US Product Safety Regulator Sneers at 'Fabricated Outrage' Over Regulations
"While we hear a lot of fabricated outrage about the impact of regulations, there is far less genuine discussion about the real costs of a failure to act," Elliot Kaye, a U.S. Consumer Product Safety commissioner, said recently in voting with the majority to advance new regulations for table saws. Democrats still hold a majority at the product-safety commission, posing one block on the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
May 02, 2017 at 04:21 PM
4 minute read
In its 21-year history, the Congressional Review Act had been successfully deployed only once to void a federal regulation—in that singular instance, a President Bill Clinton-era workplace safety rule.
That was before the dawn of the Donald Trump presidency.
In his first 100 days, Trump has signed 13 bills reversing President Barack Obama-era regulations under the Congressional Review Act—and he's done so with gusto. As recently as April 29, in a speech marking his 100th day in office, Trump told a crowd in Harrisburg that his administration has been “eliminating job-killing regulations.”
It was the kind of rhetoric that Elliot Kaye, once the nation's top consumer product safety regulator, might file under the category of “fabricated outrage about the impact of regulations.”
Kaye, a Democratic member of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission who lost the chairmanship after Trump assumed office, used that language in a statement on the agency's vote to advance new regulations for table saws. The rules, if approved, would require table saws to be able to sense contact with the user's hand or another body part and stop the blade from turning.
The 3-2 vote last week marked the latest display of how Kaye's decision to stay on—in the diminished role of one of the four remaining commissioners—has prolonged the Democratic majority and made acting chairwoman Ann Marie Buerkle only the nominal leader of the product safety agency.
“Safe to say, this [notice of proposed rulemaking] was long overdue,” Kaye said in the statement last week. “Before getting into dry topics such as timelines and performance standards and regulatory requirements, it is important to start with the human impact of regulatory inaction. While we hear a lot of fabricated outrage about the impact of regulations, there is far less genuine discussion about the real costs of a failure to act.”
At a time when federal agencies have been able to quickly shift gears and ride Trump's deregulatory wave, Kaye's statement preaching the merits of regulation was remarkable in that it came from a commissioner on the winning side of a vote. Indeed, with the vote last week, Buerkle found herself at once leading the agency but also limited in preventing Democrats from pushing forward with new regulations before Democratic Commissioner Marietta Robinson's term expires in October.
Kaye told The National Law Journal on Tuesday he did not refer to “fabricated outrage” over regulations with anyone or any particular group in mind. Rather, he said, it came from having witnessed regulation “being discussed for a couple of decades and the frustration over how the topic seems to be a very powerful magnet for misleading and disingenuous statements about the impact of regulations.”
“It's just a sense of frustration over how regulations have been portrayed and trying to provide a vantage point of the other side of the argument,” Kaye said. “I thought the table saws rule and the time it's taken to move it even to this stage, and the human impacts of that inaction, were very profound in this case.”
The CPSC was urged to take up new table saw regulations in 2003, when the inventor of the blade-stopping technology petitioned the agency. Buerkle voted against moving toward requiring that technology, in part, over questions over whether it would be licensed to manufacturers on “fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.”
“In effect, we may be granting a monopoly in favor of one company that could control the supply of table saws and charge whatever it wants without any effective competition,” Buerkle said.
Related Articles:
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Google Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
FTC Goes After AI Tool That Has Capability to Mass Produce Fake Reviews
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250