Our clients often ask us what happens after a recall has been completed and what to expect from a visit from a regional CPSC inspector. We advise to be prepared to demonstrate what actions were taken regarding the Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The main purpose of the inspection appears to be to provide confirmation that
Do not assume a government shutdown means that reporting obligations at the CPSC are on hold. While the Commission’s staff designated as essential personnel are dedicated to protecting against substantial, immediate or “imminent threats to human safety” under the Commission’s shutdown directive, they will be reviewing reports to make that determination. The obligation…
Join Us For A Complimentary Webinar – Thursday, October 25, 2018 – 12:00 – 1:00 PM ET
Two years into the Trump Administration and:
- The Consumer Product Safety Commission finally has a Republican majority,
- the Department of Transportation has released its 3.0 guidance on autonomous vehicles,
- NIST has published a 375 page recommendation on medical
You may have received an e-mail notice this week from the CPSC about the FOIA office’s new “Electronic Manufacturer Notification Collaboration Portal.” The main purpose of the Portal is to reduce costs by using e-mail instead of snail mail for Section 6(b) and other FOIA-related notifications.
Generally, automation of this process shouldn’t result in any meaningful changes in the FOIA notification and objection process. The Commission’s regulations allow firms to submit information with a request for confidential treatment. If the Commission receives a FOIA request for information previously designated confidential, the person who previously submitted the request for confidentiality is notified of the FOIA request and the need for quick response to protect that information from disclosure.
Given the quick turnaround time on requesting exemption from disclosure under FOIA, it is imperative for all industry players to make sure that the right contact is assigned – including someone in the Legal Department – to receive Portal notifications so your team can make quick decisions and take action if filing an objection with the CPSC is necessary. The same contact person used for the Clearinghouse or Saferproducts.gov is a good bet. But requesting an exemption under FOIA takes some analysis of the regulations. Was the information submitted under section 15? Is it a trade secret? And so, companies would be well advised to make sure they have a process in place and conduct a training program to protect confidential data from disclosure.
If you haven’t yet received any notifications about the new automated Portal, you should check in with the CPSC at email@example.com and provide contact information for the proper registration person. The full text of the notification recently sent by the CPSC is below:
Product liability suits and regulatory product defect enforcement actions associated with consumer foreseeable – and unforeseeable – misuse have become the norm. Consumer product companies can mitigate these risks by focusing on use-related hazards and user-centered designs in an effort to reduce injuries and improve the usability of products. But the real question is how far to go with these efforts — at what cost and for what incremental benefit.
On March 15, 2018, the Consumer Product Safety Commission published Draft Guidance on the Application of Human Factors to Consumer Products for industry comment by May 14, 2018. The draft guidance was developed in conjunction with Health Canada’s Consumer Product Safety Directorate. CPSC and Health Canada aim to increase product safety by explaining to product designers and manufacturers how to incorporate human factors into the design process.
The draft guidance describes the product design process and provides guidance on human factors considerations at each stage and then summarized in the graphic depictions collected at the end of this post. Because the guidance is not an enforceable rule, no cost benefit analysis accompanies the myriad of product design recommendations proposed.
The big takeaways from The Autonomous Vehicle Safety Regulation World Congress centered on the importance of a federal scheme for AV regulation and the reality of the states’ interest in traditional issues such as traffic enforcement, product liability, and insurance coverage. In keeping with those messages, the World Congress kicked off with NHTSA Deputy Administrator and Acting Director, Heidi King, speaking about NHTSA’s goals and interest followed almost immediately with wide participation from the states including California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, among others.
Deputy Administrator King emphasized NHTSA’s desire to foster an environment of collaboration among all stakeholders, including the states. Ms. King emphasized that safety remains the top priority at NHTSA. NHTSA has provided some guidance, and looks forward to hearing from stakeholders about the best way to support and encourage growth in autonomous vehicles. NHTSA wants to provide a flexible frame work to keep the door open for private sector innovation. It is necessary to build public trust and confidence in the safety of autonomous vehicles, and that can only accomplished by all stakeholders working together.
The regulation of e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”) presents complex regulatory and scientific challenges. Two key federal agencies with product safety mandates and overlapping jurisdiction – the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration – have turned their attention onto the specific area of e-cigarette battery-related fires and explosions in the last few months.
In August 2016, the Food and Drug Administration finalized its so-called Deeming Rule to bring e-cigarettes and ENDS, as well as their components and parts such as batteries, under its authority to regulate tobacco products. Under this newly granted authority to regulate e-cigarettes and ENDS, FDA held a public workshop in April on “Battery Safety Concerns in Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.” Through the workshop and also through other channels, FDA is seeking data and other information on explosions, fires, and overheating of e-cigarettes. FDA also has initiated a public safety campaign of “Tips to Help Avoid Vape Battery Explosions.”
The U.S. Department of Justice and Consumer Product Safety Commission recently announced that they had entered into consent decrees with three New York-based toy companies and five individuals for importing and selling products that violate the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act. The consent decrees enter permanent injunctions against the companies from importing and selling toys until certain remedial actions are implemented and monitored by the CPSC. The decrees can be read here and here.
The DOJ and CPSC alleged that the individuals and companies – Everbright Trading Inc., Lily Popular Varieties & Gifts Inc., and Great Great Corporation – imported and sold numerous children’s toys and products that contained high levels lead content, lead paint, and phthalates; contained small parts; and violated the mandatory toy safety standard (ASTM F-963), bicycle helmet safety standard, and labeling of art material (LHAMA) requirements.
On June 7, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission provided administrative law followers a fascinating case study. For the first time in two decades, the CPSC’s five Commissioners heard an appeal put on by CPSC staff in administrative litigation. In its appeal, the staff seeks to overturn an administrative law judge’s opinion finding that Zen Magnets’ controversial high powered, small rare earth magnets (SREMs) are not defective and are not a substantial product hazard when sold with appropriate warnings. Novel already, what made this argument all the more interesting was an additional wrinkle: four of the five Commissioners who heard the appeal had voted previously to approve a final safety standard that has the practical effect of banning such magnets outright.
CPSC Reaches Civil Penalty Agreement with Viking Range and Middleby Corporation; Firms to Pay $4.65 Million to Resolve Late Reporting Allegations Over Defective Gas Ranges
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has announced a civil penalty settlement with Viking Range, LLC of Greenwood, Mississippi and its parent company, The Middleby Corporation of Elgin, Illinois. The companies have agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4.65 million to resolve charges that they knowingly failed to immediately report allegedly defective gas ranges to the Commission under Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). This civil penalty, the second of 2017, follows the Commission’s $5.8 million civil penalty levied against Keurig Green Mountain in February. Both penalties underscore that the Commission’s general approach to civil penalties, and desire to increase the amount of penalties imposed for violations, will not change overnight with new agency leadership. Indeed, the Acting Chairman actually voted against the settlement agreement, proposing instead an amendment to reduce the amount of the civil penalty to $2 million.