CPSC staffers May 28 were receptively intrigued by a brainstorm suggestion to leverage retailer requirements. The thought was among many topics discussed by CPSC staff and UL visitors seeking insight into mutual interests and collaboration ideas. The concept arose only as something to ponder and was nothing remotely like a proposal or plan, which presumably would be discussed among staff and possibly commissioners for practical and legal considerations. However, the notion did appear to be a new twist for the high ranking staffers present. CPSC’s usual experience with retailer requirements is pleas from manufacturers to state that there is no legal or regulatory basis and perhaps even to discourage stores from setting product mandates beyond what voluntary or mandatory standards require. The agency typically does not interfere as long as the extra requirements do not conflict with or undermine those it enforces.
Posed by Clyde Kofman, UL chief operating officer, the concept would involve CPSC reaching out to retailers as a way to speed desired safety requirements. He suggested it in the context of difficulties CPSC sometimes has in getting provisions into voluntary standards. The agency is required to work first in that arena, which can move fast but also can take years. CPSC may move to mandatory requirements – which often take additional years – only if it can show the consensus process is not working or if directed by Congress.
At the idea’s most basic, CPSC would make sure to copy relevant retailers when it sends letters to the managers of standards committees stating desired provisions or pointing out safety concerns. Some retailers already are on such panels, so would learn of the developments that way, but this route would be more direct and reach a wider audience.
There are some models in past CPSC activity. It has written to retailers and others of its intent to focus on aspects of particular products. In recent years, those open letters signaled looming 15(j) rules such as with holiday/decorative lights (PSL, 5/11/15) or extension cords (PSL, 5/25/15). But such moves involve existing voluntary requirements that the agency uses to make substantial hazard determinations.
Possibly more similar is the window covering situation. Last year (PSL, 11/10/14), following announcements by Target and IKEA that they planned to eliminate units with certain accessible cords in 2015 and 2016 respectively, Chairman Elliot Kaye’s public praise included a call for other retailers to follow. He has repeated that prodding with each development, such as WCMA’s recent Best for Kids announcement (PSL, 5/11/15). However, that falls more into the traditional role of CPSC heads using their bully pulpit.
In reaction to Kofman’s idea, George Borlase, assistant executive director, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, noted Kaye’s interest in working with retailers and suggested the possibility at least was worth looking into as there might be some opportunities.
Other insights and ideas from the meeting included:
- Working with Standards Groups: Kofman suggested his office potentially could be an ombudsman for CPSC in working with UL standards technical panels. The agency could set up periodic meetings, perhaps annually, to discuss problems and frustrations. He compared the potential cooperation to UL’s escalation process related to companies’ displeasure with test results. He observed that if CPSC has “hard evidence” of a safety concern, “We have to ask what we can do.” This offer arose in the context of explanations that the agency’s success with panels varies even within a single organization like UL’s. Reasons can range from lack of a champion, to disinterest to resistance. It even can be the practical matter of finding the right group, said Joel Recht associate executive director, Directorate of Engineering Sciences. For example, he explained, stationary fireplaces and firepots might have similar safety issues, but a panel for the former might not feel compelled to address the latter.
- Data: Borlase told the visitors that CPSC’s focus is finding how to get more detailed data. Noting the agency’s various data sources, he quipped, “We don’t need more haystacks; we need richer haystacks with more needles.” He gave the example of five notices of coffee maker fires. CPSC is better placed for analysis and action if such reports consistently include facts like brand, model, time made, or factory. Recht added that usage details are very helpful too. Did the event occur after brewing many or few cups? He compared this knowledge to NHTSA’s use of vehicle mileage when assessing problems, noting that CPSC often does not have such information.
- Emerging Technology: Kofman sought feedback on how CPSC is being predictive of rather than reactive to risks. Einstein Miller, electrical engineer, explained his work with smart enabled heaters. Much discussion has included predictions of hazard scenarios that did not exist before. An example is a person moving a unit to a spot where turning it on would be unsafe and another, unaware of the movement, turning it on remotely. Duane Boniface, deputy assistant executive director, Office of Hazard Identification, noted that various emerging technology present needs to make such assessments. Borlase observed that such work has crossover benefits. Findings extend beyond focus products; the work on heaters could apply to any high-heat, high-energy products or remote activation. Recht explained that human factors staff have a project aimed at a standard practice for assessing how consumers will interact with products, including lack of attention. Miller noted that with smart-enabled items, aftermarket apps that allow users to bypass manufacturers’ programming also might be an issue needing increased attention.
- 3D Printers: The topic arose from the emerging technology discussion with Kofman noting the issue of old habits mixed with new technology. With traditional printers, he said, people have become used to working near them. However, 3D printers might or might not pose risks related to off-gassing of chemical particles. Other issues, explained Borlase, might be the heat they produce or modifications made by users. Recht added that there are concerns about ensuring the safety of the items printed.
- Supply Chains & International Outreach: Kofman sought discussion of how far CPSC looks into supply chains when reviewing safety issues. Component manufacturers can have reporting duties, explained Andrew Trotta, director of the Division of Electrical Engineering. On the other hand, observed Recht, CPSC has limited power with companies outside the U.S. so it must focus on where the U.S. presence begins. Certification requirements, where they apply, help push mandates beyond the borders, he noted. An example of looking into the supply chain, said Borlase, is Compliance Office attention to laptop batteries. The assumption is that a battery factory likely makes units for multiple computer manufacturers, so finding a problem in one brand of computer might lead to other companies if the battery factory is known. As to how CPSC’s efforts with nations like China are working, Recht explained that discussions are less basic that a decade ago when it was a challenge even to get manufacturers in such nations to be aware of U.S. safety requirements. There is better awareness and cooperation now.
- Sales Streams & Fragmented Manufacturing: Borlase asked how UL is approaching changes to how consumers get products, pointing especially to direct-to-consumer web outlets like Alibaba. Sara Owen, UL global government affairs manager, acknowledged there was awareness but said she would reach out various UL business units for more details. Kofman suggested there might be similar issues with localized versus centralized manufacturing.
- 15(j): In response to Owen’s question about CPSC’s plans, Recht pointed to the pending finalization of the extension cord rule. As for choosing new areas, he said a big challenge is the readily-observable requirement. Borlase said the Compliance Office sees 15(j) rules as valuable because they allow fast and effective action. Assessment occurs at the ports without a need to pull items out of the commerce stream. Inspectors can target especially risky items.
