Turnaround Times on CAP Votes Might Vary Situationally

The speeds with which CPSC members would vote on corrective action plans (CAPs) involving deaths could be affected by the recalls' details. How much is a hard question to answer as it would involve internal CPSC deliberation and decisions, but causes might parallel issues that can change the quickness of CAP negotiations themselves.

What might trigger commissioners' inquiries – and thus delays – also does not have an easy answer. For example, some remedies tend to require more analysis. A refund is simple, but a repair or replacement needs review for its own safety prior to approval. Compliance staff presumably would do that prior to sending the matter for a vote, but commissioners could not be precluded from seeking clarification, more information, or more review.

Similarly, the scope of products believed to involve the risk could draw questions on correct ranges of units recalled.

Meanwhile, and unrelated to input PSL received on its inquiries about timing, Commissioners Marietta Robinson and Ann Marie Buerkle March 3 gave background on the change and their disagreement on the need to update the delegation of most recall-acceptance authority to staff.

The move originated with Robinson, who said she had found it troubling that there had been no commission votes on recalls since 1999. Around that time, she explained, CPSC staff seemed to have stopped designating any recalls as "Category A," an internal-only CPSC designation meant to signal the most-serious recalls.

Those were exempt from the existing delegation to staff, so required voting. The addition of deaths is a non-subjective trigger meant to ensure commission input on very serious recalls, she noted.

Category A recalls, regardless of involvement of deaths, also still would trigger votes, and Robinson said she hoped Compliance staff would return to applying the designation.

Buerkle suggested to the ICPHSO audience they were addressing that move might have been premature, saying a better route would have been direct the Compliance office to address the lapse in using Category A. She was the negative in a 4-1 vote to update the 1981 policy (PSL, 2/29/16). "I agreed with the diagnosis, not the cure," she explained.

She also voiced concern about how deaths might prompt votes, including whether they would need to be connected to the hazard or just to the product. She gave the hypothetical of a ladder involved in a toddler's pool drowning that later is recalled unrelatedly for sharp edges. The delegation decision (1.usa.gov/1T6rpy2) describes the death exemption with the clause, "cases where a death has occurred."

Buerkle further suggested the lack of recalls being pushed up to the commission for votes might have been exacerbated by the longtime absence of a permanent compliance director. The last person to hold that job for a sizable period was Alan Schoem, who left in 2004. The majority of the time since then has seen leadership in an acting capacity, often by an agency manager with other duties elsewhere.