure-to-report” case. As Commissioner Mohorovic points out in his statement, if the agency wants to change behavior through its penalties, it is important to more fully describe the behavior those regulated should avoid.

While this is a significant case because of the size of the penalty, its importance diminishes because of the agency’s opaqueness in describing the bad acts that occurred.  If you are not confused and troubled by all this, then I suggest you are not paying attention.

 

Writing a Regulatory Punch List

Everyone needs to clean out the attic from time to time.  Through that process, you often come across things that you want to keep, that need to be repaired in order to be useful and that are just out of date and can be tossed. 

With that in mind, this past week the CPSC published a draft plan for retrospective review of its existing rules—that is, a plan to develope a punch list for rules that need review.  The agency is asking for comments on the draft plan and those comments are due by December 28, 2015.  The draft review plan pushes forward the commitment the commissioners made earlier this year to engage in meaningful review of rules that are already on the books to identify regulations that are obsolete, excessively burdensome, counterproductive, ineffective or in need of modernizing.  Unlike the Commission’s earlier effort in 2012, this plan makes clear that all rules are potential candidates for review.  And it provides a mechanism for getting the public’s suggestions for rule review candidates.

The draft plan shows a commitment on the part of the agency to undertake a serious review of its rules.  But it remains to be seen whether this will be a plan with any teeth behind it or just another empty head-nod to good administrative practice. I do note that the plan does not include dedicated resources for implementation. And, importantly, it does not include a continuing commitment to provide for a review plan and metrics for that review in all new rules the agency issues.  That would be a helpful addition to assure that this plan does not just get stuffed back up into the regulatory attic to languish.

Regulating through the Front Door

Last week, the Hill newspaper published my article supporting a regulatory reform bill, S. 2006, recently introduced by Senator Portman and a bipartisan group of Senators.  Among other things, the bill sets out Congressional expectations for balancing the costs and benefits of rulemaking and directs agencies to adopt the least burdensome rule that addresses the issue in the proceeding.  As I stated in my article, “Regulating is not, and should not be, easy.  Requiring agencies to do the needed up-front hard work before issuing rules, as these reform bills direct, will result in better rules.”

Critics have pointed to these kinds of requirements as regulatory roadblocks—mere ploys designed to slow down the process.  I see them not as roadblocks but as speed bumps–useful tools to assure that the agency gets it right when it regulates. And unless the agency is actually required both to do the work, and then to regulate based on the results of that work, the temptation is to look at these requirements as “check-the-box” exercises that must be done on the way to a rule, often with a predetermined result.

I do have one concern about potential unintended consequences from reform of the rulemaking process.  To the extent that agencies perceive it to be harder to issue rules going forward, they may look for other ways to achieve desired results, thereby circumventing the protections and procedures of the reform bills.  I saw this operating first hand at the CPSC where “backdoor rulemaking” is not only accepted but embraced. Backdoor rulemaking involves taking enforcement or other action on a category- wide or product- class basis to achieve results that one would normally expect to achieve through rulemaking.  So if a product with a particular attribute is deemed to be substantial product hazard and recalled, then that action may, de facto, set the bar for all other products with similar attributes.  Transparency and due process are out the door.

Regulators regulate—that is what they do.  But category-wide enforcement should not be used as a subterfuge to avoid the regulatory process.  As these reform bills advance, Congress will need to be alert to this concern.

Off On New Adventures!

Some might find it a surprising way to celebrate the start of the Independence Day weekend by announcing a new job.  Nevertheless, I wanted readers to know that after leaving the CPSC 18 months ago, I have decided to come out of “retirement” and have become affiliated with Olsson, Frank, Weeda, Terman & Matz, a Washington law firm with a regulatory, public policy and litigation practice. Since the firm includes not only exceptional lawyers and policy advisors, but also scientists, doctors and other technical professionals, it brings a special kind of creativity to problem solving that is unmatched in Washington. It is this creativity and “spunk” that convinced me OFW was the right place for me.

Since leaving CPSC, I have spent my time writing, speaking and working on interesting projects of my choosing dealing with regulatory policy and safety issues.  While I intend to continue these interests, my affiliation with OFW will bring another dimension to these activities.

I also intend to continue writing this blog.  Its purpose is to educate and to provide commentary—sometimes complementary and often critical—about what is happening at the agency from my unique perspective.  I try not to pull punches and my affiliation with OFW will not change that.

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

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.

Retailer Reporting: Something for Nothing?

Over ten years ago, the CPSC compliance staff negotiated an agreement with Wal-Mart that has grown over the years into what is now known as the retailer reporting policy. Under the agreement, Wal-Mart agreed to file weekly reports with the CPSC documenting safety issues reported to its stores about products it sold. This reporting gave the agency important insights into the range of safety issues the world’s largest retailer was seeing. It allowed the agency to get an early heads-up on potential safety issues before they matured into “substantial product hazards.” And Wal-Mart got some protection from allegations that it had failed to report substantial product hazards to the agency.

Because this was such a win-win for both the agency and the company, other large retailers and then several large manufacturers soon began asking to participate in the program as well. In response, the agency expanded the program over the years. However, several years ago, the retailer reporting program was put on hold.

The agency staff has now decided to revise the program. Only selected companies will be “invited” to participate. The revised program makes very clear that participation in the program does not provide a substitute for or otherwise impact any reporting requirements under Section 15(b) of the law. However “consideration” may be given to participating companies should they be faced with subsequent enforcement actions for failure to report. The confidentiality protections applying to Information submitted under Section 15(b) of the law would not apply to these reports.

The staff believes that these changes make the program more transparent and answer long-standing questions about how the program operates. That is certainly true. But the changes also raise several other questions as well. For example, the selective nature of the program and the “consideration”, if any, given to participants does raise troubling fairness issues,  A company wishing to participate and frozen out of the program will have little recourse in challenging the decision of some invisible staffer. What kind of consideration will be available to some but not others?

But more basically, the changes raise the question of why any company should bother to participate. When I raised that question, when I was still a Commissioner, the answer I got was “that it is the right thing for companies to do.” Perhaps there are companies who will find the CPSC staff “invitation” irresistible. (I assume that there will be no measure of bullying associated with these invitations.)  However, there may be others who believe that the effort involved and the benefits to be gained are not worth it. In this case the agency will lose out on an important source of information that could help it identify risks as they come up over the horizon.

However, the biggest concern is a process one. The program has been in place for over ten years. Although it was initiated by the staff, it has grown over the years and it has consumed considerable staff resources. Changes of this magnitude should be placed before the Commission for explanation and approval in a public meeting. The program’s role in gathering useful information should be better explained and it should be part of the agency’s annual operating plan. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the program and the changes being made, this is something that Commissioners should consider and approve, not delegate to staff.

Connecting Corporate Counsel

Readers who are in corporate law departments may be interested in a conversation I had recently with the editors of Corporate Counsel Connect, a Thomson Reuters publication focusing on corporate law departments.  The focus of the piece was the development and 30 year history of the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), where I served as its first executive director.  You can find the interview in the October issue of Corporate Counsel Connect, here.  In a separate article I discussed with the editors the challenges that corporate counsel face in the current regulatory environment.

Corporate counsel who are not members of ACC may want to check out the resources it offers.

 

Process is Important

This week’s CPSC Commission briefing on the proposed final rule for high powered magnet sets was as notable for what did not happen as for what did.  As the Chairman explained, Commissioner Buerkle declined to participate in the briefing and in the upcoming vote because she believes that it is inappropriate for the agency to vote on a rulemaking addressing the same issues that are currently before a judge in a litigation to which the agency is a party, and which may come back to the commissioners for further review. How refreshing–a public servant who believes that process is important.

The case is being litigated before an administrative law judge against Zen Magnets, and seeks a recall, alleging that the company’s product is defective because it presents a substantial product hazard–children can sustain serious injuries if they swallow small powerful magnets like those Zen sells as adult desk toys.  Zen is the only company currently selling such a product, according to the agency.  While this case is ongoing, the agency plans to issue a final rule to prevent anyone from selling such a product in the future. (It is currently scheduled to vote on the final rule before the end of the month.)

At the hearing at least one commissioner argued that this two-pronged attack against tiny Zen was appropriate because (i) the statute allows for rules to be issued only on a prospective basis for product manufactured in future; and (ii) the statute allows for the agency to get dangerous product already manufactured out of the market through recalls, including those resulting from administrative litigation.  Therefore, the argument goes, the agency’s actions are perfectly proper. That analysis is disingenuous because it is incomplete.

The agency initiated rulemaking in 2012.  It is true that rules are prospective.  However, the agency does have a mechanism for getting products it believes to be unsafe off the market while a rule (or a litigation) is pending and it is not the coercive tactics agency used.  Under section 12 of the statute, the agency may go to court and seek an injunction against the sale of such a product while it undertakes rulemaking if the product poses an imminent hazard.  Of course, the problem, from the agency’s point of view, is that it would have to actually convince a judge.   But that is what the notion of due process is all about.

Instead of seeking an injunction while it pursued rulemaking, the agency “requested” retailers not to sell magnets, destroying the retail market, and tried to negotiate voluntary recalls with as many companies as possible.  Those that did not agree were sued.  The purpose of the agency’s actions was never to get product out of consumer’s hands.  The paltry return rate of the recalls that were done demonstrates that consumers were not going to send the product back.  Instead the purpose was to stop the sale of the product on an on-going basis and on an across-the-board basis, picking the companies off one by one.

At this point in the saga, the only player to withstand the government is Zen which is insisting on its right for a judge to determine whether its products pose a substantial product hazard because they are defective.  While some may say this is a quixotic quest on Zen’s part, that is its right under our system of justice.  If the agency believes that Zen’s products pose an imminent threat to consumers while this litigation is going on, it could seek an injunction under section 12 of the statute but it has not done that.

The commission now seeks to put its very heavy thumb onto the scales of justice by finding that the magnets Zen sells pose an unreasonable risk and therefore are illegal.  This decision by the commission cannot help but have an impact on the litigation before the administrative law judge.  The agency cannot argue that risk to consumers justifies this action since it has not taken the action it could have under section 12 to actually protect consumers.  Add to all this the fact that the same commissioners who are so anxious to vote on the rule will hear any appeals that might come out of the ALJ’s decision and you hardly have to wonder what that outcome will be.

Commissioner Buerkle seems to understand that process is important.  Too bad her colleagues are in such a hurry to throw it out the window.

Fielding Differences

BUT BY WHAT MEANS?

It has been said that no two people ever read the same book.  Our perspectives and reactions are all influenced and informed by the points of view we bring to a particular issue.  This is especially true of commissioners at the CPSC who bring a wealth of experiences to the agency and whose outlooks are influenced by those experiences.

My former colleague and good friend, former Commissioner Anne Northup, and I did not always initially agree on various issues that we were confronted with.  But because of mutual respect for the other’s point of view, we were usually able to find common ground on most issues.  Even when we differed in approach or outcome, those differences provided opportunity for healthy debate and persuasion, which is the point of regulatory commissions.

One example of this was the commission’s approach to regulating small powerful magnets.  Former Commissioner Northup and I approached the issue from very different perspectives.  Commissioner Northup voted to bring an administrative action to force a recall of Buckyballs, the brand name of the most popular magnets sold as an adult desk toy.  Like all commissioners (myself included) she was very concerned about the number of injuries to children who swallowed the small magnetic balls.  She saw this as a product that was attractive to children and so, should be regulated as a toy.

My approach was different.  I was concerned by the fact that the product seller had gone to extraordinary lengths to market the product as an adult product.  I was unsatisfied with the commission’s view that it is appropriate to ban a product that is being safety used by its intended audience when unintended users are being harmed through misuse of the product.  I was concerned that the administrative action the commission undertook was tantamount to backdoor rulemaking and that if the commission wished to regulate this product it should do so directly.  Finally, I objected to the agency’s approach to contact retailers informally asking them to pull the product (thereby destroying its market without any kind of due process) rather than go to court to seek an injunction against the sale of the product during the pendency of the lawsuit (as the law allows).  Former Commission Northup shared this last concern.

Former Commissioner Northup recently wrote an opinion article that describes her reactions to the recent settlement of the CPSC’s administrative suit against Buckyballs.  Her article is worth reading.  Like me, she is most disappointed that the agency staff, presumably with the acquiescence of the Chairman, expanded the scope of the lawsuit to include one of the company’s principals as a party in his personal capacity.  This unprecedented action was never put to a vote and, hence, was not done by agreement of the commission.

While Anne and I did not agree on the merits of whether this case should have been started, we do agree that it soon badly went off the tracks.  And I cannot find anything but agreement when she concludes that “collaboration with manufacturers and retailers is a faster and fairer way to protect the public…”  Unfortunately, this is a lesson that I do not think the agency has yet learned.