According to a news source, at a recent Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) hearing to discuss the agency’s priorities and strategies for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Democratic commissioners objected to the suggestion that the agency account for costs to industry when considering new rules, evidently claiming that they did not have to do so under the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
“We’re not required to do a cost-benefit analysis [under the CPSIA]. We’re required to stick to the timelines that Congress mandated,” Democratic Chair Inez Tenenbaum said. The lack of a cost-benefit analysis requirement has permitted CPSC to roll out more rules more quickly under CPSIA than it can otherwise, and according to Tenenbaum, the analyses have limited the agency to nine non-CPSIA rules in 32 years. Democratic Commissioner Robert Adler reportedly said that he “always thought we needed to have a cost-benefit analysis of cost-benefit analyses.”
Evidently neither Tenenbaum nor Adler oppose the analyses, only that they should not be performed for CPSIA rules. Republican Commissioner Nancy Nord said the agency should consider including them for regulations under that law. “There’s really nothing in the CPSIA that prohibits the CPSC from doing a cost-benefit analysis,” Nord said. See Law360, July 10, 2013.