- Author
-
Heffron, H. A.
|
Medalie, R. J.
|
Kurzman, S.
|
Pearlman, M. R.
- Title
- Study of the Scope and Adequacy of the Automobile Safety, Flammable Fabrics, Toys, and Hazardous Substances Programs. Federal Consumer Safety Legislation.
- Coporate
- National Commission on Product Safety
- Keywords
-
automobiles
|
flammable fabrics
|
hazardous mterials
|
consumer protection
|
motor vehicles
|
safety standards
|
legislation
|
product safety
- Identifiers
- toys; National Traffice and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; Flammable Fabrics Act; Federal Hazarouds Substances Act
- Abstract
- This study is concerned with how three major consumer safety programs--automobile safety, flammable fabrics, and hazardous substances, including toys--have actually worked. The administration of these programs has been marked by too much timidity and inordinate delay, although there have been some instances of effective action. The Food and Drug Administration has taken over 2 years to bring to completion proceedings for a proposed ban of the commonly recognized and highly dangerous poison, carbon tetrachloride, and this same agency failed to use its authority to ban carbon tetrachloride provisionally, as a substance posing imminent hazard to public safety, pending completion of the administrative proceedings. The Department of Commerce has failed to take steps to apply even the weak existing flammability standard to dangerously flammable blankets, bedding, and other interior furnishings, which were made subject to safety regulation over 2 years ago, and the Department has only this year begun initial proceedings for a special flammability standard relating to children's wearing apparel. As for the automobile safety program, although a few important standards have issued, they have been drawn mainly from safety features already incorporated in the vehicles of most domestic manufacturers. These, as well as other disappointments in the consumer protection programs, are all the more alarming because, by and large, Congress has granted to the agencies concerned powers generally adequate to deal with the regulatory problems involved. To be sure, there are statutory inconsistencies. For example, there are burdensome formal rulemaking requirements in the hazardous substances program, which are not in the others. Moreover, useful authority granted to one agency, such as administrative power to ban hazardous products pending a hearing, or full subpoena power with respect to flammable fabrics have not been granted to other agencies. The agencies, however, cannot blame their poor records of achievement on major gaps in their statutory powers. While Congress has committed vast paper power to agency discretion, it has failed to provide agency resources commensurate with the regulatory problems presented. The facade of consumer protection programs but not the reality has been created. Only one full-time employee within the Food and Drug Administration's Bureau of Compliance has been responsible for enforcing the banning or labeling of thousands of potentially hazardous products regulated under the Hazardous Substances Act. Congress appropriated no funds to implement the broad, new flammable fabrics program during its first year; indeed, the budget of the enforcing agency, the Federal Trade Commission, was actually cut. The National Highway Safety Bureau has never been provided the funds to construct its own research and test facilities. As a result, the Bureau is far too dependent on the automobile industry for data needed to develop standards and on cumbersome contracting procedures and dispersed private facilities for compliance testing and defect discovery.