U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

20–012 PDF 2016

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 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

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 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 inVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:52 May 09, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X116CPSCXINDUSTRYREADYFORPDF\114X116CPSCXINDUS
2 

dustry to achieve voluntary safety standards for regulated products. Secondly, there were concerns about the Commission’s overextended 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 testVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:52 May 09, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X116CPSCXINDUSTRYREADYFORPDF\114X116CPSCXINDUS
3 

ing 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 

4 

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 

5 

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. 

6 

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 

7 

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 

8 

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 notfor-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 deVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:52 May 09, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X116CPSCXINDUSTRYREADYFORPDF\114X116CPSCXINDUS
9 

sign 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:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

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. 

14 

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 riskbased 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. 

15 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward 

to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gold follows:] 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

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 

25 

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:] 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

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. 

35 

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:] 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

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 

43 

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 

44 

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 consumerfacing 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. 

45 

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? 

46 

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 

47 

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, 

48 

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 

49 

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. 

50 

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 

51 

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 

52 

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 

53 

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 allo- cated $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 

54 

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. 

55 

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. 

56 

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. 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

Æ