February 2011
From the editors of Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, this update describes important developments from CCH products liability and safety publications.
If you have any comments or suggestions concerning the information provided or the format used, we'd like to hear from you. Please send your comments to pamela.maloney@wolterskluwer.
Products Liability
High Court: Seat Belt Action Not Preempted by Federal Auto Safety Rule
State law claims by the parents of a woman who died as a result of injuries sustained in a front-end motor vehicle collision were not preempted by the federal motor vehicle safety standard governing occupant crash protection and, therefore, the parents could proceed with their action against the manufacturer of the minivan in which their daughter was a passenger, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, overturning a decision by a California appellate court. The parents claimed that the minivan manufacturer should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts on rear aisle seats, and that their daughter died because the manufacturer equipped her seat with a lap belt instead. The high court's opinion refined it's decision in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. [CCH Products Liability Reports ¶15,795 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect)], in which the court found that an earlier (1984) version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208—which required installation of passive restraint devices—preempted a state tort suit against an auto manufacturer for a failure to install airbags. The current case involved a different portion (and the 1989 version) of the same regulation, requiring that auto manufacturers install seatbelts on the rear seats of passenger vehicles. Manufacturers must install lap-and-shoulder belts on seats next to a vehicle's doors or frames, but they have a choice about what to install on rear inner seats, where either simple lap belts or lap-and-shoulder belts can be installed. The Supreme Court determined that—unlike the circumstances in Geier, in which the state law stood as an obstacle to the accomplishment of a significant federal regulatory objective, i.e., giving manufacturers a choice among different kinds of passive restraint systems—providing manufacturers with the rear inner seat seatbelt choice was not a significant objective of the federal regulation. Further, the court found that while an agency could base a decision to preempt on cost-effectiveness, the rulemaking record at issue did not indicate a preemptive intent. Therefore, the court concluded that the regulation did not preempt the parents' state law claims. (Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (USSCt), No. 08-1314, February 23, 2011)
High Court: Child Vaccine Act Preempts Design Defect Claims
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) preempts state law design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers, the U.S. Supreme Court held in an action brought by the parents of a disabled child against the manufacturer of the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine the child received in 1992. The 6-2 ruling affirmed the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,194 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect)]. According to the court, the NCVIA expressly eliminated liability for a vaccine's unavoidable, adverse side effects. Further, the court determined that the structure of the law, and of vaccine regulation in general, reinforced the NCVIA text—design defects were not mentioned in the NCVIA, and the law provided for federal agency improvement of vaccine design and for federally prescribed compensation, through a no-fault compensation program to compensate for injuries or deaths related to vaccines. Finally, the NCVIA's structural quid pro quo also lead to the same conclusion, the court said. Vaccine manufacturers were required to fund an informal, efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries in exchange for avoiding costly tort litigation and "the occasional disproportionate jury verdict." The decision will appear in a future Report. (Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC (USSCt), No. 09-152, February 22, 2011)
Review of Vioxx Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Settlement Dispute Denied
A petition (Dkt. No. 10-666) by persons seeking to recover for personal injures allegedly resulting from the use of Vioxx, a non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug, has been denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court was asked to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation; Dier v. Merck & Co. [CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,448 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect)], requiring non-settling plaintiffs to submit expert testimony linking their injuries to the drug, as outside of that court's authority. Specifically, the individuals, who had opted out of the Master Settlement Agreement, asked the high court whether a transferee court that used its authority to invoke the judicially-created "quasi-class action" doctrine to preside over a mass settlement involving thousands of widely divergent personal injury actions and to permit a mass settlement to be approved outside the strictures of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure violated the U.S. Constitution by depriving individual litigants of their due process rights and their right to a jury trial. (In re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, Dkt. No. 10-666, February 22, 2011)
9th Circuit: Generic Ibuprofen Warnings Claims Not Preempted
The manufacturer of a generic ibuprofen drug failed to present "clear evidence" that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would have rejected the specific hepatotoxicity warnings proposed by the guardian ad litem of a minor child who developed severe post-surgical complications allegedly caused by his ingestion of generic ibuprofen, and, therefore, the guardian's failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturer were not preempted by federal law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held. The guardian alleged that the generic drug maker failed to warn prescribing physicians and consumers of the increased risk of acute liver injury and renal failure when ibuprofen is taken concurrently with other drugs known to be hepatotoxic. The court's decision reversed a California federal district court which ruled that the guardian's claims were preempted by federal law and which later denied reconsideration, concluding that, although the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine [CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,176 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect)] determined that state law failure-to-warn claims against brand name manufacturers were not preempted by federal law, the high court's opinion did not govern whether federal law preempted similar claims against generic manufacturers. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that Wyeth v. Levine extended "with equal force" to claims against generic manufacturers. (Gaeta v. Perrigo Pharmaceuticals Co. (9thCir) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,564 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Wisconsin Tort Reform Bill Signed Into Law
Legislation revamping Wisconsin's tort law system and affecting the state's products liability rules has been signed into law. Changes to the state law include, among others: (1) modifications that protect distributors and retailers from inclusion in claims against manufacturers; (2) a cap on punitive damages of twice the amount of any compensatory damages recovered by a plaintiff or $200,000, whichever is greater; (3) a change to the state's standard for the admission of opinion testimony so that the opinions of lay and expert witnesses conform to requirements under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [CCH Products Liability Reports ¶13,494 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect)]; (4) the creation of a rebuttable presumption that a product which, at the time of sale, complied with relevant federal or state law/agency standards was not defective; (5) the establishment of a 15-year statute of repose; and (6) rules pertaining to allocation of fault and comparative negligence. The law took effect on February 1, 2011. (CCH Products Liability Reports ¶95,175 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect); ¶95,180 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect); ¶95,185 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect); and ¶95,187 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect)).
Liability of Purchaser/Maker of Axle Retention System for Jury
Although a company that purchased a manufacturer's truck-trailer axle restraint system product line was not a successor corporation, it might have had an independent duty to warn customers of the dangers associated with the system, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in remanding the case for jury consideration. The driver of an automobile was killed when a wheel assembly separated from a truck's trailer, bounced over the center divider of the highway on which both vehicles were travelling, and crashed into the automobile. The purchasing company bought the product line for cash, the manufacturer expressly agreed to retain any liabilities in connection with the purchased assets, and, after the sale, the manufacturer continued to operate as a separate entity. As such, the court concluded that the purchaser was not a successor corporation and, there being no evidence that any of the exceptions to the traditional rule against successor corporation liability applied, could not be liable for the driver's death. The court also found, however, that whether the purchasing company had a duty to warn of dangers associated with the system on the basis of its ongoing relationship with the manufacturer's customers was a question of fact for the jury. (Herrod v. Metal Powder Products (10thCir) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,558 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Jury to Decide Warnings Claims in SUV Seat Collapse Case
A sport utility vehicle (SUV) driver presented sufficient evidence for her strict liability and negligent failure-to-warn claims to go to a jury in her action against the vehicle's manufacturer stemming from a rear-end collision in which her seat collapsed, allegedly causing her head to strike the back seat with severe force and rendering her paraplegic, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled, reversing and remanding a lower court's decision in favor of the SUV-maker. In addition, however, the court affirmed the jury's verdict for the SUV manufacturer on the driver's strict liability design defect claim. According to the state supreme court, Missouri law recognizes a failure-to-warn claim when a consumer shows she would not have purchased or would not have used an otherwise non-defective product that was rendered unreasonably dangerous because of the lack of adequate warning about the dangers the product posed to the class of users of which the consumer was a member. The driver, who was 6 feet tall and over 300 pounds, testified at trial that when purchasing products, she paid attention to weight warnings because of her size; she routinely read warnings, instructions, and manuals; she saw no warnings that the seats of the SUV might collapse backward in a rear-end impact; and she would not have bought the SUV had she known that the seats were not designed for people of her size. The Missouri high court held that because the evidence was sufficient to show that the product was unreasonably dangerous for use by the driver without an additional warning, and that had the warning been given at the time of the purchase or before use on the day of the accident, it would have been heeded, a submissible case was made for the driver's strict liability failure-to-warn claim. Similarly, in support of her negligent failure-to-warn claim, the driver provided sufficient evidence to require a jury to determine whether the SUV manufacturer failed to use ordinary care to warn of harm from the alleged defect in the SUV, the state high court held. (Moore v. Ford Motor Co. (MoSCt) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,563 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Georgia Repose Period Begins with Product Sale
Answering a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,402 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect)], the Georgia Supreme Court held that, in a strict liability or negligence action, the 10-year statute of repose under Georgia law begins running when a finished product, including an injuring component part, is sold as new to the intended consumer. The court of appeals' question stemmed from an action by a power company employee who was injured while operating a bucket truck when its lower boom lift cylinder failed. The lift cylinder was developed jointly by its manufacturer and the bucket truck manufacturer for use in the bucket truck, which was delivered as a finished product to the power company in April 1998. Under Georgia law, a products liability action against a manufacturer must be brought within "ten years of the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the personal property causing or otherwise bringing the injury." A federal district court in Georgia found that the statute of repose began to run on January 14, 1998, more than ten years before the employee's February 4, 2008 lawsuit and the date on which the bucket truck manufacturer placed the assembled lift cylinder on a test chassis and operated it. The Georgia high court ruled, however, that it was the last sale of the property as new that was most closely associated with the use by the individual whose actual employment of the product was ultimately intended, and that it was that sale which triggered the commencement of the statute of repose. Therefore, because the power company was the intended consumer of the assembled bucket truck, including its component parts, an action under Georgia law had to have been filed against any manufacturer within ten years of the date of the sale of the finished product—the bucket truck with the lift cylinder—to the power company. (Campbell v. Altec Industries, Inc. (GaSCt) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,570 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Factfinder to Apportion Fault in Indiana Crashworthiness Case
In a crashworthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA), it is a matter for the finder of fact to apportion fault to the person suffering physical harm when that alleged fault is a proximate cause of the harm for which damages are being sought, according to the Indiana Supreme Court in answer to a question certified to the state high court from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The matter came before the court based on a damages action under the IPLA against the manufacturer of a sport utility vehicle (SUV) by a driver who was injured when his vehicle left the road, struck a guardrail, rolled down an embankment, and landed in a ditch upside down. The driver was rendered a quadriplegic. He asserted that the SUV was defective and unreasonably dangerous, that the manufacturer was negligent in its design of the vehicle's restraint system, and that his injuries were substantially enhanced because of the alleged defects in the vehicle's restraint system. The driver sought to exclude evidence regarding his own alleged initial negligence resulting in the vehicle leaving the road and striking the guardrail. The manufacturer asserted that the driver's product liability lawsuit was subject to Indiana's statutory comparative fault principles, which required the jury to consider the fault of the driver in causing or contributing to the physical harm he suffered. The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that, in a crashworthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the IPLA, it is the function of the factfinder to consider and evaluate the conduct of all relevant actors who are alleged to have caused or contributed to cause the harm for which the plaintiff seeks damages. An assertion that a plaintiff is limiting his claim to "enhanced injuries" caused by only the "second collision" did not preclude the factfinder from considering evidence of all relevant conduct by the plaintiff, reasonably alleged to have contributed to cause the injuries. (Green v. Ford Motor Co. (IndSCt) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,571 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
SUV Stability/Roof Defective; Driver Awarded Over $21M
Evidence that a sport utility vehicle (SUV) would tip during evasive steering maneuvers and that slight modifications to the vehicle would improve its rollover resistance and roof strength established that the vehicle was defective under the risk-utility test, a California appellate court ruled, affirming a damage award of $21,654,000 for the driver. The driver of the vehicle sustained a severe spinal column injury resulting in quadriplegia when the SUV he was driving rolled over following a chain of collisions on a freeway. The driver's evidence showed that slight modifications to the track width and center of gravity as well as modest enhancement of the roof support, both of which could be achieved at a reasonable cost, would have improved the SUV's performance. According to the court, the manufacturer failed to rebut these showings. Instead, the manufacturer's senior engineer acknowledged that the modifications were available and could have been made at the time of the vehicle's production and that these modifications would not preclude the dual benefits of high road clearance and traction, which were among the design goals of these vehicles. Thus, the benefits of the design did not outweigh the risks of danger inherent in the design, which presented an excessive preventable danger. In addition, the court noted that these modifications were made by the manufacturer for its new model SUVs. The court also determined that the SUV manufacturer knew of the vehicle's rollover defects at the time the vehicle was produced but had failed to warn consumers of the defects in the vehicle. To the contrary, the vehicle's window sticker informed purchasers that the vehicle had a steel inner body cage and a steel roof panel which led the driver to believe that the vehicle was not defectively designed and that it was a solid vehicle that could withstand damage. (Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (CalCtApp) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,568 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Retrial Ordered in $4.5M Mississippi Auto Crash Case
A wrongful death action in which a jury awarded $4.5 million to the estate representatives of an automobile driver and two passengers who were killed in a two-car collision must be retried, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled. The jury awarded $1.5 million for each of the three decedents, finding that the automobile at issue was defective in both its design and manufacture. In response to the automobile manufacturer's contention that the decedents' representatives' three experts were unreliable, the state high court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the jury to consider the experts' testimony in reaching its verdict, and, therefore, the automaker was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. However, because one of the representatives' experts, an accident reconstructionist, signed an errata sheet concerning his deposition testimony, changing certain variables that he purportedly had used to make his calculations, and the decedents' representatives did not notify the automaker in a timely manner of the changed calculations, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. (Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite (MissSCt) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,572 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Smoker with Larynx Cancer Awarded Nearly $12,000,000
A cigarette smoker who developed larynx cancer was awarded approximately $12,000,000 damages, which included $4,000,000 in punitive damages, litigation costs and attorneys' fees by the federal district court in Connecticut. The smoker satisfied the state's preponderance of evidence standard of proof by offering evidence showing that the manufacturer demonstrated reckless disregard for the safety of its product users, thereby justifying the jury's determination that punitive damages should be awarded. In setting the amount of the award, the court rejected both the smoker's argument that the jury should set the amount of punitive damages using the common-law standard of making the claimant whole and the tobacco company's argument that a nominal fee should be set in order to achieve Connecticut's interests in punishment and deterrence. The court explained that the amount of the punitive damages award was set by Connecticut law at twice the amount of compensatory damages. The court also noted that the punitive damages cap established by the statutes was also tied to the harm incurred by the smoker and it served an important interest of the state by providing for the payment of her litigation costs and by fully compensating the smoker for the harm inflicted on her. The smoker's award was as follows: the original award of $325,000 in economic damages was reduced because the evidence at trial proved economic damages only in the amount of $162,500. Based on the jury's determination that the smoker was 42 percent responsible for her injuries, the total compensatory award was reduced to $7,982,250. In addition, $3,970,289.87 in punitive damages was awarded reflecting the parties' stipulated $3,547,666.67 in attorneys' fees and $422,623.20 in non-taxable costs. The total award was $11,952,539.87. (Izzarelli v. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (DConn) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,566 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Thimerosal Design Claim Not Preempted by Vaccine Act
Design defect claims by the parents of a minor child against several manufacturers of thimerosal-containing vaccines which the child received as an infant were not barred by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held. The parents alleged that the child suffered neurological damage caused by the vaccines which were made with the preservative, thimerosal. Specifically, the parents claimed that the vaccine makers were negligent for including thimerosal as a preservative in the vaccine designs. After examining the language, structure, purpose, and legislative history of the Vaccine Act, the court found that there was no clear and manifest intent of Congress as to whether §300aa-22(b)(1) of the Act preempted all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers. Although it was a plausible interpretation of §300aa-22(b)(1) that all vaccine side effects were unavoidable as a matter of law, the court said, it was also plausible that Congress intended courts to conduct case-by-case inquiries into the nature of vaccine side effects. According to the court, because there were two "plausible" interpretations of the section, it had "a duty" to accept the reading that disfavored preemption. The court ruled that §300aa-22(b)(1) required that a case-by-case inquiry be conducted in order to determine whether a particular vaccine's side effects were unavoidable, and concluded that the lower court erred in failing to conduct such an inquiry before granting summary judgment in favor of the vaccine manufacturers on the parents' design defect claim. However, the superior court also ruled that the Vaccine Act preempted the parents' negligent failure-to-warn claim because the parents failed to overcome the presumption of proper warnings to which the vaccine manufacturers were entitled under the Act. The vaccine makers demonstrated their regulatory compliance and the parents did not identify any evidence that the vaccine makers failed to comply with the applicable regulations in some material respect. (Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc. (PaSuperCt) CCH Products Liability Reports ¶18,560 (ip access user)(IntelliConnect))
Product Safety
Testing/Certification Date Extended for Youth ATVs
The date by which manufacturers, including importers, of youth all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) must submit sufficient samples of these products to a third party conformity assessment body approved by the Commission for testing and, based on required testing, issue a certificate that the products manufactured after the deadline comply with certain CPSC regulations relating to ATVs has been extended by 60 days to January 25, 2011. The extension was granted because the Commission determined that there was an insufficient number of third party conformity assessment bodies accredited by the Commission to permit testing and certification under the original schedule. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶57,931) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
Changes to Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Child Dummy Adopted
In a final rule effective June 7, 2011, two changes to NHTSA's specifications for the Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy, and the Hybrid III six-year-old weighted child test dummy were made. First, to improve the durability of the dummies' femurs, the design of and material used for the femur assembly was changed. The primary modifications include the addition of a 1/4-inch (6.35 millimeter (mm)) fillet between the femur clamp and the connecting segment of the machined femur, removal of material from the connecting segment, and a material change from aluminum bronze to 4340 steel. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶42,043) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
Consumer Product Safety Information Database Established
In a final rule effective January 10, 2011, CPSC established a Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) amended the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) to require the Commission to establish and maintain a publicly available, searchable database on the safety of consumer products, and other products or substances regulated by the Commission. The final rule interprets various statutory requirements pertaining to the information to be included in the database and also establishes provisions regarding submitting reports of harm; providing notice of reports of harm to manufacturers; publishing reports of harm and manufacturer comments in the database; and dealing with confidential and materially inaccurate information. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶42,044) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
Maximum Civil Penalties Increased
Effective January 20, 2011, NHTSA increased the maximum civil penalty amounts for related series of violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and increased the liability for a violation of odometer disclosure or other odometer requirements with intent to defraud. NHTSA is required by the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, to review and, as warranted, adjust penalties based on inflation at least every four years. The maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations was increased from $16,375,000 to $17,350,000. The amount for a violation with intent to defraud under the odometer standards provision was increased from three times the actual damages or $2,000, whichever is greater, to three times the actual damages or $3,000, whichever is greater. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶42,045) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
New Ejection Mitigation Standard Adopted
In a final rule effective March 1, 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, "Ejection Mitigation," to reduce the partial and complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. Countermeasures installed to meet this rule will also reduce the number of complete and partial ejections of occupants in side impacts, the agency noted. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶42,048) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
Updated Fees for Traction Skid Pads Proposed
NHTSA has proposed amendments to its consumer information regulations on uniform tire quality grading standards by updating the fees currently charged for use of the traction skid pads at its San Angelo Test Facility, formerly called the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility, in San Angelo, Texas, and by eliminating fees for course monitoring tires, which are no longer supplied by NHTSA. The agency proposes to update the fees for use of the facility from $34.00 an hour to $125 an hour, a fee amount which the agency believes reflects the current market price for use of traction skid pads. Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2011. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶40,742) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
Amendments to Importation of Motor Vehicles Rules Proposed
NHSTA has proposed several amendments to the regulations pertaining to registered importers (RI) of motor vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), bumper, and theft prevention standards. Existing laws require imported vehicles to meet those standards and the importation of vehicles that do not comply with the safety standards is limited to those capable of being modified to comply. Final rules amending the importation regulations, which were published on August 24, 2004 at 69 FR 52070 [CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶41,929], which established new requirements for RI applicants, further delineated their duties, and clarified the procedures for suspending or revoking RI registrations. Comments should be submitted by February 28, 2011. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶40,743) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
NHTSA Grants Rulemaking Petitions for Speed Limiter Devices
Two separate but similar petitions for rulemaking requesting the establishment of a safety standard to require devices that would limit the speed of certain heavy trucks were granted by NHTSA. One of the petitions was submitted by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the other was submitted by Road Safe America and a group of nine motor carriers (Schneider National, Inc., C.R. England, Inc., H.O. Wolding, Inc., ATS Intermodal, LLC, DART Transit Company, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., U.S. Xpress, Inc., Covenant Transport, Inc., and Jet Express, Inc.). Based on information received in response to a request for comments, the agency believed that these petitions merited further consideration through its rulemaking process and, because of the overlapping issues addressed in these two petitions, will be addressed together in a single rulemaking activity. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶57,965) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
CPSC Signs MOUs with Hong Kong and Australia
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the signing of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Hong Kong and Australia to improve product safety. The vision for improvements in the safety of consumer products extends from Asia to Australia to America. The MOUs with Hong Kong and Australia put formal structures into place for information sharing about recalled products, consumer product regulations, product testing requirements, and product safety campaigns. The MOUs also allow regulators to work more easily toward compatible product safety standards. CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum signed the MOU with product safety regulators during a visit to Hong Kong and Sydney to discuss the need for global improvements in consumer product safety. Chairman Tenenbaum and Richard Yuen, Hong Kong's Customs and Excise Commissioner, signed the MOU between the U.S. and Hong Kong; Chairman Tenenbaum and Graeme Samuel, Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, signed the MOU between the U.S. and Australia. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶57,972 and ¶57,973) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)
Certification Stay Lifted for Certain Non-Children's Products
The CPSC has lifted a stay of enforcement of certain certification provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, as amended by section 102(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The action was taken with respect to non-children's products subject to CPSC regulations pertaining to vinyl plastic film, carpets and rugs, and clothing textiles. The stay of enforcement of the certification provisions of section 14 of the CPSA expired for non-children's products subject to CPSC regulations pertaining to vinyl plastic film, carpets and rugs, and clothing textiles on January 26, 2011. (CCH Consumer Product Safety Guide ¶57,963) (ip access user) (IntelliConnect)