Nord Says CPSC Didn't Seriously Consider Costs/Benefits of CPSIA Rules
Commissioner Nord of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has commented on the Regulatory Accountability Act, which was passed in the House on December 2, 2011 and would require agencies to take the costs and benefits for new regulations more seriously before finalizing them. She states this is something that the CPSC has not done with rules issued under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) because the Act specifically gave the agency the opportunity to opt out of doing cost-benefit analyses. Nord states is unfortunate that the CPSC did not think about minimizing regulatory cost, as the agency busily churned out regulations over the past several years, and that maybe this will now change.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11120612 for summary of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, which was passed by the House. H.R. 3010 would (i) place permanent restrictions on regulatory agencies and restore accountability by requiring openness and transparency in the regulatory process; (ii) require agencies to tailor new regulations to impose the least cost necessary to achieve policy goals set out by Congress; (iii) require agencies to hold formal hearings to test the assumptions and evidence on which the costliest new rules are based; and (iv) update and reform the rulemaking process by setting mandatory rulemaking principles.
See ITT's Online Archives 11091341 for summary of a letter Nord sent to the Office of Management and Budget stating that CPSC had not implemented Executive Order 13563 requiring Federal agencies to design cost-effective, evidence-based regulations that are compatible with economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness. She stated CPSC had been ignoring the cost-benefit analysis of new rules and that it planned to issue its periodic testing final rule without economic analysis and without waiting to see comments on ways to reduce CPSIA third-party testing burdens, a requirement under H.R. 2715 (P.L. 112-28).
See ITT's Online Archives 11072115 for summary of trade comments that CPSC should review the CPSIA under Executive Order 13579. EO 13579 urges independent agencies to issue a plan for periodic review of existing significant rules in order to identify rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, redundant, or excessively burdensome. The agency is then asked to “modify, streamline, expand, or repeal” identified rules in accordance with what it learns through the review process. See ITT's Online Archives 11101916 for CPSC request for comments on how it should plan for an EO 13579 review of its existing regulations.
See ITT's Online Archives 11011915 and 11071229 for summaries of EO 13563 and EO 13579.)