[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 10, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-116
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-012 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
_____
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Ranking Member
Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Massachusetts
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana officio)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 56
Witnesses
Erik Pritchard, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Answers to submitted questions............................... 72
Jonathan Gold, Vice President, Supply Chain and Customs Policy,
National Retail Federation..................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 74
Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and General Counsel,
Consumer Federation of America................................. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Mark S. Fellin, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs,
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association.................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Answers to submitted questions............................... 77
Submitted Material
Letter of February 8, 2016, from Andy S. Counts, Chief Executive
Officer, American Home Furnishings Alliance, to Mr. Burgess and
Ms. Schakowsky, submitted by Mr. Burgess....................... 57
Statement of the Retail Industry Leaders Association by Kathleen
McGuigan, Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs,
February 10, 2016, submitted by Mr. Burgess.................... 60
INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn,
Harper, Guthrie, Olson, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Brooks,
Schakowsky, Clarke, Kennedy, Welch, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary;
James Decker, Policy Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade; Graham Dufault, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan Vorbach, Legislative Clerk;
Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Christine Brennan, Democratic Press
Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Lisa
Goldman, Democratic Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade; Tiffany Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and
Chief Health Advisor; Caroline Paris-Behr, Democratic Policy
Analyst; Diana Rudd, Democratic Legal Fellow; and Andrea
Sowall, Democratic Staff Member.
Mr. Burgess. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing,
and Trade will now come to order. The Chair will recognize
himself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
I want to welcome everyone to the committee this morning.
This morning we do continue our oversight of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and its mission to protect consumers
against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer
products. It is a very timely hearing, as we prepare to enter
into our budget season.
This subcommittee held a hearing earlier this Congress with
four of the Commissioners present about the status of the
agency agenda. Really two key issues emerged that warrant
further attention. First, the need for collaboration between
the Commission and industry to achieve voluntary safety
standards for regulated products. Secondly, there were concerns
about the Commission's over-extended rulemaking docket. There
were concerns about mission creep and there were concerns about
repeated requests for unprecedented user fee authority without
the requisite justification. And I did stress at the time and
will stress again today that when your mission is safety and
your resources are scarce, it is critical that you prioritize
your activities where you have clear authority and where you
can protect the most people.
I hope we will hear about progress today, particularly on
the recreational off-road vehicle front. I hope that we will
hear about a Commission that wants to use technology to help
innovation, rather than impede it. We have done a whole set of
hearings on technology disrupting industry. At some point, we
need to look at how technology can disrupt Washington and make
it work, make Washington work better to encourage innovations
and to encourage job creation.
The innovation driven by the private sector cannot be
replicated in the confines of the Government. This is
recognized by the preference for voluntary safety standards and
the Commission's authorizing statute, the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act, and even in the Office of
Management of the Budget. Their recent circular A-119, where
they coordinate and clear things through the Office of
Management of the Budget that is currently in the process of
being updated.
The American National Standards Institute, the Underwriters
Laboratory are widely known and respected institutions that
have worked with industry within and outside the Commission's
jurisdiction to help develop voluntary consensus standards.
These standards are technical in nature and are generally set
to achieve, as their name implies, performance goals, as
opposed to the Government mandating product construction.
Turning to the Commission's rulemaking docket and request
for unprecedented user fee authority, I am interested in
hearing from our witnesses today about how these outstanding
issues impact a company's ability to plan for the future and a
company's ability to innovate. For example, since our last
hearing, there has been no change in the status of some of the
most controversial processes in rulemaking. This includes a
rulemaking that is still pending to upend the incredibly
successful voluntary recall program. The import surveillance
rulemaking, commonly known as the 1110 Rule has now been turned
into a pilot program with eight participating companies. The
pilot's implementation guide was implemented just a few weeks
ago to reflect the first feedback received from the Customs and
Border Protection Support Network Working Group. The Commission
has renewed their request for unprecedented user fee authority
which, besides the constitutional question at hand, is
premature, given the early stages of the pilot project.
I am interested to hear from the panelists what outstanding
issues remain with the pilot's development and what benchmarks
we should be looking for when the Commission reports on the
pilot's progress.
Finally, it is incumbent upon this subcommittee to find out
whether there has been any progress on reducing third party
testing burdens for small businesses in the United States. This
is a bipartisan concern and has been addressed multiple times
by Congress since 2011. It is frustrating to be sitting here
today years later without this issue being resolved.
I think we all share the goal of preventing tragic and
unfortunate injuries from consumer products. I certainly look
forward to hearing from our witnesses about the status and
tenor of their working relationship with the Commission and how
these relationships can be leveraged to achieve the common
safety goal. Industry certainly must do its part.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess
This morning we continue our oversight of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and its mission to protect consumers
against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer
products. It is a very timely hearing as we also prepare to
enter into budget season.
This subcommittee held a hearing earlier this Congress with
four of the Commissioners about the status of the agency
agenda. Two key issues emerged that warrant further attention.
First, the need for collaboration between the Commission and
industry to achieve voluntary safety standards for regulated
products. Second, there were concerns about the Commission's
overextended rulemaking docket, mission creep and repeated
requests for unprecedented user fee authority without the
requisite justification. I stressed at that time and will
stress again that when your mission is safety and your
resources are scarce it is critical that you prioritize
activities where you have clear authority and where you can
protect the most people.
I hope that we will hear about progress today, particularly
on the R O V front. I also hope that we will hear about a
Commission that wants to use technology to help innovation
rather than hinder it. We have done a whole set of hearings on
technology disrupting industry. At some point we need to look
at how technology can disrupt Washington and make it work
better to encourage innovations and job creation.
The innovation driven by the private sector cannot be
replicated in the confines of the Government. This is
recognized by the preference for voluntary safety standards in
the Commission's authorizing statute, the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act, and even the Office of Management
and Budget's Circular A--119 that is currently being updated.
The American National Standards Institute, A.S.T.M.
International, and Underwriters Laboratory, are widely known
and respected institutions that have worked with countless
industries, within and outside the Commissions' jurisdiction,
to develop voluntary consensus standards. These standards are
technical in nature and are generally set to achieve, as their
name implies, performance goals-as opposed to Government-
mandated product construction.
Turning to the Commission's rulemaking docket and request
for unprecedented user fee authority, I am interested in
hearing from the witnesses about how these outstanding issues
impact companies' ability to plan for the future and innovate.
For example, since our last hearing, there has been no
change in the status of some of the most controversial process
rulemakings. This includes a rulemaking that is still pending
to upend the incredibly successful, and award winning,
voluntary recall program.
The import surveillance rulemaking, commonly known as the
1110 Rule, has now been turned into a pilot program with eight
participating companies. The pilot's implementation guide was
updated just a few weeks ago to reflect the first set of
feedback received from the Customs and Border Protection Trade
Support Network Working Group.
The Commission has renewed their request for unprecedented
user fee authority which, besides the constitutional questions,
is clearly premature given the early stages of the pilot
project. I am interested to hear from the panelists what
outstanding issues remain with the pilot's development and what
benchmarks we should be looking for when the Commission reports
on the pilot's progress.
Finally, it is incumbent upon this subcommittee to find out
whether there has been any progress on reducing third party
testing burdens for small businesses in the U.S. This is a
bipartisan concern that has been addressed multiple times by
Congress since 2011. It is frustrating to be sitting here
today, years later without this issue being resolved.
We all share the goal of preventing tragic and unfortunate
injuries from consumer products. I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses about the status and tenor of their working
relationship with the Commission and how those relationships
can be leveraged to achieve that common safety goal. Industry
certainly must do its part.
Mr. Burgess. And now I would like to recognize the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois, 5
minutes for an opening statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the chairman--we have got some
feedback here--for holding today's hearing on the Consumer
Product Safety Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to
highlight the successes of the Commission and to learn where
even more progress can be made.
This hearing is to focus specifically on industry
perspectives. And while it is important to hear from business
under the CPSC oversight, I believe the focus should always be
on the Commission's impact in protecting consumers from harmful
products and that is what I plan to spend my time on today.
This subcommittee played a major role in the enactment of
the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which was signed
into law by President Bush in 2008. It was the product of broad
bipartisan negotiation and it passed the House by a vote of 407
to nothing. The legislation gave CPSC additional authority and
resources so it could become the consumer watchdog that
Americans deserve. It included a provision requiring mandatory
standards and testing for infant and toddler products, such as
cribs and high chairs, as well as a requirement for postage
paid recall registration cards to be attached to products so
that customers can be quickly notified if the products are
dangerous and I was proud to author both of those improvements.
The CPSIA also included mandatory toy safety standards,
including banning lead and dangerous phthalates in toys which
are preventing injuries and saving lives.
The Commission has taken its enhanced authority and support
to improve consumer product safety from cribs to toys, to
cleaning products and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses about those successes and others.
I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses their
ideas for how to improve consumer outreach. In the context of
auto safety, we have discussed ways to improve notice to
consumers of recalls and how to increase consumer
responsiveness to recalls. That same concept is just as
important in this context, where notice to consumers and
consumer response is actually much lower but where failure to
act can have a similar deadly consequence.
I will say that I am disappointed that today's hearing does
not include a member panel on bills related to CPSC oversight
and regulation of guns, which no less than four members have
asked for. With an ever worsening gun crisis in this country
and a legitimate debate about whether CPSC should have the
authority to protect consumers in this area, it seems obvious
that we should be exploring these legislative proposals.
Unfortunately, requests to testify from Representatives Engle,
Honda, Robin Kelly, and Maloney were denied by the majority.
Again, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
the progress we have seen at the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and where the Commission should go from here.
Let me just say with a couple minutes, before I was elected
to office, I identified myself as a consumer advocate. And I am
sure many of you enjoy or appreciate being able to see dates on
food. And in 1970, when I was a very young housewife, we got
together, five of us, six of us, I was the sixth, and modestly
called ourselves National Consumers United, all six of us. And
we went to work cracking the codes that were on every product.
You could not tell how old the food was. It was kind of a
raucous campaign with lawyers involved from the retailers, et
cetera. And finally, we did win this because it has so much
favor among consumers but it also really helped the retailers
with their inventory control. Because seeing everybody being
able to see the dates, there were no laws passed, but the whole
idea mushroomed, snowballed, and now people really rely on
those dates.
So, I guess my point is this, that we can find ways where
consumers and the industry, our interest coincide and we make
life better for everyone. That incident as a very young
housewife really changed my life, as someone who could get
something done. And it has been my mission ever since that we
find ways that we can make the marketplace more fair for
consumers.
And I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair thanks
the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5
minutes for an opening statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
welcome those of you who are on the panel today. Please know we
have a Medicaid hearing going on down on the first floor. So,
we are going to be back and forth a little bit today in sharing
our time.
The chairman mentioned some of the problems with the 1110
import system and we are going to want to come back to you on
that issue with some questions. Third party testing burdens,
there are some issues that remain with this program.
I really would like to just go a little bit to the point.
We feel as if we have given you a mandate to reduce these
regulatory burdens and testing burdens and to look at the
marketplace as a whole and to say how do we achieve our goals
with product safety, consumer safety, and how do we do this in
an effective and efficient manner, that is going to be fair to
the taxpayer. And we are going to look at you, come to you with
some questions about how you are relieving that regulatory
burden and what you see as being some best steps, next steps as
we try to reduce that.
With that Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back my time
but say we do want to approach a couple of these specific
issues with specific answers. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes for an opening statement,
please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by noting that we received letters from
Representative Engle, a member of the full committee, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Maloney, and Ms. Kelly requesting a member panel at
this hearing. And each of these members has introduced
legislation that would amend the jurisdiction of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission over guns and toy guns. And I think
the issues raised by these members certainly is worthy of
discussion and I am disappointed that the request was denied by
the chairman and by the majority.
While the topic of today's hearing was listed as industry
perspectives on the CPSC, I am encouraged that the perspective
of consumer advocates was added and I look forward to that
testimony.
In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act, CPSIA, and in follow-up legislation 2011 made
major improvements to CPSC's operations and to the safety of
consumer products. One of the most successful sections of the
CPSIA was the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification
Act, which was authored by our ranking member Schakowsky. And
this portion of the law requires the Commission to develop
mandatory safety standards for durable infant or toddler
products, such as infant walkers, high chairs, and cribs. Final
safety standards for 14 products have been promulgated and
proposed safety standards for six more products have been
issued.
And that is great progress but there is still more to do.
As the Commission moves beyond implementation of the CPSIA, the
Commission need an agile system to deal with emerging hazards.
Recently, we have heard numerous reports of hoverboards
catching fire or exploding, not to mention all those videos of
riders falling off of their hoverboards.
There is the ongoing issue of artificial turf fields. For
over a year, I have been calling on the CPSC and others to
conduct a comprehensive review of these fields and questioning
the safety of crumb rubber used on artificial playing turf and
playgrounds across the country. That crumb rubber is made from
recycled tires that often contain cancer-causing chemicals. It
is clear that we need more information about the safety of
crumb rubber. But in the meantime, kids play on it every day
and so we need to begin this review immediately.
Although the CPSC Commissioners are not hear today, I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the CPSC can
work with industry and consumer safety advocates on these types
of emerging hazards. I want to know how the Commission can best
address foreseeable risk and be better prepared when unexpected
problems occur.
We should strive for proactive safety instead of just
waiting to react after injuries or deaths occur. We should
continue to encourage new and innovative products but they must
be safe for consumers.
And the CPSC plays a vital role in protecting lives of all
Americans. It is a small agency with a big mission but we must
ensure that the CPSC has the support from Congress and the
resources it needs to fulfill its mission.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by noting that we
received letters from Representatives Engel (a member of the
full committee), Honda, Maloney, and Kelly requesting a member
panel at this hearing.
Each of these members has introduced legislation that would
amend the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission over guns and toy guns. The issues raised by these
distinguished members certainly are worthy of discussion and I
am disappointed that their request was denied by the Chairman
and by the majority.
While the topic of today's hearing was listed as industry
perspectives on the CPSC, I'm encouraged that the perspective
of consumer advocates was rightly added, and I look forward to
that testimony.
In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act (CPSIA). CPSIA and follow-up legislation in
2011 made major improvements to CPSC's operations and to the
safety of consumer products.
One of the most successful sections of the CPSIA was the
``Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, which was
authored by Ranking Member Schakowsky. This portion of the law
requires the Commission to develop mandatory safety standards
for durable infant or toddler products, such as infant walkers,
high chairs, and cribs. Final safety standards for 14 products
have been promulgated, and proposed safety standards for six
more products have been issued.
That is great progress, but there is more to do. As the
Commission moves beyond implementation of the CPSIA, the
Commission needs an agile system to deal with emerging hazards.
Recently, we have heard numerous reports of hoverboards
catching fire or exploding, not to mention all those videos of
riders falling off of their hoverboards.
There is the ongoing issue of artificial turf fields. For
over a year, I have been calling on the CPSC and others to
conduct a comprehensive review of these fields and questioning
the safety of crumb rubber used on artificial playing turf and
playgrounds across the country. That crumb rubber is made of
recycled tires that often contain cancer-causing chemicals. It
is clear that we need more information about the safety of
crumb rubber. But in the meantime, kids play on it every day,
and so we need to begin this review immediately.
Although the CPSC Commissioners are not here today, I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the CPSC can
work with industry and consumer safety advocates on these types
of emerging hazards. I want to know how the Commission can best
address foreseeable risks and be better prepared when
unexpected problems occur.
We should strive for proactive safety, instead of just
waiting to react after injuries or deaths occur. We should
continue to encourage new and innovative products, but they
must be safe for consumers.
The CPSC plays a vital role in protecting lives of all
Americans. It is a small agency with a big mission. We must
ensure that the CPSC has the support from Congress and the
resources it needs to fulfill that mission.
Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks
the gentleman.
The Chair would note, and I think the members of the
subcommittee would agree with me, that we offer our condolences
to you and your family on the recent loss of your father.
Certainly, our thoughts are with you, Frank.
That concludes our opening statements.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
and for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee.
Today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening
statements, followed by questions from us. Our panel for
today's hearing will include Mr. Erik Pritchard, the Executive
Vice President and General Counsel for the Recreational Off-
Highway Vehicle Association; Mr. Jonathan Gold, the Vice
President for Supply Chain and Customs Policy at the National
Retail Federation; Ms. Rachel Weintraub, the Legislative
Director and General Counsel for the Consumer Federation of
America; and Mr. Mark Fellin, Director of Regulatory and
Legislative Affairs at the Juvenile Products Manufacturing
Association.
We sincerely appreciate all of you being here today. We
thank you for the privilege of your time. We will begin the
panel with Mr. Pritchard and you are recognized for 5 minutes
for an opening statement, please.
STATEMENTS OF ERIK PRITCHARD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL COUNSEL, RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE ASSOCIATION;
JONATHAN GOLD, VICE PRESIDENT, SUPPLY CHAIN AND CUSTOMS POLICY,
NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION; RACHEL WEINTRAUB, LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA;
AND MARK S. FELLIN, DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, JUVENILE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF ERIK PRITCHARD
Good morning. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of the
committee. My name is Erik Pritchard. I am the Executive Vice
President and General Counsel of the Recreational Off-Highway
Vehicle Association, commonly known as ROHVA. ROHVA is a not-
for-profit trade association sponsored by Arctic Cat, BRP,
Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, Polaris, Textron, and Yamaha.
ROHVA was formed to promote the safe and responsible use of
recreational off-highway vehicles, commonly referred to as ROVs
or side-by-sides--I like ROV--manufactured and distributed in
North America. ROVs are used by families, emergency personnel,
and the U.S. military in a variety of environments ranging from
mud to sand, to forest to trials. This is a vibrant high-growth
industry and a bright spot in the U.S. manufacturing economy.
I last appeared before this subcommittee on May 19, 2015.
Then, as now, the topic was the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, CPSC, which is the principle Federal regulator of
the ROV industry. But much has changed over the last 8 months
since that hearing.
By way of background, ROHVA is accredited by the American
National Standards Institute, ANSI, to develop voluntary
standards for the equipment configuration and performance
requirements of ROVs. Voluntary does not mean opt-in or opt-
out. Voluntary standards become the benchmark against which
product design and performance is judged. Really, voluntary
means industry and other stakeholders, including the CPSC and
consumers, voluntarily develop product standards pursuant to
ANSI standards development procedures.
I am pleased to report that the ROV industry and the CPSC,
as well as other stakeholders have worked together to develop
an updated voluntary standard for ROVs, effectively mooting the
CPSC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for ROVs. In this regard,
CPSC staff's December 1, 2015 to ROHVA reads, ``CPSC staff
supports the proposed changes to the voluntary standard and
believes the aggregate effect of improved vehicle stability,
handling, and occupant protection will reduce injuries and
deaths associated with ROV rollovers.''
As a result of this support, we expect that once the
updated voluntary standard is published, likely in a few
months, CPSC staff will recommend that the Commission terminate
the rulemaking. This positive outcome resulted from the joint
efforts of industry and CPSC staff, and through Congress'
leadership, including, in particular, the efforts of this
subcommittee.
Without belaboring the history, industry discussions with
the CPSC had some positive momentum back in September and
October of 2014, when representatives of ROHVA and each member
company traveled to Rockville and Bethesda, Maryland, to
explain how close the parties were and that any differences
could be overcome through further discussion.
Unfortunately, that momentum stalled on October 29, 2014,
when the Commission voted three to two to issue its Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for ROVs. Nevertheless, the industry and
CPSC resumed their discussions with meetings in March, May,
July, and October 2015, culminating with ROHVA circulating the
updated draft voluntary standard a few months ago.
The leadership and efforts of the U.S. Congress were
instrumental in helping industry and the CPSC achieve this
positive result. Senators and representatives from both parties
repeatedly the CPSC to engage in the voluntary standards
process, rather than pursue rulemaking. This subcommittee went
further and elicited testimony from various stakeholders,
including from CPSC Commissioners and the industry, regarding
the ROV In-Depth Examination Act, the RIDE Act, which would
require an independent examination of CPSC's proposals in
supporting data by the National Academy of Sciences, among
others.
Due to the successful agency-industry collaboration on the
updated voluntary standard, however, it now appears that that
review required by the RIDE Act will not be necessary. This
process was costly and time-consuming for both CPSC and the
industry and we appreciate the CPSC staff's diligence in
working through the issues with us.
It is indisputable that the U.S. Congress has other
important and complex business and yet, Congress and this
subcommittee took the time to provide the necessary oversight
essential to a properly functioning regulatory system. That is
no small thing.
On behalf of the ROV industry, thank you for your
dedication to helping resolve this important matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pritchard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
Mr. Gold, 5 minutes for an opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN GOLD
Mr. Gold. Good morning Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning and
provide NRF's views on the activities and developments at the
CPSC. I would like to ask that my full statement be included in
the record.
NRF is the world's largest retail trade association,
representing all segments of the retail industry. We have a
proud history of engaging with the CPSC, especially since the
enactment of the CPSIA. While we have had some issues with its
implementation and interpretation, we have always sought to
positively interact with the CPSC with the viewpoint and
objective of ensuring that products our members sell are safe
for American families.
NRF's members have no interest in selling unsafe or
violative products. A vibrant and well-resourced CPSC and a
marketplace free of unsafe products is aligned with the
interest and desires of retailers and the safety well-being of
their consumers.
NRF has, for several years, strongly encouraged the CPSC to
create a permanent trade advisory group similar to the Advisory
Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, the COAC, which routinely advises the CBP on the
many complex issues related to both imports and exports of
goods.
The CPSC did facilitate the formation of a product safety
and working group under the COAC to advise on the proposed
product safety certificate e-filing mandate, the Section 1110
Rule. We appreciate Chairman Kaye helping to facilitate this
working group, which has led to the creation of the current e-
Filing Alpha Pilot. Again, having an official advisory
committee in place to tackle these and other complex supply
chain-related issues will help the CPSC in the future.
Now, the Section 1110 Rule did contain many troubling
provisions in addition to the sweeping new mandate, including
possibly changing who is required to issue the CPSC certificate
and expansion of the data required on the certificates. We hope
the pilot will address some of these issues and concerns that
we have moving forward.
NRF members are also concerned with two of the proposed
regulations that may have little benefit to consumer safety but
enormous burdens on the regulated industry. These include the
proposed Voluntary Recall Rule and the so-called 6(b) Rule. NRF
strongly questions these proposals' necessity, let alone the
enhancement of product safety. We have placed new mandates and
burdens on companies that voluntarily report information to and
that offer to voluntarily recall products in conjunction with
the CPSC.
Chairman Kaye has publicly stated that these two proposed
rules are not his priorities. We would then urge the Commission
to fully withdraw these proposals and initiate formal
stakeholder discussions about how such rules can be best served
and benefit consumers.
Another related proposal before the Congress is a renewed
request by the agency for authority to impose user fees for the
agency's Risk Assessment Methodology to screen imports for
possible product safety violations and risk. While we strongly
support risk-based targeting, we have many questions about how
such user fee will be developed, collected, and used.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that programs such as the Retail
Reporting Program could continue to provide valuable
information to the agency. The program is in limbo right now,
as the agency continues to conduct an internal review. We
believe a robust retail reporting program will provide benefits
to the CPSC, program participants, and most importantly
consumers, by alerting the agency to product safety issues at
the very earliest stage possible.
As the CPSC moves forward towards regulating in the
enormously complex and fast-changing global supply chain, we
strongly believe that the agency needs to further collaborate
with all stakeholders to ensure that regulations not only meet
their stated goal, but do so in a way that does not overly
burden the industry. Regulations must not only work, but they
must be implemented in a seamless manner.
I will note that there does appear to be a new spirit of
bipartisanship among the Commissioners. Chairman Kaye, all of
the Commissioners, and senior staff seem to be more willing to
listen to the views, the concerns of agency stakeholders. These
are very welcome trends and ones which we again hope will
materialize into more permanent efforts to engage the public
and those most impacted by the Commission.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly raise an
issue of concern for retailers; that is, the real and growing
trend of the CPSC to look primarily to retailers for recalls
and other corrective and punitive actions, rather than other
participants in the supply chain that might be better
positioned to both identify and respond to product safety
issues. Traditionally, the CPSC has looked primarily to product
manufacturers to identify and report product safety issues as
well as undertake product safety recalls. This makes sense,
since the product manufacturers are typically in the best
position to identify, understand, and respond to product
design, manufacturing, or other problems that may lead to a
consumer hazard. That presumptions seems to have been reversed
and more and more recalls are being sought first and, in many
cases, solely of retailers.
Mr. Chairman, years of adjustment immediately following
enactment of the CPSIA were difficult and, at times, even
chaotic. Things seem to have regularized and NRF and its
members recognize and appreciate the recent efforts of this
Commission and the dedicated CPSC staff to try to bring
additional clarity and stakeholder to the agency's still-
changing policies and practices, though much more remains to be
done on this front.
The traditional agency model of everything invented here no
longer works in a real-time world of global supply chain
dynamics. We are dedicated to continue positive engagement with
the agency and its leaders to ensure that the safety of
American families continues to be our mutual and primary
objective.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gold follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Weintraub, 5 minutes for your
opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL WEINTRAUB
Ms. Weintraub. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on CFA's
perspectives on the CPSC.
I am Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and General
Counsel with CFA. CFA is a non-profit association of
approximately 280 pro-consumer groups that was founded in 1968
to advance the consumer interest through advocacy, research and
education.
The CPSC has been working hard to protect consumers from
product hazards. The CPSC has been communicating with
businesses about CPSC rules in an unprecedented way, including
the recent release of a regulatory robot, which will help
businesses determine which product safety rules apply to their
products in real time. The Small Business Ombudsman has been
speaking to business stakeholder business groups, has provided
direct guidance to thousands of callers and has revamped its
Web site to provide clear information.
The implementation of the CPSIA has been a high priority
and should continue to be so for the CPSC. The CPSC has
promulgated more rules than it ever has in its history and has
done so in a relatively short period. The rule are
substantively strong and have had an important and positive
impact on consumers. Because of the rules promulgated by the
CPSC, over a dozen infant durable products, including cribs,
infant walkers, play yards, and strollers must now meet new
robust standards. For all of these products, third party
testing and certification requirements are required. This work
must continue.
Another high priority for the CPSC is the consumer incident
database, saferproducts.gov, required by CPSIA. Some 27,273
reports have been posted to the site and the database is an
important and useful tool for consumers, researchers, doctors,
coroners, and the CPSC. We urge the CPSC and Congress to use
this resource to protect consumers.
We urge the CPSC to prioritize these emerging and
longstanding issues that they are already working to address.
For example, the CPSC is actively investigating at least 48
hoverboard fires in 19 States. The CPSC sent out two statements
on hoverboards warning consumers of potential risks, announcing
investigations into the incidents and providing consumer
recommendations. The CPSC announcements have been relied upon
by many entities who have sought to protect consumers.
Unfortunately, we know that these products remain in consumers'
homes, potentially posing risks.
Potential safety concerns have been raised about crumb
rubber from tire scraps that are used in playground surfacing
and synthetic field surfacing. Health risks posed by these
materials could include lead exposure and cancer risks.
In 2008, CPSC issued a statement indicating that artificial
turf made from crumb rubber was OK to install and OK to play
on. But CPSC has since distanced itself from that release,
causing consumer uncertainty and concern.
CPSC is providing technical assistance to California's
review of crumb rubber and is working with other agencies with
jurisdictions over this product. CPSC needs an increase in
their budget appropriation to ensure that these and other
emerging safety issues can be effectively addressed.
I now wish to discuss a few long-standing hazards that are
priorities for the Consumer Federation and should also be for
CPSC and Congress.
Window coverings. Due to the documented and persistent
hazards that cords on window coverings pose to children, in May
of 2013, CFA and others filed a petition requesting that the
CPSC promulgate a mandatory standard to make operating cords
for window coverings inaccessible. At least 11 children die
each year, despite six industry attempts at developing adequate
voluntary standards. Deaths and injuries can be eliminated by
designs that already exist and are available on the market.
Flame retardants in consumer products. These can be found
in numerous types of consumer products that have been
associated with serious health problems. These chemicals
migrate out from the household products into air and dust.
Children are especially at risk.
The CPSC is considering a petition filed by CFA and others
to adopt mandatory standards to protect consumers from health
hazards posed by the use of non-polymeric, additive form,
organohalogen flame retardants in children's products,
furniture, mattresses, and the casings surrounding electronics.
Recreational off-highway vehicles pose hazards to consumers
and the CPSC indicates there were 335 deaths and 506 injuries
related to ROVs from January 2013 to April 2013. ATVs injured
at least 93,700 people in 2014 and killed an estimated 638
people as well. More work needs to be done on these issues.
Recall effectiveness. The vast majority of consumers who
own a product never find out that the product they own has been
recalled. Much more needs to be done.
I thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weintraub follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Fellin, 5 minutes to summarize
your opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF MARK S. FELLIN
Mr. Fellin. Thank you, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member
Schakowsky for the opportunity to provide testimony to this
committee.
JPMA is a is a national not-for-profit trade association
representing 95 percent of the prenatal industry, including the
producers, importers, and distributors of a broad range of
child care articles that provide protection to infants and
assistance to their care givers. Innovating, manufacturing, and
providing safe products is a priority for JPMA members.
As a new father to my 5-week-old son, Tucker, I personally
understand the importance of ensuring that our children are
safe in all environments and that parents and caregivers are
educated about the importance of using juvenile products
safely.
My testimony today will focus on three areas. First, JPMA's
relationship with the CPSC as it relates to Section 104 of the
CPSIA. Second, the CPSC staff involvement throughout the ASTM
process and, third, industry concerns that the integrity of the
ASTM Standard setting process be maintained as it relates to
Section 104 rules.
JPMA has been instrumental in the development of many key
standards that have advanced public safety. For example, ASTM
Subcommittee F15.18 on cribs, toddler beds, and changing tables
received former Chairman Inez Tenenbaum's inaugural Chairman's
Circle of Commendation Award for its work as crucial to the
development of CPSC's new mandatory crib standards, the
strongest in the world.
JPMA and CPSC staff have worked collaboratively throughout
the ASTM process. Relying on each other's expertise, we have
been able to enhance safety through the ASTM consensus process
by facilitating the creation of effective standards based upon
hazard data. Like any relationship, it is not always without
complications. Let me be very clear. Our industry appreciates
uniform national safety regulations. The ASTM process is the
backbone of many advances in product safety. However, this
process is based upon consensus agreement only after
consideration of data and sound hazard analysis.
Over the years, our members have taken CPSC input into
account when developing and revising the ASTM Juvenile Product
Standards. We believe in the collaborative nature of the
process. However, for its part, CPSC staff must better
understand and appreciate the realities of implementing
standards for the design and production of actual products.
As this committee knows, the CPSC is a data-driven agency.
ASTM participants often rely on CPSC staff to provide summaries
of verified incident data and engineering analysis.
Historically, such data has been provided in accordance with
CPSA Section 6 requirements. Unfortunately, most recently, such
data has not been shared as required for effective standard
setting. We urge the CPSC to provide such data, as available,
and believe that the process works best when there is a two-way
street.
We agree with the CPSC's recent recognition and strategic
plan to address such shortfalls and applaud its desire to
improve its data systems and increase databased decisionmaking.
Additionally, our members have significant concerns about
the manner in which warnings are currently being discussed
through the ASTM process. We remain committed to safety and
advancing the standards but believe that arbitrarily changing
language and/or format in the NPR, after it has been discussed
and balloted on multiple occasions within the ASTM process,
does not allow for the best standard to be incorporated as the
final rule. Additionally, staff action has created the
perception amongst many participants at ASTM that the CPSC will
ultimately change the standard during mandatory rulemaking,
regardless of consensus at ASTM.
At the end of last year, participants of ASTM shared in a
letter to the Chairman this sentiment and urges CPSC to delay
implementation of any juvenile product rulemaking specific to
product, package, and instruction warning, until a consensus-
based approach could be reached. That letter has been submitted
for the record for your review.
JPMA believes strongly in the importance of effective
recall, combined with Government cooperation. The CPSC's award-
winning voluntary recalls program has saved manufacturers
countless hours of negotiations and ensured that recalled
products are voluntarily and quickly removed from traditional
and virtual store shelves. The proposed changes to the
voluntary recalls rule are unnecessary and problematic.
Congress has had, on multiple occasions, the opportunity to
make changes to the 6(b) process but has not. We believe that
the confidentiality safeguards available under CPSA Section
6(b) are vital in maintaining a process that has been in place
and working for decades.
While we do not agree with the Commission's decision to
keep these projects in the operating plan, we do appreciate the
Chairman's public commitments that neither of these will be
heard for decisional vote.
The CPSC and JPMA share the same goal, to advance safety.
We commend the Chairman for his willingness to work with
industry on issues, such as the electronic filling of
certificates at import. We are also encouraged with recent
studies commissioned by the CPSC to look for ways to reduce the
burdens posed by excessive third party testing requirements and
hope that these efforts will finally result in meaningful
relief to all companies, specifically small ones.
The CPSC leadership and staff continue to state that there
is an open-door policy at the agency for all stakeholders. It
is paramount that this policy be maintained and respected.
We look forward to our continuing engagement with the
committee and the CPSC and the ability to walk through an open
door.
Thank you Chairman Burgess and members of the committee for
calling this hearing and inviting JPMA to testify. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fellin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair thanks all of our witnesses today. I certainly
thank you for spending your time with us this morning.
We will move now into the questions portion of the hearing.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions first.
And Mr. Fellin, congratulations on the birth of your 5-
week-old.
Mr. Fellin. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. You look awfully well-rested for someone with
a 5-week-old at home.
Mr. Fellin. I have a very supportive wife.
Mr. Burgess. There you go.
Well, your members are pretty heavily engaged in voluntary
standards in a unique manner. Can you give us a sense of the
overall relationship between your industry and the Commission?
Where is the collaboration particularly strong and where are
there points of tension?
Mr. Fellin. Overall, the relationship between our agency
and the CPSC in the ASTM process is extremely strong. We have
had multiple occasions where CPSC has referenced the final ASTM
rule without changes. So, for the most part, it is a good and
positive dialogue.
Where there is concern right now amongst industry and our
relationship are really when it comes down to warning labels
and the way that discussion is currently occurring. There has
been a lot of work, many ad hoc committees that have discussed
this and, unfortunately, the resolution just doesn't seem to
come to fruition with this issue.
Mr. Burgess. Are you hopeful or optimistic that that gulf
could be bridged?
Mr. Fellin. Unfortunately, based on recent discussions, I
feel like we are at an impasse. And the fear is that the CPSC
is going to go ahead with rulemaking and incorporating of the
ANSI standards without necessarily going through the ASTM
process.
Well, thank you for sharing that with us. Perhaps that is
something where the subcommittee could have some additional
interest.
Mr. Pritchard, you were here before and I certainly thank
you for your remarks this morning. It is rare, as a member of
Congress, when we hear that we have done our job and things
have worked. So, I appreciate you for sharing that experience
with us.
But in May when you testified, your industry was right in
the middle of updating its voluntary safety standard. It was
contentious with the Consumer Product Safety Commission staff.
How important was it for your industry that the CPSC staff
reevaluated their recommendations to the Commission once the
voluntary standard was updated?
Mr. Pritchard. So, I think the factor in the middle of
that, the reevaluation or the recommendation to the
Commissioners, I think what they have done is they have
evaluated the updated draft standard, which they received late
last year, seemingly approve it, based on their letter. We have
had good conversations about it and in our view, we are moving
forward to finalizing the voluntary standards.
At that time, we think that the staff will recommend that
the Commission terminate the rulemaking. But to get from where
we were to here, took a lot of steps and a lot of
conversations. And frankly, Congress' involvement was crucial.
There is just nothing else to say about it.
I think we were in a place where we had our position, they
had their position and someone needed to help come in and break
the logjam and get the parties talking to each other and
listening to each other a little bit better.
And I would just want to add to that point that those
conversations have continued. And so I think we are in a much
better place than we were 8 months ago, even 6 months ago.
Mr. Burgess. And that is to what you attribute the breaking
of the logjam? Because when you were here before, it was pretty
tense.
Mr. Pritchard. It was tense and it remained that way for a
while. I do believe it broke the logjam but I think you can't
underestimate the CPSC staff's willingness to still engage with
us in those discussion. We did keep talking. They deserve
credit for continuing to talk with us and those conversations
were in-person, on the telephone, offsite to see the vehicles
being tested. So, it was a collective effort but I can't
understate the importance of your involvement.
Mr. Burgess. OK, just as a point of congressional trivia, I
am the chairman of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus. So, I
wanted to share that with everyone in full disclosure.
Well, and I will, too, say the staff at the Consumer
Product Safety Commission--it has been a few years since I have
been out there and visited with the staff, but I have done
that. In fact, we were working on the bill in 2007 and 2008 and
the staff is certainly nonpartisan. Certainly, they are
dedicated to their job of consumer safety. Some days, or some
things, or some areas where they look quite innovative in their
ability to actually create the tools that they needed to test a
particular product. So, I just want to echo your sentiment on
what a good job that the staff does and certainly, they don't
get singled out for praise often enough.
Mr. Gold, I just want to address one thing with you and I
may provide some follow-up questions for you. In your testimony
finally, I would like to briefly raise an issue that has not
been discussed with the subcommittee or generally to date, the
recalls being visited upon the retailer, as opposed to the
manufacturer.
And when I sat on this subcommittee many years ago when
Chairman Rush was the subcommittee chair, this seemed to be a
significant problem that products that were going to be
recalled were finding their way into the country and then the
recall happens. And I remember Chairman Rush expressing some
concern that some of these products that were recalled for a
valid reason might end up in discount houses in neighborhoods
across the country. Is that to which you were referring in that
part of your testimony?
Mr. Gold. Mr. Chairman, no. Unfortunately, we are seeing
instances where just products in general, the CPSC is going to
the retailer first to push for recalls. We were seeing some
issues, two issues that were mentioned earlier like hoverboards
and window coverings, where the CPSC is going through the
retailer and trying to make sure that products were pulled off
the shelves or a recall is done, without working through the
process and working with the manufacturers.
It is a longstanding process. We just feel like there is
more emphasis now on going to the retailer because they are the
consumer-facing aspect to push that action before going through
the process.
And as far as the other products we were talking about,
this is where kind of the worst-based methodology comes in in
risk targeting and the ability to do that to make sure you
don't have these volatile products coming into the country from
the start.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, I do want to follow up with you in
writing for the record.
Ms. Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
questions, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, hoverboards have come up a number of
times. They were one of the most popular holiday gift this
year. But unfortunately, we have been hearing more and more
reports about hoverboards exploding and catching fire
unexpectedly. So far, at least 20 U.S. colleges, several major
airlines, and a few cities have banned them. And some retailers
have started taking them off the shelves.
Just yesterday, ABC News reported that a home fire in
Tennessee was caused by a hoverboard that burst into flames.
But a consumer who really wants one, can still find one and
they are still unregulated.
So, Ms. Weintraub, when it becomes apparent that a new
product poses a safety risk, how can we ensure that things move
quickly to reduce the number of accidents, such as leveraging
rules that already exist for similar products or component
parts?
Ms. Weintraub. Well, I think what you suggested is exactly
right. I mean we need safety standards. And I think for this
product, we don't need to start from scratch. And UL, for
example, is expert in lithium-ion batteries. There are other
standards. They are already moving on a standards process.
Hoverboards could fit into motorized scooters with an ASTM
and they are also beginning the voluntary standard process.
Since they don't need to start from scratch, hopefully, this
process will move faster.
But even before a product comes on the market, we think it
is the responsibility of the manufacturer to do a risk
assessment, figure out what hazards could this product pose,
what hazards have other similar products posed, and are there
similar standards, if not exact standards that couldn't be
complied with to prevent that type of hazard.
Consumers also, in a case like this, need concrete
information. They need to know whether a product that their
child is riding, that is sitting in their home could explode,
could cause a fire.
So, we hope investigations that the CPSC is conducting, and
our understanding is they have been working around the clock,
they worked over the holidays, we are very much hoping that
this investigation will lead to the information so that
consumers can have concrete information so that products that
have caused fires will be recalled. And that is what consumers
need, clear information.
While it is very positive that there are some retailers
that aren't selling these products, it is still very consuming
and they are still very available for purchase.
Ms. Schakowsky. Hoverboards are not exclusively a child's
product. So, they are not subject to the same safety standards
as toys. Is there a gap that we should be concerned? Should
there be more strict standards in place for products like
hoverboards which are not made just for kids but are certainly
used by kids?
Ms. Weintraub. I think there is a gap for any product that
is not subject to a voluntary or mandatory standard and we have
seen this with infant and juvenile products, as well as with
other products like hoverboards that when there is not a
standard already in place, there can be risks. And I think this
product very much shows what can happen when there is not a
standard and when manufacturers are not testing their products
to similar types of standards to ensure, in this case, that the
batteries and the charging mechanisms don't overheat and pose a
fire risk.
Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted to ask you about imports. The
Chairman of CPSC has said that inexpensive models of
hoverboards manufactured in China are of particular concern and
that many of the problematic units seem to be coming from
there. Customs and Border Protection recently seized almost
3,000 counterfeit hoverboards that they said ``posed a
potential health risk to U.S. consumers.''
So, can you talk about some of the challenges associated
with ensuring the safety of imported consumer products?
Ms. Weintraub. Sure, especially in cases where products are
manufactured overseas, imported, and there is not an entity in
the U.S., it is very difficult for the CPSC to talk with that
entity, to conduct a voluntary recall, to discuss safety
issues. So, I think that poses a specific risk to these types
of products. I think it is for that reason that retailers who
are the first contact that consumers have with these products
are being contacted and do have a responsibility. And we
certainly think that everyone in the supply chain from the
manufacturer to the retailer, to testing labs, the entire
supply chain has a responsibility to ensure that products on
the market don't pose risks to consumers.
And this is also why we are very supportive of CPSC's
efforts at import surveillance because another layer in product
safety is to prevent these products from entering the U.S.
market and getting into our homes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Great. I will yield back. Thank you. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, the
author of the RIDE Act, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Pompeo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pritchard, what are the lessons learned? How do we
repeat the success that we collectively add to your industry,
CPSC and their staff, us here on the committee and the
Congress? What are the lessons about timing and how we can be
constructive to work together to get good outcomes for
consumers and for manufacturers a well?
Mr. Pritchard. So, I think there a couple steps and I will
base it on our experience but I think that they can be applied
fairly broadly.
One, I think when industry realizes that there is an
impasse with the Commission, then industry needs to bring it to
your attention and let you know that there is a problem. I
think at the Commission, if they are in discussions with
industry, they should keep those discussions going.
In my view, voting out the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
was a profound mistake and I will tell you why today and what I
said then. Essentially, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking puts
industry on the defensive. And so then, in response, industry
submits comments back, which are critical, which puts the
Commission on defensive. So, at that point, it is really hard
to have a discussion because everybody has basically got their
backs up, trying to defend positions, rather than trying to
reach the best outcome.
So, it is really this. Industry has got a part to play in
keeping the discussion going. The Commission has a part to play
in keeping the discussion going. And I think then Congress has
to be involved early enough to be part of those discussions, to
let the parties know that Congress is paying attention and that
Congress is expecting a sensible resolution because I am
assuming you all don't want to have to deal with legislation
every time an impasse comes up, whether it is with this Federal
regulatory agency or another one.
Mr. Pompeo. That is a pretty fair assumption. Thank you for
that.
Ms. Weintraub, you talked about the Consumer Product Safety
database a little bit in your opening comments. You said there
were 27,000. What period was that over?
Ms. Weintraub. So, that is from when it----
Mr. Pompeo. Is that from inception?
Ms. Weintraub. Inception. Conception--no, not conception.
Creation.
Mr. Pompeo. From when it began.
Ms. Weintraub. When it began. I think it went online in
2011 until January 21, 2016.
Mr. Pompeo. And tell me what benefits you can tangibly
identify that resulted from that.
Ms. Weintraub. Sure. Well, as you well know, with 6(b),
there was a limited amount of information that the CPSC has
been able to communicate naming brands of products.
So, before, if a consumer was interested as Mr. Fellin has
been, in purchasing a product for a new baby, there is limited
information. He is in a different case because he is an expert
but there is limited information that you can get from CPSC's
Web site, other than general information about hazards
associated with strollers, in particular.
So, what this database has created is a resource for
consumers. They could see if they are looking for a stroller
what consumers' experience has been. They can see if they own a
stroller, whether someone else has a similar experience or
maybe it is just specific to their use.
So, I think it has really created a much more robust and
much more rich resource for consumers, as well as for
researchers and others. Something else we have been able to
identify is sort of well what are the product categories that
are most represented. Are there trends? So, we have looked at
his data for that type of stuff.
Mr. Pompeo. Do you know what the error rate is then, that
is complaints that were made, items listed of those 27 that
were just flat out wrong, they had the wrong manufacturer, it
was un-useful information or even worse?
Ms. Weintraub. I am sorry, do I know the number that had
errors?
Mr. Pompeo. Yes, that were just flat out wrong.
Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
Mr. Pompeo. Like if somebody was mad and they wrote down it
was Brand X and it turned out they had nothing to do with Brand
X.
Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
Mr. Pompeo. Do you know how many hours were spent for
manufacturers responding in the way that they are required to
respond by law to items that appear on the CPSC database?
Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
Mr. Pompeo. Do you know how much it costs them to do that?
Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
Mr. Pompeo. So, not tangible benefits that have been
identified. That is, we can quantify that and you have no idea
of what those costs were.
Ms. Weintraub. I do not have knowledge of those costs.
Mr. Pompeo. Great, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions, initially, are to Ms. Weintraub about the
crumb rubber, the crumb rubber issue. Over the last several
years, questions have been raised about the safety of
artificial turf, which is used in schools, parks, daycare
centers, and sports fields throughout the country. An NBC News
report in October 2014 documented a growing group of young
athletes diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who played on
artificial turf fields filled with crumb rubber. And the crumb
rubber is often made from recycled tires, which contains
carcinogens.
Following the NBC report, I sent a letter to the Centers
for Disease Control asking for an official study to examine
risks of continued exposure to crumb rubber. And in May 2015,
during a hearing in front of this committee, CPSC Chairman Kaye
agreed with me that more research is needed. And in October
2015, Chairman Upton and I sent a letter to the EPA, once
again, expressing concerns on this issue. But I have to say
that I am disappointed that still nothing has been done.
And clearly, this is a complicated issue. Many agencies are
involved. So, Ms. Weintraub, are you aware of any existing
industry standards to prevent the use of toxic chemicals in
artificial turf?
Ms. Weintraub. I am not aware of a specific standard for
crumb rubber. We could certainly hope that since it is going
into a children's product that similar standards could be used
as guidance, for instance, in terms of lead and other heavy
metals, but I am not aware of a specific standard.
Mr. Pallone. Is the research sufficient to conclude that
exposure to crumb rubber is safe and that it is OK for kids to
play on it, you think?
Ms. Weintraub. No, I do not think the research is
sufficient, and we very much support your position and that of
the CPSC that more research is needed and that all the
entities, State, Federal, need to work together as quickly as
possible to research this issue.
Mr. Pallone. I think you answered my next question. It was
about CPSC's limited resources to investigate the possible
health effects of prolonged exposure to crumb rubber. And you
said that you do think it would be beneficial for them, CPSC to
work with the other agencies.
Artificial turf and crumb rubber has been in use for more
than a decade. They are using it on playing fields, playgrounds
across the country but there are a lot of serious safety
questions that linger unanswered, while our children and
athletes continue to be exposed. Let me ask you again. What can
the CPSC do to address safety and health concerns with new
products, not just crumb rubber, but with new products before
they come to market so that our children are not the test
subjects?
It often seems like the product comes to market and then if
things go wrong, OK, then we take another look at it. Can we
look do things differently in that regard?
Ms. Weintraub. I think we can. I think the responsibility
lies with the manufacturers of the products to ensure that they
meet standards, if standards exist. And then if no specific
standards exist that they use those as guidance to ensure that
they don't pose risks to consumers. We actually think that for
many products, such as infant and toddler products, that
product should not go on the market if there is not a voluntary
standard.
Mr. Pallone. You know I think that the public thinks it is
the opposite. They are shocked when you tell them well, the
product goes on the market and then we see if it is safe. They
assume that is has already been tested and safe before it goes
on the market. But that is not the case. Correct?
Ms. Weintraub. Correct. And that is certainly true. I mean
consumers perceive that if a product is available for sale that
has been tested by some entity for safety. We have tried to
bridge that gap with CPSIA for infant and toddler products but
we still have a long way to go.
Mr. Pallone. Well, let me just ask one more question about
the artificial fields. I am also concerned about the possible
physical injuries that can occur while playing on artificial
fields, such as joint injuries from increased resistance or
burns from overheated turf. Should the CPSC also be
investigating these other possible safety concerns, in your
opinion?
Ms. Weintraub. Definitely.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I have a minute left. I wanted to
ask a little about emerging hazards but I know I don't have
much time. Is there a difference in how emerging hazards from
consumer products are handled when they relate to a defect, as
opposed to an unintended use, such as kids biting into laundry
pods? I know when my wife starting using these laundry pods, I
was wondering what they were. My understanding is that kids
will think they are candy.
So you know the question is, does that response tend to be
faster for one than the other of those two types of things?
Ms. Weintraub. You know I really think, and I worked on the
laundry pod issues as well as many others, and I think one of
the biggest responsibilities of a manufacturer is to think of
foreseeable use, which may include unintended use. But
foreseeable use of how the product is used in the real world
must be thought about, must be assessed, and the product must
be designed for that foreseeable use.
Mr. Pallone. OK, thanks a lot.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks
the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Guthrie, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
conducting this meeting and I thank all the witnesses for being
here.
My first question is for Mr. Pritchard. Based on your
recent experience of vetting the ROV voluntary standard, should
we be concerned about how the Commission is using or not using
scientific data to support these policy positions?
Mr. Pritchard. Our experience was that the data did not
support the Commission's claims.
I want to go back in time. We received the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in a briefing package and it had a lot of
claims in it with references to data and incident reports that
were separate. So, we requested all of those records and all
that data and couldn't get it. We couldn't get it and we
ultimately filed a FOIA appeal, which was granted in its
entirety some months later.
When we dug into the data, the data did not match, in our
view, the claims and we explained that in our comments back to
the Commission in response to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. I don't know if that means that there is a profound
issue or a fundamental issue. I can just tell you that we had
an issue with the data.
Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Gold or Mr. Fellin, do you have any
comments on that type of--that is fine. I have got another
question. You can go ahead.
Mr. Fellin. We have had similar concerns along the ASTM
process where we have requested data from the agency, both
verbally at ASTM meeting and then also in writing to the
various CPSC staff members on it and have been denied that
information.
Mr. Guthrie. I have a question for you, Mr. Fellin. In May
2012, the GAO published a report recommending that the
Commission staff participate more actively in the voluntary
standards process. Given your experience with the agency, is
the delay between the publication data of the GAO report, May
of 2012, and the effective date of the new rules, March 3rd of
this year, typical?
Mr. Fellin. I think it all depends on staff resources and
the priorities of a given Commission.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, given the importance of voluntary
standards to the product safety and the Commission's mission,
should this rule update have been priority over other of their
undertakings?
Mr. Fellin. From JPMA's perspective, CPSC already plays a
vital role in the 104 rulemakings, which I think are a unique
standard-setting process. We raised concerns with the proposed
rule mainly that agency staff not have undue influence over the
process and that staff not dictate Commission decisions. But I
can't speak as to whether or not it should have been a higher
priority for other industries.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you very much.
And Mr. Gold, you mentioned the Commission's open meetings
policy in your testimony. Transparency is what we all want to
see happen. It is a Government good. It is what we need to have
in place, but just a question about it.
What impact does this policy have on the Commission's
ability to communicate with industry and are there
circumstances where Commission resources have benefitted from
feedback from the industry prior to releasing the proposed
rule?
Mr. Gold. Thank you, Congressman. So, I think the alpha
pilot is probably the prime example of where there was an issue
because, as this working group was created under the COAC,
which is a Customs advisory committee, we had plenty of
discussions with Customs but yet, CPSC was not in the room for
these discussions, our technical discussions on how supply
chains work, how data is transferred, who owns it at what point
in time. So, as this is a CPSC rulemaking, they are going to be
relying on CBP to collect the data, not having CPSC in the room
to understand some of these difficulties was a little
challenging because we would have to CBP to provide us
information from CPSC with questions and challenges, and that
we would have the discussion, and we would have to rely back on
CBP to go back to CPSC to do the interpretations.
So, we fully understand transparency and the need for that
but there are certain times when you have to have these
technical meetings where you have companies who are talking
about very business confidential information as far as how
their supply chains work and what data they have and when they
have it. Those kinds of meetings get very technical and we
think should be closed. And this is where an advisory
committee, whether it is a FACA or some other committee could
help with this process moving forward.
It would have been nice, had we had the opportunity to have
these working group discussions or stakeholder meetings before
the 1110 rule was put out to talk about some of this so we
didn't have a rule put out that everybody was opposed to and
listed a whole number of concerns. Had we had those discussions
in advance and talked about the complexities, and really had
discussion about what is it that CPSC wants, what it is that
industry can provide, it would have been a better position to
be in than where we are now. We are glad we have the pilot in
place to really work through some of these technical issues and
try and figure out how this is best going to work.
Again, we are very supportive of risk-based targeting. We
think this will help but because of the complexities, we can't
just put a rule out and expect everyone to do it. This needs to
be worked through because of the technical aspect of it.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. My time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Clarke, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Chairman Burgess for this very
important hearing. And to all of our witnesses today, thank you
for lending your expertise to the subject matter at hand.
I want to raise the issue of recall effectiveness. We would
all like to avoid problems before they happen but sometimes
unexpected harms arise. In these cases, the CPSC works with the
manufacturer of a defective product to conduct a recall but
notice to consumers is difficult and recall response rates tend
to be very low.
So, Ms. Weintraub, do you have any ideas on how the CPSC or
industry can be more proactive in reaching consumers when there
is a recall on a product?
Ms. Weintraub. Yes, I do. Thank you very much for the
question.
Both Kids in Danger and the Chairman have said that those
involved in selling products should use the same amount of
energy and resources that they do to sell a product to get a
product back that has been recalled. And we are very far from
that goal.
I think there are many things that both the CPSC and those
in the supply chain can do, using innovative technology, using
social media, using information that retailers and others have
about consumers who bought specific products. I think one of
the issues is targeting the right people, ensuring that the
people who have the product, who bought the product know about
a recall.
I also think it is important for the information to be
clear. These things should be called recalls. They should be
available on the Web sites. They should be communicated clearly
with a very clear action for what the consumer should do,
clearly articulating the risk. And I think this is a subject
that many have been working on for a long time but it needs a
lot more attention.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Mr. Fellin, the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety
Notification Act requires manufacturers of durable infant
products to provide consumers with a postage-paid registration
card with each product to improve the effectiveness and
response rate of recalls. What are your member companies doing
to increase the rate of return on those registration cards?
Mr. Fellin. Recall effectiveness is something that I think
our industry, as well as the consumer groups and governmental
have the same priority and that is to get the message out as
quickly as possible. We were proud last year to actually work
with CFA and the consumer groups to develop an ``It's Not Hard!
Fill Out the Card!`` campaign. And the whole process of that
was to educate consumers that it takes 2 minutes. It is postage
paid for, fill out the card, get it back to the manufacturer.
While manufacturers continue to try and figure out
innovative ways to try and reach the consumer, the last thing
we want as an industry is to have a product that has been
recalled reach the hands of another consumer and we look to
continue to work with the agency. And I have asked the agency,
in meetings with them, to conduct a workshop that would bring a
lot of these issues to the foreground and discuss recall
effectiveness because it is a priority for industry as well.
Ms. Clarke. You just mentioned that you are looking into
alternative methods as well. Can you drill down on that a
little bit?
Mr. Fellin. Of course. A lot of our manufacturers, based on
the fact that a lot of parents nowadays are younger and much
more tech savvy have also published registration information on
their web pages. There is also technology out there that has
begun to allow to take pictures of various information will
allow the products to be registered that way. So, we are
constantly evaluating and looking at ways in which to improve
that aspect of products.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you.
Mr. Gold, often, manufacturers do not have a relationship
with consumers but retailers do. What are you member companies
doing to help get notice to consumers when there is a recall?
Mr. Gold. You know I think they are doing as much as they
possibly can. I think, again, as Mr. Fellin said, having this
workshop to talk about recall effectiveness and how messages
are put out I think is very important. It is not as easy for a
retailer to just throw up a recall notice on their Web site,
there are challenges there. And I think we need to talk through
that and figure what is the best way.
Ms. Clarke. You said they are doing the best that they can.
Is there something specific that they are doing?
Mr. Gold. I don't have the specifics----
Ms. Clarke. OK.
Mr. Gold [continuing]. How retailers are doing it. It
really depends on the retailer, the relationship, how they are
getting information out the customers or the users.
Ms. Clarke. Any examples?
Mr. Gold. I don't have any.
Ms. Clarke. OK.
Mr. Gold. I can provide you some later on. I just can't
provide you any right now.
Ms. Clarke. OK, sure. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs.
Brooks, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses for their insight.
Indiana is actually the home of a very, very large presence
of toy companies and juvenile product manufacturers across our
State. And Mr. Fellin, you probably know well that Dorel is the
largest juvenile product manufacturer in the Nation. It is
based outside of my district down in Columbus, Indiana, but 950
people work around the clock many shifts to try to ensure that
they are producing incredibly safe, the safest products
possible.
I have a company called IMMI based in Westfield that works
closely with Dorel to try to ensure that they are designing
products that are safest on the road. And then in my district
that I recently visited a toy manufacturer--I am sorry--a
puzzle manufacturer called Package Right, a puzzle facility in
Tipton, and I am very pleased to learn that they actually
brought production back from China in order to ensure safety
and to reinvest in our economy.
Back in May, I asked the Chairman--and Mr. Fellin, I will
start with you--I asked the Chairman of the CPSC about what
actions they have taken to provide relief to companies for some
of the third party testing requirements and he mentioned the
Office of the Ombudsman, that it is providing support and
assistance to find out whether or not they need certain
testing. And I am curious whether or not from your companies
that you work with, how have they found the Ombudsman Office
either helpful or is it sufficient in reducing the costs and
burdens to your member companies?
Mr. Fellin. I don't know if it has necessarily helped in
reducing the cost. But in terms of helping navigate a very
complex regulatory framework, the Office of the Ombudsman has
been extremely helpful in that capacity.
Mrs. Brooks. Are you still dealing with a lot of the
smaller manufacturers with respect to their third party testing
burdens and can you share a bit more about that?
Mr. Fellin. Absolutely and it doesn't just extend to the
small manufacturers. Our large manufacturers feel the testing
burden just the same.
We are certainly encouraged by the agency's desire to
promulgate studies on ways to reduce burden and our industry
has been very active and testified at the CPSC hearings with
regards to burden reduction.
Since Congress allocated funds specific to burden
reduction, we have yet to see any meaningful reduction in that
capacity but we certainly would welcome it.
Mrs. Brooks. And when did that happen that Congress
allocated?
Mr. Fellin. I believe in last year's Appropriations Bill,
they allocated $1 million.
Mrs. Brooks. And you have seen nothing done with that $1
million?
Mr. Fellin. To my knowledge, we have not seen anything that
would provide meaning for you.
Mrs. Brooks. OK. I am curious whether or not any of the
other panelists are aware as to whether or not CPSC has used
the appropriated dollars. Is anyone aware of this issue?
Mr. Gold. I am aware of the issue but I am not aware,
again, as Mr. Fellin, that the work continues. I think folks
are waiting to continue to see CPSC put out more guidance and
more ways for companies to reduce testing burdens. I know there
was additional monies put in the budget but we are, again,
waiting to see the effectiveness of this.
Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Gold and Mr. Fellin, you both mentioned in
your testimony a lack of transparency in the Commission's
justification for a number of the activities, including
proposals to amend the voluntary standards processes and
proposed rulemakings. How important do you think it is for the
Commission to justify its activities and prioritization of
activities? And it would seem that it would help this committee
ensure that the committee's actions are directly tied to its
critical safety mission in a measurable way. And so how
important is it that you think, and I guess all of you, to
justify its activities and prioritization of its activities,
when we don't know how they are using even the funds that have
already been appropriated?
Mr. Fellin. The CPSC routinely says that they are a data-
driven agency and they continue to request from our members
data when making any decision. And I think, in any
relationship, providing data and a rationale for why you are
doing things just provides good dialogue. And I would hope that
in any decision that they were making, that they provided the
proper rationale for doing so.
Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Gold?
Mr. Gold. I would agree. I think two-way communication is
critical, especially as you are looking at some of these issues
to get a full understanding of what the issue is and what is a
reasonable response and how do we move forward is critically
important.
We see this with other agencies as well. We think it is
important to have the bidirectional conversation and
bidirectional education, where the complexities in the supply
chain are understood and realized. So, if there are issues with
recall, let's have a workshop and a dialogue so that you get
the best and brightest minds in a room and have a conversation
on how to make this work better.
If there are issues of recall is not happening because of
some companies who don't do it, don't punish those who are
always doing this the right way. Let's focus on how do we go
after those bad actors.
So, I think that conversation is extremely important and
the justification is just as important.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. And just from my conversations, Mr.
Chairman, child safety is number one priority for all these
companies. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. No, I yield, Mr. Chairman. I don't have
questions.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. The Chair then recognizes the vice
chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Lance from New Jersey, 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gold, at a recent public Commission meeting, there was
a discussion between the Commissioner Buerkle, whom we know,
and Import Surveillance staff about the new pilot project to
improve targeting of potentially unsafe products at the border.
During the discussion and the video is available on the
Commission's Web site, the staff was asked about its
justification for adding the name of the testing lab to the
list of mandatory disclosures for the pilot.
The staff said that it had no quantitative information to
support the proposal. Is it concerning that the Commission is
putting together a pilot program without data to support its
work and is there a risk that this undermines the willingness
of companies to participate in the project?
Mr. Gold. Yes, but again, our hope is that with the pilot
project we can actually identify what are the data elements
that are needed to help enhance risk management.
Part of the concern is that there is always a request for
more data but more data isn't always necessary. From our
perspective, we would have had a better conversation from the
outset with CPSC asking what data do you think you need, what
are you currently getting, and how is that helping risk
assessment, as opposed to just putting out a notice saying here
is what we think we need but not fully understanding the
process by which all that information is acquired and what
benefit that might actually accrue to the agency.
So, again, coming back to having an advisory committee to
fully dig into these issues before a notification or regulation
is put out, we think is extremely important. Again, especially
if there is no justification on the front end for why they need
it, then we have to question well, why are you proposing it.
So, again, having that conversation in advance to get a
full understanding of what the concern is, how can we better
address it and going into the conversation about what data is
available, who owns it at what point in time, how readily
available is it, how can we can get it to the Commission, we
think are all questions that should have been done in advance
of the NPRM coming out.
Hopefully now, with a pilot project in place, a lot of
these questions can be addressed.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Is there anyone else on the panel who
would like to comment?
Mr. Gold, how important is the voluntary recall process to
retailers? How would the changes proposed by the Commission to
the voluntary recall process have an impact on retailer's
ability to get potentially harmful products off of their
shelves?
Mr. Gold. It is extremely important and I think, as was
noted earlier in the discussion today, it is an award-winning
program. The Commission, themselves, have noted that it is
extremely important. I think there are concerns that any of
these changes that have been proposed might stymie some of the
information that might come to the Commission. Right now, there
is times where there is not enough clarity on whether or not a
report needs to be made.
So right now, retailers, they have guidance from the
Commission when in doubt, report. If they have questions going
forward with some of the new requirements, they not be so ready
to report if they really don't have true knowledge of the
issue.
So, I think continuing with the program that they have in
place, if there are improvements that can be made, again, let's
sit down, have a conversation and figure out what changes need
to be made or adjusted to handle some of the issues.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. And again, Mr. Gold, do your members
have concerns with the user fee as proposed by the CPSC in the
budget request of last year and this year? And is there a
scenario that your members would support such a user fee?
Mr. Gold. We definitely have concerns not knowing exactly
how user fee is going to be used. There are still issues with
the RAM, the Risk Assessment Methodology which is continuing to
be built.
We have, in the past had issues with other agencies
collecting user fees intended for one purpose, they get
siphoned off for something else.
Mr. Lance. No, that never happens. No.
Mr. Gold. So, that continues to be a concern. Again, if we
can have full visibility into the system, how it is going to
work, and have a conversation about it before just instituting
a user fee, there might be some willingness. But again, not
knowing how it is going to work, there are definitely concerns.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Is there anyone else on the panel who
would like to comment?
Seeing none, then, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 45 seconds.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair
thanks the gentleman.
Let me just ask if there is anyone on the subcommittee who
would seek additional time with our witnesses this morning.
Seeing no further members wishing to ask questions for our
panel, I would like to thank, again, our witnesses for being
here today.
Before we conclude, I would like to submit the following
documents for the record by unanimous consent: a letter to the
subcommittee from the American Home Furnishings Alliance, a
statement from the Retail Industry Leaders Association.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Burgess. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record and I ask the witnesses to submit their responses
within 10 business days upon the receipt of those questions.
Without objection, then the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
As we enter a new budget season, I am pleased we are
circling back to examine industry perspectives on the Consumer
Product Safety Commission. I understand there were improvements
in particular circumstances that the witnesses can tell us
about, but I'm also interested in the witnesses' views on which
issues to prioritize when evaluating the Commission's budget
request.
The scope of the Commission's jurisdiction in combination
with its limited size and budget merits close attention to
ensure that consumers' trust in this agency is not eroded
because of activist agendas.
I am interested in hearing from the witnesses today whose
members engage on a regular basis with the Commission. There
have been a number of recurring issues and we need to find a
way to break the logjam and move forward.
The voluntary standards process has been a success in
covering much more ground than mandatory rulemakings by the
Commission could have accomplished. What's more, the voluntary
standards process proves how committed industry and the
Commission are to making safe consumer products available in
the U.S.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would also
like an update on the Commission's activities to reduce third-
party testing burdens. There have been multiple bipartisan
directives from Congress to help small businesses in this area,
and they have not been met with substantial action from the
Commission.
The relationship between the Commission and industry is
mutually beneficial and should be fostered to protect
consumers. All relationships require work, and it is worth
exploring how to improve the relationship here because of its
impact on consumer safety--particularly for the safety of
families in southwest Michigan.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]