Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






	INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

	SECOND SESSION

	__________

	FEBRUARY 10, 2016

	__________

	Serial No. 114-116




	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]










	Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
	energycommerce.house.gov
	______

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

	20-012 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
	-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
	Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
	DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
	Washington, DC 20402-0001















	COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

	FRED UPTON, Michigan
	Chairman

	JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
	ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
	JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
	JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
	GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
	TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
	MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
	MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
	Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
	STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
	ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
	CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
	GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
	LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
	BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
	PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
	DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
	MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
	ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
	H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
	GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
	BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
	BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
	RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
	LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
	BILL FLORES, Texas
	SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
	MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
	RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
	CHRIS COLLINS, New York
	KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota

	_____

	Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade

	MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
	Chairman
	JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
	LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Ranking Member
	Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
	MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
	GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Massachusetts
	BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
	PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
	MIKE POMPEO, Kansas G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
	ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
	GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
	SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana officio)
	MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
	FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

	(ii)























	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page
	Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 1
	Prepared statement........................................... 3
	Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
	Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 5
	Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
	State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 7
	Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
	Michigan, prepared statement................................... 56

	Witnesses

	Erik Pritchard, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
	Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association................... 8
	Prepared statement........................................... 10
	Answers to submitted questions............................... 72
	Jonathan Gold, Vice President, Supply Chain and Customs Policy,
	National Retail Federation..................................... 13
	Prepared statement........................................... 16
	Answers to submitted questions............................... 74
	Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and General Counsel,
	Consumer Federation of America................................. 24
	Prepared statement........................................... 26
	Mark S. Fellin, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs,
	Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association.................... 34
	Prepared statement........................................... 36
	Answers to submitted questions............................... 77

	Submitted Material

	Letter of February 8, 2016, from Andy S. Counts, Chief Executive
	Officer, American Home Furnishings Alliance, to Mr. Burgess and
	Ms. Schakowsky, submitted by Mr. Burgess....................... 57
	Statement of the Retail Industry Leaders Association by Kathleen
	McGuigan, Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs,
	February 10, 2016, submitted by Mr. Burgess.................... 60

	INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
	Committee on Energy and Commerce,
	Washington, DC.
	The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
	room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess
	(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
	Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn,
	Harper, Guthrie, Olson, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Brooks,
	Schakowsky, Clarke, Kennedy, Welch, and Pallone (ex officio).
	Staff present: Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary;
	James Decker, Policy Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
	Trade; Graham Dufault, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
	Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
	Trade; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
	Trade; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff, Commerce,
	Manufacturing, and Trade; Dylan Vorbach, Legislative Clerk;
	Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel, Commerce,
	Manufacturing, and Trade; Christine Brennan, Democratic Press
	Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Lisa
	Goldman, Democratic Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
	Trade; Tiffany Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and
	Chief Health Advisor; Caroline Paris-Behr, Democratic Policy
	Analyst; Diana Rudd, Democratic Legal Fellow; and Andrea
	Sowall, Democratic Staff Member.
	Mr. Burgess. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing,
	and Trade will now come to order. The Chair will recognize
	himself for an opening statement.

	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
	IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

	I want to welcome everyone to the committee this morning.
	This morning we do continue our oversight of the Consumer
	Product Safety Commission and its mission to protect consumers
	against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer
	products. It is a very timely hearing, as we prepare to enter
	into our budget season.
	This subcommittee held a hearing earlier this Congress with
	four of the Commissioners present about the status of the
	agency agenda. Really two key issues emerged that warrant
	further attention. First, the need for collaboration between
	the Commission and industry to achieve voluntary safety
	standards for regulated products. Secondly, there were concerns
	about the Commission's over-extended rulemaking docket. There
	were concerns about mission creep and there were concerns about
	repeated requests for unprecedented user fee authority without
	the requisite justification. And I did stress at the time and
	will stress again today that when your mission is safety and
	your resources are scarce, it is critical that you prioritize
	your activities where you have clear authority and where you
	can protect the most people.
	I hope we will hear about progress today, particularly on
	the recreational off-road vehicle front. I hope that we will
	hear about a Commission that wants to use technology to help
	innovation, rather than impede it. We have done a whole set of
	hearings on technology disrupting industry. At some point, we
	need to look at how technology can disrupt Washington and make
	it work, make Washington work better to encourage innovations
	and to encourage job creation.
	The innovation driven by the private sector cannot be
	replicated in the confines of the Government. This is
	recognized by the preference for voluntary safety standards and
	the Commission's authorizing statute, the National Technology
	Transfer and Advancement Act, and even in the Office of
	Management of the Budget. Their recent circular A-119, where
	they coordinate and clear things through the Office of
	Management of the Budget that is currently in the process of
	being updated.
	The American National Standards Institute, the Underwriters
	Laboratory are widely known and respected institutions that
	have worked with industry within and outside the Commission's
	jurisdiction to help develop voluntary consensus standards.
	These standards are technical in nature and are generally set
	to achieve, as their name implies, performance goals, as
	opposed to the Government mandating product construction.
	Turning to the Commission's rulemaking docket and request
	for unprecedented user fee authority, I am interested in
	hearing from our witnesses today about how these outstanding
	issues impact a company's ability to plan for the future and a
	company's ability to innovate. For example, since our last
	hearing, there has been no change in the status of some of the
	most controversial processes in rulemaking. This includes a
	rulemaking that is still pending to upend the incredibly
	successful voluntary recall program. The import surveillance
	rulemaking, commonly known as the 1110 Rule has now been turned
	into a pilot program with eight participating companies. The
	pilot's implementation guide was implemented just a few weeks
	ago to reflect the first feedback received from the Customs and
	Border Protection Support Network Working Group. The Commission
	has renewed their request for unprecedented user fee authority
	which, besides the constitutional question at hand, is
	premature, given the early stages of the pilot project.
	I am interested to hear from the panelists what outstanding
	issues remain with the pilot's development and what benchmarks
	we should be looking for when the Commission reports on the
	pilot's progress.
	Finally, it is incumbent upon this subcommittee to find out
	whether there has been any progress on reducing third party
	testing burdens for small businesses in the United States. This
	is a bipartisan concern and has been addressed multiple times
	by Congress since 2011. It is frustrating to be sitting here
	today years later without this issue being resolved.
	I think we all share the goal of preventing tragic and
	unfortunate injuries from consumer products. I certainly look
	forward to hearing from our witnesses about the status and
	tenor of their working relationship with the Commission and how
	these relationships can be leveraged to achieve the common
	safety goal. Industry certainly must do its part.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess

	This morning we continue our oversight of the Consumer
	Product Safety Commission and its mission to protect consumers
	against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer
	products. It is a very timely hearing as we also prepare to
	enter into budget season.
	This subcommittee held a hearing earlier this Congress with
	four of the Commissioners about the status of the agency
	agenda. Two key issues emerged that warrant further attention.
	First, the need for collaboration between the Commission and
	industry to achieve voluntary safety standards for regulated
	products. Second, there were concerns about the Commission's
	overextended rulemaking docket, mission creep and repeated
	requests for unprecedented user fee authority without the
	requisite justification. I stressed at that time and will
	stress again that when your mission is safety and your
	resources are scarce it is critical that you prioritize
	activities where you have clear authority and where you can
	protect the most people.
	I hope that we will hear about progress today, particularly
	on the R O V front. I also hope that we will hear about a
	Commission that wants to use technology to help innovation
	rather than hinder it. We have done a whole set of hearings on
	technology disrupting industry. At some point we need to look
	at how technology can disrupt Washington and make it work
	better to encourage innovations and job creation.
	The innovation driven by the private sector cannot be
	replicated in the confines of the Government. This is
	recognized by the preference for voluntary safety standards in
	the Commission's authorizing statute, the National Technology
	Transfer and Advancement Act, and even the Office of Management
	and Budget's Circular A--119 that is currently being updated.
	The American National Standards Institute, A.S.T.M.
	International, and Underwriters Laboratory, are widely known
	and respected institutions that have worked with countless
	industries, within and outside the Commissions' jurisdiction,
	to develop voluntary consensus standards. These standards are
	technical in nature and are generally set to achieve, as their
	name implies, performance goals-as opposed to Government-
	mandated product construction.
	Turning to the Commission's rulemaking docket and request
	for unprecedented user fee authority, I am interested in
	hearing from the witnesses about how these outstanding issues
	impact companies' ability to plan for the future and innovate.
	For example, since our last hearing, there has been no
	change in the status of some of the most controversial process
	rulemakings. This includes a rulemaking that is still pending
	to upend the incredibly successful, and award winning,
	voluntary recall program.
	The import surveillance rulemaking, commonly known as the
	1110 Rule, has now been turned into a pilot program with eight
	participating companies. The pilot's implementation guide was
	updated just a few weeks ago to reflect the first set of
	feedback received from the Customs and Border Protection Trade
	Support Network Working Group.
	The Commission has renewed their request for unprecedented
	user fee authority which, besides the constitutional questions,
	is clearly premature given the early stages of the pilot
	project. I am interested to hear from the panelists what
	outstanding issues remain with the pilot's development and what
	benchmarks we should be looking for when the Commission reports
	on the pilot's progress.
	Finally, it is incumbent upon this subcommittee to find out
	whether there has been any progress on reducing third party
	testing burdens for small businesses in the U.S. This is a
	bipartisan concern that has been addressed multiple times by
	Congress since 2011. It is frustrating to be sitting here
	today, years later without this issue being resolved.
	We all share the goal of preventing tragic and unfortunate
	injuries from consumer products. I look forward to hearing from
	the witnesses about the status and tenor of their working
	relationship with the Commission and how those relationships
	can be leveraged to achieve that common safety goal. Industry
	certainly must do its part.

	Mr. Burgess. And now I would like to recognize the ranking
	member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky from Illinois, 5
	minutes for an opening statement, please.

	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
	REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

	Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the chairman--we have got some
	feedback here--for holding today's hearing on the Consumer
	Product Safety Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to
	highlight the successes of the Commission and to learn where
	even more progress can be made.
	This hearing is to focus specifically on industry
	perspectives. And while it is important to hear from business
	under the CPSC oversight, I believe the focus should always be
	on the Commission's impact in protecting consumers from harmful
	products and that is what I plan to spend my time on today.
	This subcommittee played a major role in the enactment of
	the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which was signed
	into law by President Bush in 2008. It was the product of broad
	bipartisan negotiation and it passed the House by a vote of 407
	to nothing. The legislation gave CPSC additional authority and
	resources so it could become the consumer watchdog that
	Americans deserve. It included a provision requiring mandatory
	standards and testing for infant and toddler products, such as
	cribs and high chairs, as well as a requirement for postage
	paid recall registration cards to be attached to products so
	that customers can be quickly notified if the products are
	dangerous and I was proud to author both of those improvements.
	The CPSIA also included mandatory toy safety standards,
	including banning lead and dangerous phthalates in toys which
	are preventing injuries and saving lives.
	The Commission has taken its enhanced authority and support
	to improve consumer product safety from cribs to toys, to
	cleaning products and I look forward to hearing from our
	witnesses about those successes and others.
	I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses their
	ideas for how to improve consumer outreach. In the context of
	auto safety, we have discussed ways to improve notice to
	consumers of recalls and how to increase consumer
	responsiveness to recalls. That same concept is just as
	important in this context, where notice to consumers and
	consumer response is actually much lower but where failure to
	act can have a similar deadly consequence.
	I will say that I am disappointed that today's hearing does
	not include a member panel on bills related to CPSC oversight
	and regulation of guns, which no less than four members have
	asked for. With an ever worsening gun crisis in this country
	and a legitimate debate about whether CPSC should have the
	authority to protect consumers in this area, it seems obvious
	that we should be exploring these legislative proposals.
	Unfortunately, requests to testify from Representatives Engle,
	Honda, Robin Kelly, and Maloney were denied by the majority.
	Again, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
	the progress we have seen at the Consumer Product Safety
	Commission and where the Commission should go from here.
	Let me just say with a couple minutes, before I was elected
	to office, I identified myself as a consumer advocate. And I am
	sure many of you enjoy or appreciate being able to see dates on
	food. And in 1970, when I was a very young housewife, we got
	together, five of us, six of us, I was the sixth, and modestly
	called ourselves National Consumers United, all six of us. And
	we went to work cracking the codes that were on every product.
	You could not tell how old the food was. It was kind of a
	raucous campaign with lawyers involved from the retailers, et
	cetera. And finally, we did win this because it has so much
	favor among consumers but it also really helped the retailers
	with their inventory control. Because seeing everybody being
	able to see the dates, there were no laws passed, but the whole
	idea mushroomed, snowballed, and now people really rely on
	those dates.
	So, I guess my point is this, that we can find ways where
	consumers and the industry, our interest coincide and we make
	life better for everyone. That incident as a very young
	housewife really changed my life, as someone who could get
	something done. And it has been my mission ever since that we
	find ways that we can make the marketplace more fair for
	consumers.
	And I yield back.
	Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair thanks
	the gentlelady.
	The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5
	minutes for an opening statement, please.

	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
	CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

	Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
	welcome those of you who are on the panel today. Please know we
	have a Medicaid hearing going on down on the first floor. So,
	we are going to be back and forth a little bit today in sharing
	our time.
	The chairman mentioned some of the problems with the 1110
	import system and we are going to want to come back to you on
	that issue with some questions. Third party testing burdens,
	there are some issues that remain with this program.
	I really would like to just go a little bit to the point.
	We feel as if we have given you a mandate to reduce these
	regulatory burdens and testing burdens and to look at the
	marketplace as a whole and to say how do we achieve our goals
	with product safety, consumer safety, and how do we do this in
	an effective and efficient manner, that is going to be fair to
	the taxpayer. And we are going to look at you, come to you with
	some questions about how you are relieving that regulatory
	burden and what you see as being some best steps, next steps as
	we try to reduce that.
	With that Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back my time
	but say we do want to approach a couple of these specific
	issues with specific answers. Thank you.
	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The
	gentlelady yields back.
	The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full
	committee, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes for an opening statement,
	please.

	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
	IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

	Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I want to start by noting that we received letters from
	Representative Engle, a member of the full committee, Mr.
	Honda, Mr. Maloney, and Ms. Kelly requesting a member panel at
	this hearing. And each of these members has introduced
	legislation that would amend the jurisdiction of the Consumer
	Product Safety Commission over guns and toy guns. And I think
	the issues raised by these members certainly is worthy of
	discussion and I am disappointed that the request was denied by
	the chairman and by the majority.
	While the topic of today's hearing was listed as industry
	perspectives on the CPSC, I am encouraged that the perspective
	of consumer advocates was added and I look forward to that
	testimony.
	In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety
	Improvement Act, CPSIA, and in follow-up legislation 2011 made
	major improvements to CPSC's operations and to the safety of
	consumer products. One of the most successful sections of the
	CPSIA was the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification
	Act, which was authored by our ranking member Schakowsky. And
	this portion of the law requires the Commission to develop
	mandatory safety standards for durable infant or toddler
	products, such as infant walkers, high chairs, and cribs. Final
	safety standards for 14 products have been promulgated and
	proposed safety standards for six more products have been
	issued.
	And that is great progress but there is still more to do.
	As the Commission moves beyond implementation of the CPSIA, the
	Commission need an agile system to deal with emerging hazards.
	Recently, we have heard numerous reports of hoverboards
	catching fire or exploding, not to mention all those videos of
	riders falling off of their hoverboards.
	There is the ongoing issue of artificial turf fields. For
	over a year, I have been calling on the CPSC and others to
	conduct a comprehensive review of these fields and questioning
	the safety of crumb rubber used on artificial playing turf and
	playgrounds across the country. That crumb rubber is made from
	recycled tires that often contain cancer-causing chemicals. It
	is clear that we need more information about the safety of
	crumb rubber. But in the meantime, kids play on it every day
	and so we need to begin this review immediately.
	Although the CPSC Commissioners are not hear today, I look
	forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the CPSC can
	work with industry and consumer safety advocates on these types
	of emerging hazards. I want to know how the Commission can best
	address foreseeable risk and be better prepared when unexpected
	problems occur.
	We should strive for proactive safety instead of just
	waiting to react after injuries or deaths occur. We should
	continue to encourage new and innovative products but they must
	be safe for consumers.
	And the CPSC plays a vital role in protecting lives of all
	Americans. It is a small agency with a big mission but we must
	ensure that the CPSC has the support from Congress and the
	resources it needs to fulfill its mission.
	I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

	Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by noting that we
	received letters from Representatives Engel (a member of the
	full committee), Honda, Maloney, and Kelly requesting a member
	panel at this hearing.
	Each of these members has introduced legislation that would
	amend the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety
	Commission over guns and toy guns. The issues raised by these
	distinguished members certainly are worthy of discussion and I
	am disappointed that their request was denied by the Chairman
	and by the majority.
	While the topic of today's hearing was listed as industry
	perspectives on the CPSC, I'm encouraged that the perspective
	of consumer advocates was rightly added, and I look forward to
	that testimony.
	In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety
	Improvement Act (CPSIA). CPSIA and follow-up legislation in
	2011 made major improvements to CPSC's operations and to the
	safety of consumer products.
	One of the most successful sections of the CPSIA was the
	``Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, which was
	authored by Ranking Member Schakowsky. This portion of the law
	requires the Commission to develop mandatory safety standards
	for durable infant or toddler products, such as infant walkers,
	high chairs, and cribs. Final safety standards for 14 products
	have been promulgated, and proposed safety standards for six
	more products have been issued.
	That is great progress, but there is more to do. As the
	Commission moves beyond implementation of the CPSIA, the
	Commission needs an agile system to deal with emerging hazards.
	Recently, we have heard numerous reports of hoverboards
	catching fire or exploding, not to mention all those videos of
	riders falling off of their hoverboards.
	There is the ongoing issue of artificial turf fields. For
	over a year, I have been calling on the CPSC and others to
	conduct a comprehensive review of these fields and questioning
	the safety of crumb rubber used on artificial playing turf and
	playgrounds across the country. That crumb rubber is made of
	recycled tires that often contain cancer-causing chemicals. It
	is clear that we need more information about the safety of
	crumb rubber. But in the meantime, kids play on it every day,
	and so we need to begin this review immediately.
	Although the CPSC Commissioners are not here today, I look
	forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the CPSC can
	work with industry and consumer safety advocates on these types
	of emerging hazards. I want to know how the Commission can best
	address foreseeable risks and be better prepared when
	unexpected problems occur.
	We should strive for proactive safety, instead of just
	waiting to react after injuries or deaths occur. We should
	continue to encourage new and innovative products, but they
	must be safe for consumers.
	The CPSC plays a vital role in protecting lives of all
	Americans. It is a small agency with a big mission. We must
	ensure that the CPSC has the support from Congress and the
	resources it needs to fulfill that mission.
	Thank you.

	Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks
	the gentleman.
	The Chair would note, and I think the members of the
	subcommittee would agree with me, that we offer our condolences
	to you and your family on the recent loss of your father.
	Certainly, our thoughts are with you, Frank.
	That concludes our opening statements.
	We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
	and for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee.
	Today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening
	statements, followed by questions from us. Our panel for
	today's hearing will include Mr. Erik Pritchard, the Executive
	Vice President and General Counsel for the Recreational Off-
	Highway Vehicle Association; Mr. Jonathan Gold, the Vice
	President for Supply Chain and Customs Policy at the National
	Retail Federation; Ms. Rachel Weintraub, the Legislative
	Director and General Counsel for the Consumer Federation of
	America; and Mr. Mark Fellin, Director of Regulatory and
	Legislative Affairs at the Juvenile Products Manufacturing
	Association.
	We sincerely appreciate all of you being here today. We
	thank you for the privilege of your time. We will begin the
	panel with Mr. Pritchard and you are recognized for 5 minutes
	for an opening statement, please.

	STATEMENTS OF ERIK PRITCHARD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
	GENERAL COUNSEL, RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE ASSOCIATION;
	JONATHAN GOLD, VICE PRESIDENT, SUPPLY CHAIN AND CUSTOMS POLICY,
	NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION; RACHEL WEINTRAUB, LEGISLATIVE
	DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA;
	AND MARK S. FELLIN, DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE
	AFFAIRS, JUVENILE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

	STATEMENT OF ERIK PRITCHARD

	Good morning. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of the
	committee. My name is Erik Pritchard. I am the Executive Vice
	President and General Counsel of the Recreational Off-Highway
	Vehicle Association, commonly known as ROHVA. ROHVA is a not-
	for-profit trade association sponsored by Arctic Cat, BRP,
	Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, Polaris, Textron, and Yamaha.
	ROHVA was formed to promote the safe and responsible use of
	recreational off-highway vehicles, commonly referred to as ROVs
	or side-by-sides--I like ROV--manufactured and distributed in
	North America. ROVs are used by families, emergency personnel,
	and the U.S. military in a variety of environments ranging from
	mud to sand, to forest to trials. This is a vibrant high-growth
	industry and a bright spot in the U.S. manufacturing economy.
	I last appeared before this subcommittee on May 19, 2015.
	Then, as now, the topic was the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
	Commission, CPSC, which is the principle Federal regulator of
	the ROV industry. But much has changed over the last 8 months
	since that hearing.
	By way of background, ROHVA is accredited by the American
	National Standards Institute, ANSI, to develop voluntary
	standards for the equipment configuration and performance
	requirements of ROVs. Voluntary does not mean opt-in or opt-
	out. Voluntary standards become the benchmark against which
	product design and performance is judged. Really, voluntary
	means industry and other stakeholders, including the CPSC and
	consumers, voluntarily develop product standards pursuant to
	ANSI standards development procedures.
	I am pleased to report that the ROV industry and the CPSC,
	as well as other stakeholders have worked together to develop
	an updated voluntary standard for ROVs, effectively mooting the
	CPSC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for ROVs. In this regard,
	CPSC staff's December 1, 2015 to ROHVA reads, ``CPSC staff
	supports the proposed changes to the voluntary standard and
	believes the aggregate effect of improved vehicle stability,
	handling, and occupant protection will reduce injuries and
	deaths associated with ROV rollovers.''
	As a result of this support, we expect that once the
	updated voluntary standard is published, likely in a few
	months, CPSC staff will recommend that the Commission terminate
	the rulemaking. This positive outcome resulted from the joint
	efforts of industry and CPSC staff, and through Congress'
	leadership, including, in particular, the efforts of this
	subcommittee.
	Without belaboring the history, industry discussions with
	the CPSC had some positive momentum back in September and
	October of 2014, when representatives of ROHVA and each member
	company traveled to Rockville and Bethesda, Maryland, to
	explain how close the parties were and that any differences
	could be overcome through further discussion.
	Unfortunately, that momentum stalled on October 29, 2014,
	when the Commission voted three to two to issue its Notice of
	Proposed Rulemaking for ROVs. Nevertheless, the industry and
	CPSC resumed their discussions with meetings in March, May,
	July, and October 2015, culminating with ROHVA circulating the
	updated draft voluntary standard a few months ago.
	The leadership and efforts of the U.S. Congress were
	instrumental in helping industry and the CPSC achieve this
	positive result. Senators and representatives from both parties
	repeatedly the CPSC to engage in the voluntary standards
	process, rather than pursue rulemaking. This subcommittee went
	further and elicited testimony from various stakeholders,
	including from CPSC Commissioners and the industry, regarding
	the ROV In-Depth Examination Act, the RIDE Act, which would
	require an independent examination of CPSC's proposals in
	supporting data by the National Academy of Sciences, among
	others.
	Due to the successful agency-industry collaboration on the
	updated voluntary standard, however, it now appears that that
	review required by the RIDE Act will not be necessary. This
	process was costly and time-consuming for both CPSC and the
	industry and we appreciate the CPSC staff's diligence in
	working through the issues with us.
	It is indisputable that the U.S. Congress has other
	important and complex business and yet, Congress and this
	subcommittee took the time to provide the necessary oversight
	essential to a properly functioning regulatory system. That is
	no small thing.
	On behalf of the ROV industry, thank you for your
	dedication to helping resolve this important matter.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Pritchard follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
	yields back.
	Mr. Gold, 5 minutes for an opening statement, please.

	STATEMENT OF JONATHAN GOLD

	Mr. Gold. Good morning Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
	Schakowsky, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
	Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning and
	provide NRF's views on the activities and developments at the
	CPSC. I would like to ask that my full statement be included in
	the record.
	NRF is the world's largest retail trade association,
	representing all segments of the retail industry. We have a
	proud history of engaging with the CPSC, especially since the
	enactment of the CPSIA. While we have had some issues with its
	implementation and interpretation, we have always sought to
	positively interact with the CPSC with the viewpoint and
	objective of ensuring that products our members sell are safe
	for American families.
	NRF's members have no interest in selling unsafe or
	violative products. A vibrant and well-resourced CPSC and a
	marketplace free of unsafe products is aligned with the
	interest and desires of retailers and the safety well-being of
	their consumers.
	NRF has, for several years, strongly encouraged the CPSC to
	create a permanent trade advisory group similar to the Advisory
	Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border
	Protection, the COAC, which routinely advises the CBP on the
	many complex issues related to both imports and exports of
	goods.
	The CPSC did facilitate the formation of a product safety
	and working group under the COAC to advise on the proposed
	product safety certificate e-filing mandate, the Section 1110
	Rule. We appreciate Chairman Kaye helping to facilitate this
	working group, which has led to the creation of the current e-
	Filing Alpha Pilot. Again, having an official advisory
	committee in place to tackle these and other complex supply
	chain-related issues will help the CPSC in the future.
	Now, the Section 1110 Rule did contain many troubling
	provisions in addition to the sweeping new mandate, including
	possibly changing who is required to issue the CPSC certificate
	and expansion of the data required on the certificates. We hope
	the pilot will address some of these issues and concerns that
	we have moving forward.
	NRF members are also concerned with two of the proposed
	regulations that may have little benefit to consumer safety but
	enormous burdens on the regulated industry. These include the
	proposed Voluntary Recall Rule and the so-called 6(b) Rule. NRF
	strongly questions these proposals' necessity, let alone the
	enhancement of product safety. We have placed new mandates and
	burdens on companies that voluntarily report information to and
	that offer to voluntarily recall products in conjunction with
	the CPSC.
	Chairman Kaye has publicly stated that these two proposed
	rules are not his priorities. We would then urge the Commission
	to fully withdraw these proposals and initiate formal
	stakeholder discussions about how such rules can be best served
	and benefit consumers.
	Another related proposal before the Congress is a renewed
	request by the agency for authority to impose user fees for the
	agency's Risk Assessment Methodology to screen imports for
	possible product safety violations and risk. While we strongly
	support risk-based targeting, we have many questions about how
	such user fee will be developed, collected, and used.
	Mr. Chairman, we believe that programs such as the Retail
	Reporting Program could continue to provide valuable
	information to the agency. The program is in limbo right now,
	as the agency continues to conduct an internal review. We
	believe a robust retail reporting program will provide benefits
	to the CPSC, program participants, and most importantly
	consumers, by alerting the agency to product safety issues at
	the very earliest stage possible.
	As the CPSC moves forward towards regulating in the
	enormously complex and fast-changing global supply chain, we
	strongly believe that the agency needs to further collaborate
	with all stakeholders to ensure that regulations not only meet
	their stated goal, but do so in a way that does not overly
	burden the industry. Regulations must not only work, but they
	must be implemented in a seamless manner.
	I will note that there does appear to be a new spirit of
	bipartisanship among the Commissioners. Chairman Kaye, all of
	the Commissioners, and senior staff seem to be more willing to
	listen to the views, the concerns of agency stakeholders. These
	are very welcome trends and ones which we again hope will
	materialize into more permanent efforts to engage the public
	and those most impacted by the Commission.
	Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly raise an
	issue of concern for retailers; that is, the real and growing
	trend of the CPSC to look primarily to retailers for recalls
	and other corrective and punitive actions, rather than other
	participants in the supply chain that might be better
	positioned to both identify and respond to product safety
	issues. Traditionally, the CPSC has looked primarily to product
	manufacturers to identify and report product safety issues as
	well as undertake product safety recalls. This makes sense,
	since the product manufacturers are typically in the best
	position to identify, understand, and respond to product
	design, manufacturing, or other problems that may lead to a
	consumer hazard. That presumptions seems to have been reversed
	and more and more recalls are being sought first and, in many
	cases, solely of retailers.
	Mr. Chairman, years of adjustment immediately following
	enactment of the CPSIA were difficult and, at times, even
	chaotic. Things seem to have regularized and NRF and its
	members recognize and appreciate the recent efforts of this
	Commission and the dedicated CPSC staff to try to bring
	additional clarity and stakeholder to the agency's still-
	changing policies and practices, though much more remains to be
	done on this front.
	The traditional agency model of everything invented here no
	longer works in a real-time world of global supply chain
	dynamics. We are dedicated to continue positive engagement with
	the agency and its leaders to ensure that the safety of
	American families continues to be our mutual and primary
	objective.
	Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
	forward to questions.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Gold follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
	The Chair now recognizes Ms. Weintraub, 5 minutes for your
	opening statement, please.

	STATEMENT OF RACHEL WEINTRAUB

	Ms. Weintraub. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
	Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, I
	appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on CFA's
	perspectives on the CPSC.
	I am Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and General
	Counsel with CFA. CFA is a non-profit association of
	approximately 280 pro-consumer groups that was founded in 1968
	to advance the consumer interest through advocacy, research and
	education.
	The CPSC has been working hard to protect consumers from
	product hazards. The CPSC has been communicating with
	businesses about CPSC rules in an unprecedented way, including
	the recent release of a regulatory robot, which will help
	businesses determine which product safety rules apply to their
	products in real time. The Small Business Ombudsman has been
	speaking to business stakeholder business groups, has provided
	direct guidance to thousands of callers and has revamped its
	Web site to provide clear information.
	The implementation of the CPSIA has been a high priority
	and should continue to be so for the CPSC. The CPSC has
	promulgated more rules than it ever has in its history and has
	done so in a relatively short period. The rule are
	substantively strong and have had an important and positive
	impact on consumers. Because of the rules promulgated by the
	CPSC, over a dozen infant durable products, including cribs,
	infant walkers, play yards, and strollers must now meet new
	robust standards. For all of these products, third party
	testing and certification requirements are required. This work
	must continue.
	Another high priority for the CPSC is the consumer incident
	database, saferproducts.gov, required by CPSIA. Some 27,273
	reports have been posted to the site and the database is an
	important and useful tool for consumers, researchers, doctors,
	coroners, and the CPSC. We urge the CPSC and Congress to use
	this resource to protect consumers.
	We urge the CPSC to prioritize these emerging and
	longstanding issues that they are already working to address.
	For example, the CPSC is actively investigating at least 48
	hoverboard fires in 19 States. The CPSC sent out two statements
	on hoverboards warning consumers of potential risks, announcing
	investigations into the incidents and providing consumer
	recommendations. The CPSC announcements have been relied upon
	by many entities who have sought to protect consumers.
	Unfortunately, we know that these products remain in consumers'
	homes, potentially posing risks.
	Potential safety concerns have been raised about crumb
	rubber from tire scraps that are used in playground surfacing
	and synthetic field surfacing. Health risks posed by these
	materials could include lead exposure and cancer risks.
	In 2008, CPSC issued a statement indicating that artificial
	turf made from crumb rubber was OK to install and OK to play
	on. But CPSC has since distanced itself from that release,
	causing consumer uncertainty and concern.
	CPSC is providing technical assistance to California's
	review of crumb rubber and is working with other agencies with
	jurisdictions over this product. CPSC needs an increase in
	their budget appropriation to ensure that these and other
	emerging safety issues can be effectively addressed.
	I now wish to discuss a few long-standing hazards that are
	priorities for the Consumer Federation and should also be for
	CPSC and Congress.
	Window coverings. Due to the documented and persistent
	hazards that cords on window coverings pose to children, in May
	of 2013, CFA and others filed a petition requesting that the
	CPSC promulgate a mandatory standard to make operating cords
	for window coverings inaccessible. At least 11 children die
	each year, despite six industry attempts at developing adequate
	voluntary standards. Deaths and injuries can be eliminated by
	designs that already exist and are available on the market.
	Flame retardants in consumer products. These can be found
	in numerous types of consumer products that have been
	associated with serious health problems. These chemicals
	migrate out from the household products into air and dust.
	Children are especially at risk.
	The CPSC is considering a petition filed by CFA and others
	to adopt mandatory standards to protect consumers from health
	hazards posed by the use of non-polymeric, additive form,
	organohalogen flame retardants in children's products,
	furniture, mattresses, and the casings surrounding electronics.
	Recreational off-highway vehicles pose hazards to consumers
	and the CPSC indicates there were 335 deaths and 506 injuries
	related to ROVs from January 2013 to April 2013. ATVs injured
	at least 93,700 people in 2014 and killed an estimated 638
	people as well. More work needs to be done on these issues.
	Recall effectiveness. The vast majority of consumers who
	own a product never find out that the product they own has been
	recalled. Much more needs to be done.
	I thank you for your consideration.
	[The prepared statement of Ms. Weintraub follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
	The Chair recognizes Mr. Fellin, 5 minutes to summarize
	your opening statement, please.

	STATEMENT OF MARK S. FELLIN

	Mr. Fellin. Thank you, Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member
	Schakowsky for the opportunity to provide testimony to this
	committee.
	JPMA is a is a national not-for-profit trade association
	representing 95 percent of the prenatal industry, including the
	producers, importers, and distributors of a broad range of
	child care articles that provide protection to infants and
	assistance to their care givers. Innovating, manufacturing, and
	providing safe products is a priority for JPMA members.
	As a new father to my 5-week-old son, Tucker, I personally
	understand the importance of ensuring that our children are
	safe in all environments and that parents and caregivers are
	educated about the importance of using juvenile products
	safely.
	My testimony today will focus on three areas. First, JPMA's
	relationship with the CPSC as it relates to Section 104 of the
	CPSIA. Second, the CPSC staff involvement throughout the ASTM
	process and, third, industry concerns that the integrity of the
	ASTM Standard setting process be maintained as it relates to
	Section 104 rules.
	JPMA has been instrumental in the development of many key
	standards that have advanced public safety. For example, ASTM
	Subcommittee F15.18 on cribs, toddler beds, and changing tables
	received former Chairman Inez Tenenbaum's inaugural Chairman's
	Circle of Commendation Award for its work as crucial to the
	development of CPSC's new mandatory crib standards, the
	strongest in the world.
	JPMA and CPSC staff have worked collaboratively throughout
	the ASTM process. Relying on each other's expertise, we have
	been able to enhance safety through the ASTM consensus process
	by facilitating the creation of effective standards based upon
	hazard data. Like any relationship, it is not always without
	complications. Let me be very clear. Our industry appreciates
	uniform national safety regulations. The ASTM process is the
	backbone of many advances in product safety. However, this
	process is based upon consensus agreement only after
	consideration of data and sound hazard analysis.
	Over the years, our members have taken CPSC input into
	account when developing and revising the ASTM Juvenile Product
	Standards. We believe in the collaborative nature of the
	process. However, for its part, CPSC staff must better
	understand and appreciate the realities of implementing
	standards for the design and production of actual products.
	As this committee knows, the CPSC is a data-driven agency.
	ASTM participants often rely on CPSC staff to provide summaries
	of verified incident data and engineering analysis.
	Historically, such data has been provided in accordance with
	CPSA Section 6 requirements. Unfortunately, most recently, such
	data has not been shared as required for effective standard
	setting. We urge the CPSC to provide such data, as available,
	and believe that the process works best when there is a two-way
	street.
	We agree with the CPSC's recent recognition and strategic
	plan to address such shortfalls and applaud its desire to
	improve its data systems and increase databased decisionmaking.
	Additionally, our members have significant concerns about
	the manner in which warnings are currently being discussed
	through the ASTM process. We remain committed to safety and
	advancing the standards but believe that arbitrarily changing
	language and/or format in the NPR, after it has been discussed
	and balloted on multiple occasions within the ASTM process,
	does not allow for the best standard to be incorporated as the
	final rule. Additionally, staff action has created the
	perception amongst many participants at ASTM that the CPSC will
	ultimately change the standard during mandatory rulemaking,
	regardless of consensus at ASTM.
	At the end of last year, participants of ASTM shared in a
	letter to the Chairman this sentiment and urges CPSC to delay
	implementation of any juvenile product rulemaking specific to
	product, package, and instruction warning, until a consensus-
	based approach could be reached. That letter has been submitted
	for the record for your review.
	JPMA believes strongly in the importance of effective
	recall, combined with Government cooperation. The CPSC's award-
	winning voluntary recalls program has saved manufacturers
	countless hours of negotiations and ensured that recalled
	products are voluntarily and quickly removed from traditional
	and virtual store shelves. The proposed changes to the
	voluntary recalls rule are unnecessary and problematic.
	Congress has had, on multiple occasions, the opportunity to
	make changes to the 6(b) process but has not. We believe that
	the confidentiality safeguards available under CPSA Section
	6(b) are vital in maintaining a process that has been in place
	and working for decades.
	While we do not agree with the Commission's decision to
	keep these projects in the operating plan, we do appreciate the
	Chairman's public commitments that neither of these will be
	heard for decisional vote.
	The CPSC and JPMA share the same goal, to advance safety.
	We commend the Chairman for his willingness to work with
	industry on issues, such as the electronic filling of
	certificates at import. We are also encouraged with recent
	studies commissioned by the CPSC to look for ways to reduce the
	burdens posed by excessive third party testing requirements and
	hope that these efforts will finally result in meaningful
	relief to all companies, specifically small ones.
	The CPSC leadership and staff continue to state that there
	is an open-door policy at the agency for all stakeholders. It
	is paramount that this policy be maintained and respected.
	We look forward to our continuing engagement with the
	committee and the CPSC and the ability to walk through an open
	door.
	Thank you Chairman Burgess and members of the committee for
	calling this hearing and inviting JPMA to testify. I look
	forward to your questions.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Fellin follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
	The Chair thanks all of our witnesses today. I certainly
	thank you for spending your time with us this morning.
	We will move now into the questions portion of the hearing.
	I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions first.
	And Mr. Fellin, congratulations on the birth of your 5-
	week-old.
	Mr. Fellin. Thank you.
	Mr. Burgess. You look awfully well-rested for someone with
	a 5-week-old at home.
	Mr. Fellin. I have a very supportive wife.
	Mr. Burgess. There you go.
	Well, your members are pretty heavily engaged in voluntary
	standards in a unique manner. Can you give us a sense of the
	overall relationship between your industry and the Commission?
	Where is the collaboration particularly strong and where are
	there points of tension?
	Mr. Fellin. Overall, the relationship between our agency
	and the CPSC in the ASTM process is extremely strong. We have
	had multiple occasions where CPSC has referenced the final ASTM
	rule without changes. So, for the most part, it is a good and
	positive dialogue.
	Where there is concern right now amongst industry and our
	relationship are really when it comes down to warning labels
	and the way that discussion is currently occurring. There has
	been a lot of work, many ad hoc committees that have discussed
	this and, unfortunately, the resolution just doesn't seem to
	come to fruition with this issue.
	Mr. Burgess. Are you hopeful or optimistic that that gulf
	could be bridged?
	Mr. Fellin. Unfortunately, based on recent discussions, I
	feel like we are at an impasse. And the fear is that the CPSC
	is going to go ahead with rulemaking and incorporating of the
	ANSI standards without necessarily going through the ASTM
	process.
	Well, thank you for sharing that with us. Perhaps that is
	something where the subcommittee could have some additional
	interest.
	Mr. Pritchard, you were here before and I certainly thank
	you for your remarks this morning. It is rare, as a member of
	Congress, when we hear that we have done our job and things
	have worked. So, I appreciate you for sharing that experience
	with us.
	But in May when you testified, your industry was right in
	the middle of updating its voluntary safety standard. It was
	contentious with the Consumer Product Safety Commission staff.
	How important was it for your industry that the CPSC staff
	reevaluated their recommendations to the Commission once the
	voluntary standard was updated?
	Mr. Pritchard. So, I think the factor in the middle of
	that, the reevaluation or the recommendation to the
	Commissioners, I think what they have done is they have
	evaluated the updated draft standard, which they received late
	last year, seemingly approve it, based on their letter. We have
	had good conversations about it and in our view, we are moving
	forward to finalizing the voluntary standards.
	At that time, we think that the staff will recommend that
	the Commission terminate the rulemaking. But to get from where
	we were to here, took a lot of steps and a lot of
	conversations. And frankly, Congress' involvement was crucial.
	There is just nothing else to say about it.
	I think we were in a place where we had our position, they
	had their position and someone needed to help come in and break
	the logjam and get the parties talking to each other and
	listening to each other a little bit better.
	And I would just want to add to that point that those
	conversations have continued. And so I think we are in a much
	better place than we were 8 months ago, even 6 months ago.
	Mr. Burgess. And that is to what you attribute the breaking
	of the logjam? Because when you were here before, it was pretty
	tense.
	Mr. Pritchard. It was tense and it remained that way for a
	while. I do believe it broke the logjam but I think you can't
	underestimate the CPSC staff's willingness to still engage with
	us in those discussion. We did keep talking. They deserve
	credit for continuing to talk with us and those conversations
	were in-person, on the telephone, offsite to see the vehicles
	being tested. So, it was a collective effort but I can't
	understate the importance of your involvement.
	Mr. Burgess. OK, just as a point of congressional trivia, I
	am the chairman of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus. So, I
	wanted to share that with everyone in full disclosure.
	Well, and I will, too, say the staff at the Consumer
	Product Safety Commission--it has been a few years since I have
	been out there and visited with the staff, but I have done
	that. In fact, we were working on the bill in 2007 and 2008 and
	the staff is certainly nonpartisan. Certainly, they are
	dedicated to their job of consumer safety. Some days, or some
	things, or some areas where they look quite innovative in their
	ability to actually create the tools that they needed to test a
	particular product. So, I just want to echo your sentiment on
	what a good job that the staff does and certainly, they don't
	get singled out for praise often enough.
	Mr. Gold, I just want to address one thing with you and I
	may provide some follow-up questions for you. In your testimony
	finally, I would like to briefly raise an issue that has not
	been discussed with the subcommittee or generally to date, the
	recalls being visited upon the retailer, as opposed to the
	manufacturer.
	And when I sat on this subcommittee many years ago when
	Chairman Rush was the subcommittee chair, this seemed to be a
	significant problem that products that were going to be
	recalled were finding their way into the country and then the
	recall happens. And I remember Chairman Rush expressing some
	concern that some of these products that were recalled for a
	valid reason might end up in discount houses in neighborhoods
	across the country. Is that to which you were referring in that
	part of your testimony?
	Mr. Gold. Mr. Chairman, no. Unfortunately, we are seeing
	instances where just products in general, the CPSC is going to
	the retailer first to push for recalls. We were seeing some
	issues, two issues that were mentioned earlier like hoverboards
	and window coverings, where the CPSC is going through the
	retailer and trying to make sure that products were pulled off
	the shelves or a recall is done, without working through the
	process and working with the manufacturers.
	It is a longstanding process. We just feel like there is
	more emphasis now on going to the retailer because they are the
	consumer-facing aspect to push that action before going through
	the process.
	And as far as the other products we were talking about,
	this is where kind of the worst-based methodology comes in in
	risk targeting and the ability to do that to make sure you
	don't have these volatile products coming into the country from
	the start.
	Mr. Burgess. Yes, I do want to follow up with you in
	writing for the record.
	Ms. Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
	questions, please.
	Ms. Schakowsky. Well, hoverboards have come up a number of
	times. They were one of the most popular holiday gift this
	year. But unfortunately, we have been hearing more and more
	reports about hoverboards exploding and catching fire
	unexpectedly. So far, at least 20 U.S. colleges, several major
	airlines, and a few cities have banned them. And some retailers
	have started taking them off the shelves.
	Just yesterday, ABC News reported that a home fire in
	Tennessee was caused by a hoverboard that burst into flames.
	But a consumer who really wants one, can still find one and
	they are still unregulated.
	So, Ms. Weintraub, when it becomes apparent that a new
	product poses a safety risk, how can we ensure that things move
	quickly to reduce the number of accidents, such as leveraging
	rules that already exist for similar products or component
	parts?
	Ms. Weintraub. Well, I think what you suggested is exactly
	right. I mean we need safety standards. And I think for this
	product, we don't need to start from scratch. And UL, for
	example, is expert in lithium-ion batteries. There are other
	standards. They are already moving on a standards process.
	Hoverboards could fit into motorized scooters with an ASTM
	and they are also beginning the voluntary standard process.
	Since they don't need to start from scratch, hopefully, this
	process will move faster.
	But even before a product comes on the market, we think it
	is the responsibility of the manufacturer to do a risk
	assessment, figure out what hazards could this product pose,
	what hazards have other similar products posed, and are there
	similar standards, if not exact standards that couldn't be
	complied with to prevent that type of hazard.
	Consumers also, in a case like this, need concrete
	information. They need to know whether a product that their
	child is riding, that is sitting in their home could explode,
	could cause a fire.
	So, we hope investigations that the CPSC is conducting, and
	our understanding is they have been working around the clock,
	they worked over the holidays, we are very much hoping that
	this investigation will lead to the information so that
	consumers can have concrete information so that products that
	have caused fires will be recalled. And that is what consumers
	need, clear information.
	While it is very positive that there are some retailers
	that aren't selling these products, it is still very consuming
	and they are still very available for purchase.
	Ms. Schakowsky. Hoverboards are not exclusively a child's
	product. So, they are not subject to the same safety standards
	as toys. Is there a gap that we should be concerned? Should
	there be more strict standards in place for products like
	hoverboards which are not made just for kids but are certainly
	used by kids?
	Ms. Weintraub. I think there is a gap for any product that
	is not subject to a voluntary or mandatory standard and we have
	seen this with infant and juvenile products, as well as with
	other products like hoverboards that when there is not a
	standard already in place, there can be risks. And I think this
	product very much shows what can happen when there is not a
	standard and when manufacturers are not testing their products
	to similar types of standards to ensure, in this case, that the
	batteries and the charging mechanisms don't overheat and pose a
	fire risk.
	Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted to ask you about imports. The
	Chairman of CPSC has said that inexpensive models of
	hoverboards manufactured in China are of particular concern and
	that many of the problematic units seem to be coming from
	there. Customs and Border Protection recently seized almost
	3,000 counterfeit hoverboards that they said ``posed a
	potential health risk to U.S. consumers.''
	So, can you talk about some of the challenges associated
	with ensuring the safety of imported consumer products?
	Ms. Weintraub. Sure, especially in cases where products are
	manufactured overseas, imported, and there is not an entity in
	the U.S., it is very difficult for the CPSC to talk with that
	entity, to conduct a voluntary recall, to discuss safety
	issues. So, I think that poses a specific risk to these types
	of products. I think it is for that reason that retailers who
	are the first contact that consumers have with these products
	are being contacted and do have a responsibility. And we
	certainly think that everyone in the supply chain from the
	manufacturer to the retailer, to testing labs, the entire
	supply chain has a responsibility to ensure that products on
	the market don't pose risks to consumers.
	And this is also why we are very supportive of CPSC's
	efforts at import surveillance because another layer in product
	safety is to prevent these products from entering the U.S.
	market and getting into our homes.
	Ms. Schakowsky. Great. I will yield back. Thank you. Thank
	you very much.
	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The
	gentlelady yields back.
	The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, the
	author of the RIDE Act, 5 minutes for questions, please.
	Mr. Pompeo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Pritchard, what are the lessons learned? How do we
	repeat the success that we collectively add to your industry,
	CPSC and their staff, us here on the committee and the
	Congress? What are the lessons about timing and how we can be
	constructive to work together to get good outcomes for
	consumers and for manufacturers a well?
	Mr. Pritchard. So, I think there a couple steps and I will
	base it on our experience but I think that they can be applied
	fairly broadly.
	One, I think when industry realizes that there is an
	impasse with the Commission, then industry needs to bring it to
	your attention and let you know that there is a problem. I
	think at the Commission, if they are in discussions with
	industry, they should keep those discussions going.
	In my view, voting out the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
	was a profound mistake and I will tell you why today and what I
	said then. Essentially, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking puts
	industry on the defensive. And so then, in response, industry
	submits comments back, which are critical, which puts the
	Commission on defensive. So, at that point, it is really hard
	to have a discussion because everybody has basically got their
	backs up, trying to defend positions, rather than trying to
	reach the best outcome.
	So, it is really this. Industry has got a part to play in
	keeping the discussion going. The Commission has a part to play
	in keeping the discussion going. And I think then Congress has
	to be involved early enough to be part of those discussions, to
	let the parties know that Congress is paying attention and that
	Congress is expecting a sensible resolution because I am
	assuming you all don't want to have to deal with legislation
	every time an impasse comes up, whether it is with this Federal
	regulatory agency or another one.
	Mr. Pompeo. That is a pretty fair assumption. Thank you for
	that.
	Ms. Weintraub, you talked about the Consumer Product Safety
	database a little bit in your opening comments. You said there
	were 27,000. What period was that over?
	Ms. Weintraub. So, that is from when it----
	Mr. Pompeo. Is that from inception?
	Ms. Weintraub. Inception. Conception--no, not conception.
	Creation.
	Mr. Pompeo. From when it began.
	Ms. Weintraub. When it began. I think it went online in
	2011 until January 21, 2016.
	Mr. Pompeo. And tell me what benefits you can tangibly
	identify that resulted from that.
	Ms. Weintraub. Sure. Well, as you well know, with 6(b),
	there was a limited amount of information that the CPSC has
	been able to communicate naming brands of products.
	So, before, if a consumer was interested as Mr. Fellin has
	been, in purchasing a product for a new baby, there is limited
	information. He is in a different case because he is an expert
	but there is limited information that you can get from CPSC's
	Web site, other than general information about hazards
	associated with strollers, in particular.
	So, what this database has created is a resource for
	consumers. They could see if they are looking for a stroller
	what consumers' experience has been. They can see if they own a
	stroller, whether someone else has a similar experience or
	maybe it is just specific to their use.
	So, I think it has really created a much more robust and
	much more rich resource for consumers, as well as for
	researchers and others. Something else we have been able to
	identify is sort of well what are the product categories that
	are most represented. Are there trends? So, we have looked at
	his data for that type of stuff.
	Mr. Pompeo. Do you know what the error rate is then, that
	is complaints that were made, items listed of those 27 that
	were just flat out wrong, they had the wrong manufacturer, it
	was un-useful information or even worse?
	Ms. Weintraub. I am sorry, do I know the number that had
	errors?
	Mr. Pompeo. Yes, that were just flat out wrong.
	Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
	Mr. Pompeo. Like if somebody was mad and they wrote down it
	was Brand X and it turned out they had nothing to do with Brand
	X.
	Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
	Mr. Pompeo. Do you know how many hours were spent for
	manufacturers responding in the way that they are required to
	respond by law to items that appear on the CPSC database?
	Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
	Mr. Pompeo. Do you know how much it costs them to do that?
	Ms. Weintraub. I do not.
	Mr. Pompeo. So, not tangible benefits that have been
	identified. That is, we can quantify that and you have no idea
	of what those costs were.
	Ms. Weintraub. I do not have knowledge of those costs.
	Mr. Pompeo. Great, thank you.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair
	recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
	Pallone, 5 minutes for questions, please.
	Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	My questions, initially, are to Ms. Weintraub about the
	crumb rubber, the crumb rubber issue. Over the last several
	years, questions have been raised about the safety of
	artificial turf, which is used in schools, parks, daycare
	centers, and sports fields throughout the country. An NBC News
	report in October 2014 documented a growing group of young
	athletes diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who played on
	artificial turf fields filled with crumb rubber. And the crumb
	rubber is often made from recycled tires, which contains
	carcinogens.
	Following the NBC report, I sent a letter to the Centers
	for Disease Control asking for an official study to examine
	risks of continued exposure to crumb rubber. And in May 2015,
	during a hearing in front of this committee, CPSC Chairman Kaye
	agreed with me that more research is needed. And in October
	2015, Chairman Upton and I sent a letter to the EPA, once
	again, expressing concerns on this issue. But I have to say
	that I am disappointed that still nothing has been done.
	And clearly, this is a complicated issue. Many agencies are
	involved. So, Ms. Weintraub, are you aware of any existing
	industry standards to prevent the use of toxic chemicals in
	artificial turf?
	Ms. Weintraub. I am not aware of a specific standard for
	crumb rubber. We could certainly hope that since it is going
	into a children's product that similar standards could be used
	as guidance, for instance, in terms of lead and other heavy
	metals, but I am not aware of a specific standard.
	Mr. Pallone. Is the research sufficient to conclude that
	exposure to crumb rubber is safe and that it is OK for kids to
	play on it, you think?
	Ms. Weintraub. No, I do not think the research is
	sufficient, and we very much support your position and that of
	the CPSC that more research is needed and that all the
	entities, State, Federal, need to work together as quickly as
	possible to research this issue.
	Mr. Pallone. I think you answered my next question. It was
	about CPSC's limited resources to investigate the possible
	health effects of prolonged exposure to crumb rubber. And you
	said that you do think it would be beneficial for them, CPSC to
	work with the other agencies.
	Artificial turf and crumb rubber has been in use for more
	than a decade. They are using it on playing fields, playgrounds
	across the country but there are a lot of serious safety
	questions that linger unanswered, while our children and
	athletes continue to be exposed. Let me ask you again. What can
	the CPSC do to address safety and health concerns with new
	products, not just crumb rubber, but with new products before
	they come to market so that our children are not the test
	subjects?
	It often seems like the product comes to market and then if
	things go wrong, OK, then we take another look at it. Can we
	look do things differently in that regard?
	Ms. Weintraub. I think we can. I think the responsibility
	lies with the manufacturers of the products to ensure that they
	meet standards, if standards exist. And then if no specific
	standards exist that they use those as guidance to ensure that
	they don't pose risks to consumers. We actually think that for
	many products, such as infant and toddler products, that
	product should not go on the market if there is not a voluntary
	standard.
	Mr. Pallone. You know I think that the public thinks it is
	the opposite. They are shocked when you tell them well, the
	product goes on the market and then we see if it is safe. They
	assume that is has already been tested and safe before it goes
	on the market. But that is not the case. Correct?
	Ms. Weintraub. Correct. And that is certainly true. I mean
	consumers perceive that if a product is available for sale that
	has been tested by some entity for safety. We have tried to
	bridge that gap with CPSIA for infant and toddler products but
	we still have a long way to go.
	Mr. Pallone. Well, let me just ask one more question about
	the artificial fields. I am also concerned about the possible
	physical injuries that can occur while playing on artificial
	fields, such as joint injuries from increased resistance or
	burns from overheated turf. Should the CPSC also be
	investigating these other possible safety concerns, in your
	opinion?
	Ms. Weintraub. Definitely.
	Mr. Pallone. All right. I have a minute left. I wanted to
	ask a little about emerging hazards but I know I don't have
	much time. Is there a difference in how emerging hazards from
	consumer products are handled when they relate to a defect, as
	opposed to an unintended use, such as kids biting into laundry
	pods? I know when my wife starting using these laundry pods, I
	was wondering what they were. My understanding is that kids
	will think they are candy.
	So you know the question is, does that response tend to be
	faster for one than the other of those two types of things?
	Ms. Weintraub. You know I really think, and I worked on the
	laundry pod issues as well as many others, and I think one of
	the biggest responsibilities of a manufacturer is to think of
	foreseeable use, which may include unintended use. But
	foreseeable use of how the product is used in the real world
	must be thought about, must be assessed, and the product must
	be designed for that foreseeable use.
	Mr. Pallone. OK, thanks a lot.
	Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks
	the gentleman.
	The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
	Guthrie, 5 minutes for questions, please.
	Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
	conducting this meeting and I thank all the witnesses for being
	here.
	My first question is for Mr. Pritchard. Based on your
	recent experience of vetting the ROV voluntary standard, should
	we be concerned about how the Commission is using or not using
	scientific data to support these policy positions?
	Mr. Pritchard. Our experience was that the data did not
	support the Commission's claims.
	I want to go back in time. We received the Notice of
	Proposed Rulemaking in a briefing package and it had a lot of
	claims in it with references to data and incident reports that
	were separate. So, we requested all of those records and all
	that data and couldn't get it. We couldn't get it and we
	ultimately filed a FOIA appeal, which was granted in its
	entirety some months later.
	When we dug into the data, the data did not match, in our
	view, the claims and we explained that in our comments back to
	the Commission in response to the Notice of Proposed
	Rulemaking. I don't know if that means that there is a profound
	issue or a fundamental issue. I can just tell you that we had
	an issue with the data.
	Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Gold or Mr. Fellin, do you have any
	comments on that type of--that is fine. I have got another
	question. You can go ahead.
	Mr. Fellin. We have had similar concerns along the ASTM
	process where we have requested data from the agency, both
	verbally at ASTM meeting and then also in writing to the
	various CPSC staff members on it and have been denied that
	information.
	Mr. Guthrie. I have a question for you, Mr. Fellin. In May
	2012, the GAO published a report recommending that the
	Commission staff participate more actively in the voluntary
	standards process. Given your experience with the agency, is
	the delay between the publication data of the GAO report, May
	of 2012, and the effective date of the new rules, March 3rd of
	this year, typical?
	Mr. Fellin. I think it all depends on staff resources and
	the priorities of a given Commission.
	Mr. Guthrie. Well, given the importance of voluntary
	standards to the product safety and the Commission's mission,
	should this rule update have been priority over other of their
	undertakings?
	Mr. Fellin. From JPMA's perspective, CPSC already plays a
	vital role in the 104 rulemakings, which I think are a unique
	standard-setting process. We raised concerns with the proposed
	rule mainly that agency staff not have undue influence over the
	process and that staff not dictate Commission decisions. But I
	can't speak as to whether or not it should have been a higher
	priority for other industries.
	Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you very much.
	And Mr. Gold, you mentioned the Commission's open meetings
	policy in your testimony. Transparency is what we all want to
	see happen. It is a Government good. It is what we need to have
	in place, but just a question about it.
	What impact does this policy have on the Commission's
	ability to communicate with industry and are there
	circumstances where Commission resources have benefitted from
	feedback from the industry prior to releasing the proposed
	rule?
	Mr. Gold. Thank you, Congressman. So, I think the alpha
	pilot is probably the prime example of where there was an issue
	because, as this working group was created under the COAC,
	which is a Customs advisory committee, we had plenty of
	discussions with Customs but yet, CPSC was not in the room for
	these discussions, our technical discussions on how supply
	chains work, how data is transferred, who owns it at what point
	in time. So, as this is a CPSC rulemaking, they are going to be
	relying on CBP to collect the data, not having CPSC in the room
	to understand some of these difficulties was a little
	challenging because we would have to CBP to provide us
	information from CPSC with questions and challenges, and that
	we would have the discussion, and we would have to rely back on
	CBP to go back to CPSC to do the interpretations.
	So, we fully understand transparency and the need for that
	but there are certain times when you have to have these
	technical meetings where you have companies who are talking
	about very business confidential information as far as how
	their supply chains work and what data they have and when they
	have it. Those kinds of meetings get very technical and we
	think should be closed. And this is where an advisory
	committee, whether it is a FACA or some other committee could
	help with this process moving forward.
	It would have been nice, had we had the opportunity to have
	these working group discussions or stakeholder meetings before
	the 1110 rule was put out to talk about some of this so we
	didn't have a rule put out that everybody was opposed to and
	listed a whole number of concerns. Had we had those discussions
	in advance and talked about the complexities, and really had
	discussion about what is it that CPSC wants, what it is that
	industry can provide, it would have been a better position to
	be in than where we are now. We are glad we have the pilot in
	place to really work through some of these technical issues and
	try and figure out how this is best going to work.
	Again, we are very supportive of risk-based targeting. We
	think this will help but because of the complexities, we can't
	just put a rule out and expect everyone to do it. This needs to
	be worked through because of the technical aspect of it.
	Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. My time has expired. I yield
	back.
	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
	yields back.
	The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
	Clarke, 5 minutes for questions, please.
	Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Chairman Burgess for this very
	important hearing. And to all of our witnesses today, thank you
	for lending your expertise to the subject matter at hand.
	I want to raise the issue of recall effectiveness. We would
	all like to avoid problems before they happen but sometimes
	unexpected harms arise. In these cases, the CPSC works with the
	manufacturer of a defective product to conduct a recall but
	notice to consumers is difficult and recall response rates tend
	to be very low.
	So, Ms. Weintraub, do you have any ideas on how the CPSC or
	industry can be more proactive in reaching consumers when there
	is a recall on a product?
	Ms. Weintraub. Yes, I do. Thank you very much for the
	question.
	Both Kids in Danger and the Chairman have said that those
	involved in selling products should use the same amount of
	energy and resources that they do to sell a product to get a
	product back that has been recalled. And we are very far from
	that goal.
	I think there are many things that both the CPSC and those
	in the supply chain can do, using innovative technology, using
	social media, using information that retailers and others have
	about consumers who bought specific products. I think one of
	the issues is targeting the right people, ensuring that the
	people who have the product, who bought the product know about
	a recall.
	I also think it is important for the information to be
	clear. These things should be called recalls. They should be
	available on the Web sites. They should be communicated clearly
	with a very clear action for what the consumer should do,
	clearly articulating the risk. And I think this is a subject
	that many have been working on for a long time but it needs a
	lot more attention.
	Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
	Mr. Fellin, the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety
	Notification Act requires manufacturers of durable infant
	products to provide consumers with a postage-paid registration
	card with each product to improve the effectiveness and
	response rate of recalls. What are your member companies doing
	to increase the rate of return on those registration cards?
	Mr. Fellin. Recall effectiveness is something that I think
	our industry, as well as the consumer groups and governmental
	have the same priority and that is to get the message out as
	quickly as possible. We were proud last year to actually work
	with CFA and the consumer groups to develop an ``It's Not Hard!
	Fill Out the Card!`` campaign. And the whole process of that
	was to educate consumers that it takes 2 minutes. It is postage
	paid for, fill out the card, get it back to the manufacturer.
	While manufacturers continue to try and figure out
	innovative ways to try and reach the consumer, the last thing
	we want as an industry is to have a product that has been
	recalled reach the hands of another consumer and we look to
	continue to work with the agency. And I have asked the agency,
	in meetings with them, to conduct a workshop that would bring a
	lot of these issues to the foreground and discuss recall
	effectiveness because it is a priority for industry as well.
	Ms. Clarke. You just mentioned that you are looking into
	alternative methods as well. Can you drill down on that a
	little bit?
	Mr. Fellin. Of course. A lot of our manufacturers, based on
	the fact that a lot of parents nowadays are younger and much
	more tech savvy have also published registration information on
	their web pages. There is also technology out there that has
	begun to allow to take pictures of various information will
	allow the products to be registered that way. So, we are
	constantly evaluating and looking at ways in which to improve
	that aspect of products.
	Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you.
	Mr. Gold, often, manufacturers do not have a relationship
	with consumers but retailers do. What are you member companies
	doing to help get notice to consumers when there is a recall?
	Mr. Gold. You know I think they are doing as much as they
	possibly can. I think, again, as Mr. Fellin said, having this
	workshop to talk about recall effectiveness and how messages
	are put out I think is very important. It is not as easy for a
	retailer to just throw up a recall notice on their Web site,
	there are challenges there. And I think we need to talk through
	that and figure what is the best way.
	Ms. Clarke. You said they are doing the best that they can.
	Is there something specific that they are doing?
	Mr. Gold. I don't have the specifics----
	Ms. Clarke. OK.
	Mr. Gold [continuing]. How retailers are doing it. It
	really depends on the retailer, the relationship, how they are
	getting information out the customers or the users.
	Ms. Clarke. Any examples?
	Mr. Gold. I don't have any.
	Ms. Clarke. OK.
	Mr. Gold. I can provide you some later on. I just can't
	provide you any right now.
	Ms. Clarke. OK, sure. Thank you.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
	The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs.
	Brooks, 5 minutes for questions, please.
	Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
	witnesses for their insight.
	Indiana is actually the home of a very, very large presence
	of toy companies and juvenile product manufacturers across our
	State. And Mr. Fellin, you probably know well that Dorel is the
	largest juvenile product manufacturer in the Nation. It is
	based outside of my district down in Columbus, Indiana, but 950
	people work around the clock many shifts to try to ensure that
	they are producing incredibly safe, the safest products
	possible.
	I have a company called IMMI based in Westfield that works
	closely with Dorel to try to ensure that they are designing
	products that are safest on the road. And then in my district
	that I recently visited a toy manufacturer--I am sorry--a
	puzzle manufacturer called Package Right, a puzzle facility in
	Tipton, and I am very pleased to learn that they actually
	brought production back from China in order to ensure safety
	and to reinvest in our economy.
	Back in May, I asked the Chairman--and Mr. Fellin, I will
	start with you--I asked the Chairman of the CPSC about what
	actions they have taken to provide relief to companies for some
	of the third party testing requirements and he mentioned the
	Office of the Ombudsman, that it is providing support and
	assistance to find out whether or not they need certain
	testing. And I am curious whether or not from your companies
	that you work with, how have they found the Ombudsman Office
	either helpful or is it sufficient in reducing the costs and
	burdens to your member companies?
	Mr. Fellin. I don't know if it has necessarily helped in
	reducing the cost. But in terms of helping navigate a very
	complex regulatory framework, the Office of the Ombudsman has
	been extremely helpful in that capacity.
	Mrs. Brooks. Are you still dealing with a lot of the
	smaller manufacturers with respect to their third party testing
	burdens and can you share a bit more about that?
	Mr. Fellin. Absolutely and it doesn't just extend to the
	small manufacturers. Our large manufacturers feel the testing
	burden just the same.
	We are certainly encouraged by the agency's desire to
	promulgate studies on ways to reduce burden and our industry
	has been very active and testified at the CPSC hearings with
	regards to burden reduction.
	Since Congress allocated funds specific to burden
	reduction, we have yet to see any meaningful reduction in that
	capacity but we certainly would welcome it.
	Mrs. Brooks. And when did that happen that Congress
	allocated?
	Mr. Fellin. I believe in last year's Appropriations Bill,
	they allocated $1 million.
	Mrs. Brooks. And you have seen nothing done with that $1
	million?
	Mr. Fellin. To my knowledge, we have not seen anything that
	would provide meaning for you.
	Mrs. Brooks. OK. I am curious whether or not any of the
	other panelists are aware as to whether or not CPSC has used
	the appropriated dollars. Is anyone aware of this issue?
	Mr. Gold. I am aware of the issue but I am not aware,
	again, as Mr. Fellin, that the work continues. I think folks
	are waiting to continue to see CPSC put out more guidance and
	more ways for companies to reduce testing burdens. I know there
	was additional monies put in the budget but we are, again,
	waiting to see the effectiveness of this.
	Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Gold and Mr. Fellin, you both mentioned in
	your testimony a lack of transparency in the Commission's
	justification for a number of the activities, including
	proposals to amend the voluntary standards processes and
	proposed rulemakings. How important do you think it is for the
	Commission to justify its activities and prioritization of
	activities? And it would seem that it would help this committee
	ensure that the committee's actions are directly tied to its
	critical safety mission in a measurable way. And so how
	important is it that you think, and I guess all of you, to
	justify its activities and prioritization of its activities,
	when we don't know how they are using even the funds that have
	already been appropriated?
	Mr. Fellin. The CPSC routinely says that they are a data-
	driven agency and they continue to request from our members
	data when making any decision. And I think, in any
	relationship, providing data and a rationale for why you are
	doing things just provides good dialogue. And I would hope that
	in any decision that they were making, that they provided the
	proper rationale for doing so.
	Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Gold?
	Mr. Gold. I would agree. I think two-way communication is
	critical, especially as you are looking at some of these issues
	to get a full understanding of what the issue is and what is a
	reasonable response and how do we move forward is critically
	important.
	We see this with other agencies as well. We think it is
	important to have the bidirectional conversation and
	bidirectional education, where the complexities in the supply
	chain are understood and realized. So, if there are issues with
	recall, let's have a workshop and a dialogue so that you get
	the best and brightest minds in a room and have a conversation
	on how to make this work better.
	If there are issues of recall is not happening because of
	some companies who don't do it, don't punish those who are
	always doing this the right way. Let's focus on how do we go
	after those bad actors.
	So, I think that conversation is extremely important and
	the justification is just as important.
	Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. And just from my conversations, Mr.
	Chairman, child safety is number one priority for all these
	companies. Thank you. I yield back.
	Mr. Burgess. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
	The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch.
	Mr. Welch. No, I yield, Mr. Chairman. I don't have
	questions.
	Mr. Burgess. Very well. The Chair then recognizes the vice
	chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Lance from New Jersey, 5 minutes
	for questions.
	Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Gold, at a recent public Commission meeting, there was
	a discussion between the Commissioner Buerkle, whom we know,
	and Import Surveillance staff about the new pilot project to
	improve targeting of potentially unsafe products at the border.
	During the discussion and the video is available on the
	Commission's Web site, the staff was asked about its
	justification for adding the name of the testing lab to the
	list of mandatory disclosures for the pilot.
	The staff said that it had no quantitative information to
	support the proposal. Is it concerning that the Commission is
	putting together a pilot program without data to support its
	work and is there a risk that this undermines the willingness
	of companies to participate in the project?
	Mr. Gold. Yes, but again, our hope is that with the pilot
	project we can actually identify what are the data elements
	that are needed to help enhance risk management.
	Part of the concern is that there is always a request for
	more data but more data isn't always necessary. From our
	perspective, we would have had a better conversation from the
	outset with CPSC asking what data do you think you need, what
	are you currently getting, and how is that helping risk
	assessment, as opposed to just putting out a notice saying here
	is what we think we need but not fully understanding the
	process by which all that information is acquired and what
	benefit that might actually accrue to the agency.
	So, again, coming back to having an advisory committee to
	fully dig into these issues before a notification or regulation
	is put out, we think is extremely important. Again, especially
	if there is no justification on the front end for why they need
	it, then we have to question well, why are you proposing it.
	So, again, having that conversation in advance to get a
	full understanding of what the concern is, how can we better
	address it and going into the conversation about what data is
	available, who owns it at what point in time, how readily
	available is it, how can we can get it to the Commission, we
	think are all questions that should have been done in advance
	of the NPRM coming out.
	Hopefully now, with a pilot project in place, a lot of
	these questions can be addressed.
	Mr. Lance. Thank you. Is there anyone else on the panel who
	would like to comment?
	Mr. Gold, how important is the voluntary recall process to
	retailers? How would the changes proposed by the Commission to
	the voluntary recall process have an impact on retailer's
	ability to get potentially harmful products off of their
	shelves?
	Mr. Gold. It is extremely important and I think, as was
	noted earlier in the discussion today, it is an award-winning
	program. The Commission, themselves, have noted that it is
	extremely important. I think there are concerns that any of
	these changes that have been proposed might stymie some of the
	information that might come to the Commission. Right now, there
	is times where there is not enough clarity on whether or not a
	report needs to be made.
	So right now, retailers, they have guidance from the
	Commission when in doubt, report. If they have questions going
	forward with some of the new requirements, they not be so ready
	to report if they really don't have true knowledge of the
	issue.
	So, I think continuing with the program that they have in
	place, if there are improvements that can be made, again, let's
	sit down, have a conversation and figure out what changes need
	to be made or adjusted to handle some of the issues.
	Mr. Lance. Thank you. And again, Mr. Gold, do your members
	have concerns with the user fee as proposed by the CPSC in the
	budget request of last year and this year? And is there a
	scenario that your members would support such a user fee?
	Mr. Gold. We definitely have concerns not knowing exactly
	how user fee is going to be used. There are still issues with
	the RAM, the Risk Assessment Methodology which is continuing to
	be built.
	We have, in the past had issues with other agencies
	collecting user fees intended for one purpose, they get
	siphoned off for something else.
	Mr. Lance. No, that never happens. No.
	Mr. Gold. So, that continues to be a concern. Again, if we
	can have full visibility into the system, how it is going to
	work, and have a conversation about it before just instituting
	a user fee, there might be some willingness. But again, not
	knowing how it is going to work, there are definitely concerns.
	Mr. Lance. Thank you. Is there anyone else on the panel who
	would like to comment?
	Seeing none, then, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 45 seconds.
	Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair
	thanks the gentleman.
	Let me just ask if there is anyone on the subcommittee who
	would seek additional time with our witnesses this morning.
	Seeing no further members wishing to ask questions for our
	panel, I would like to thank, again, our witnesses for being
	here today.
	Before we conclude, I would like to submit the following
	documents for the record by unanimous consent: a letter to the
	subcommittee from the American Home Furnishings Alliance, a
	statement from the Retail Industry Leaders Association.
	[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
	Mr. Burgess. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
	they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
	the record and I ask the witnesses to submit their responses
	within 10 business days upon the receipt of those questions.
	Without objection, then the subcommittee is adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
	[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

	As we enter a new budget season, I am pleased we are
	circling back to examine industry perspectives on the Consumer
	Product Safety Commission. I understand there were improvements
	in particular circumstances that the witnesses can tell us
	about, but I'm also interested in the witnesses' views on which
	issues to prioritize when evaluating the Commission's budget
	request.
	The scope of the Commission's jurisdiction in combination
	with its limited size and budget merits close attention to
	ensure that consumers' trust in this agency is not eroded
	because of activist agendas.
	I am interested in hearing from the witnesses today whose
	members engage on a regular basis with the Commission. There
	have been a number of recurring issues and we need to find a
	way to break the logjam and move forward.
	The voluntary standards process has been a success in
	covering much more ground than mandatory rulemakings by the
	Commission could have accomplished. What's more, the voluntary
	standards process proves how committed industry and the
	Commission are to making safe consumer products available in
	the U.S.
	At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would also
	like an update on the Commission's activities to reduce third-
	party testing burdens. There have been multiple bipartisan
	directives from Congress to help small businesses in this area,
	and they have not been met with substantial action from the
	Commission.
	The relationship between the Commission and industry is
	mutually beneficial and should be fostered to protect
	consumers. All relationships require work, and it is worth
	exploring how to improve the relationship here because of its
	impact on consumer safety--particularly for the safety of
	families in southwest Michigan.




	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>