    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     H.R. 1796, THE RESIDENTIAL CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING PREVENTION ACT,
     AND H.R. 4805, THE FORMALDEHYDE STANDARDS FOR COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS
                                      ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
                            AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 18, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-106

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    76-018                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            JOE BARTON, Texas
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
      Vice Chairman                      JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    LOIS CAPPS, California               MARY BONO MACK, California
    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    JANE HARMAN, California              LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
        Islands
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection

                            BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                      Chairman
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
        Vice Chair                            Ranking Member
    JOHN SARBANES, Maryland              RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey            GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                MARY BONO MACK, California
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
        officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     1
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     2
    Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Utah, opening statement........................................     3
    Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Georgia, opening statement.....................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     6
    Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Louisiana, opening statement................................     6
    Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Ohio, opening statement........................................     8
    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Illinois, opening statement...........................     8
    Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Florida, opening statement.....................................     9
    Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, prepared statement......................................    87

                                   Witnesses

    Robert J. Howell, Jr., Assistant Executive Director, Office of
      Hazard Identification and Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product
      Safety Commission..............................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Eric Lavonas, M.D., Associate Director, Rocky Mountain Poison and
      Drug Center, Emergency Physician, Denver Health Medical Center.    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    91
    John Andres, Director of Engineering, Kidde Residential and
      Commercial Division............................................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    95
    Mark Devine, Vice President of Marketing, First Alert............    32
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
    James J. Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency................................    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Tom Julia, President, the Composite Panel Association............    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    97
    Andy Counts, CEO, American Home Furnishings Alliance.............    61
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   102
    Don Ryan, Sierra Club, Founding Board Member, The National Center
      for Healthy Housing............................................    65
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
    Melvin E. Andersen, CIH, PH.D., DABT, Director, Program in
      Chemical Safety Sciences, The Hamner Institutes for Health
      Sciences.......................................................    70
        Prepared statement...........................................    72
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   105

     H.R. 1796, THE RESIDENTIAL CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING PREVENTION ACT,
     AND H.R. 4805, THE FORMALDEHYDE STANDARDS FOR COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS
                                      ACT

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010

                  House of Representatives,
               Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
                               and Consumer Protection,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
    Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L.
    Rush [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Sutton,
    Matheson, Barrow, Matsui, Castor, DeGette, Radanovich,
    Whitfield, Terry, Gingrey and Scalise.
        Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Robin
    Appleberry, Counsel; Timothy Robinson, Counsel; David Kohn,
    Press Secretary; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Daniel Hekier,
    Intern; Brian McCullough, Minority Senior Professional Staff;
    Jerry Couri, Minority Professional Staff; Shannon Weinberg,
    Minority Counsel; Robert Frisby, FTC Detailee; and Samuel
    Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will come to order.
        The Chair wants to thank all the members and the witnesses
    on both panels for your participation in this hearing this
    morning. This subcommittee is here on H.R. 1796, the
    Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, and also
    H.R. 4805, the Formaldehyde Standards of Composite Wood
    Products Act. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for
    the purposes of an opening statement.
        The subcommittee is holding today's hearing on two
    introduced bills that would protect scores of consumers from
    highly dangerous and lethal carbon monoxide and formaldehyde
    emissions. The first bill we will take up, H.R. 1796, the
    Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, was
    introduced by Mr. Matheson of Utah. The Consumer Product Safety
    Commission reports that carbon monoxide poisoning is the
    leading cause of poisoning deaths in the United States. Carbon
    monoxide poisoning claims the lives of over 400 people each
    year, hospitalizing another 4,000 individuals and it causes
    20,000 individuals to seek emergency medical treatment. H.R.
    1796 would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to require
    that residential carbon monoxide detectors meet current
    voluntary safety standards. Warning labels would have to be
    placed on portable generators advising consumers that they
    should not be used inside residential and dwelling units. And
    H.R. 1796 would authorize the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission to establish a grant program to assist the States in
    training fire code enforcement officials and educating the
    public about carbon monoxide risks and the proper use of carbon
    monoxide detectors.
        Through these simple actions, H.R. 1796 will enable
    consumers to better protect themselves against carbon monoxide
    exposure and poisoning, and I want to take this time to commend
    Mr. Matheson for his tireless work to prevent these outcomes,
    many of which are avoidable, and I look forward to hearing from
    our first panel of witnesses and our ensuing discussion on this
    important bill and this important matter.
        The second bill before us is H.R. 4805, the Formaldehyde
    Standards of Composite Wood Products Act. This legislation will
    achieve two very important goals: protecting American consumers
    and protecting American jobs. H.R. 4805 will amend the Toxic
    Substances Control Act by establishing a federal standard based
    on requirements already set by the State of California to limit
    the amount of formaldehyde that can be emitted from composite
    wood products. Because this standard will apply nationally, the
    legislation will result in greater protection for all
    Americans. It will also ensure that we do not have a repeat of
    the disaster with FEMA trailers that were used for emergency
    housing following Hurricane Katrina, which I might remind all
    of us, the thousands sick unnecessarily, and it would make all
    of our consumers much safer.
        Mrs. Matsui's proposed legislation will level the playing
    field for American manufacturers. Currently, importers do not
    have to meet these standards except to the extent that they
    conduct business in California. As a result, badly needed
    manufacturing jobs are going overseas and American consumers
    are less safe. And I want to again take this moment to applaud
    my colleague from the State of California, Mrs. Matsui, for
    championing this legislation and working hard on this
    legislation and ensuring that we are doing everything that we
    can for both consumers and businesses.
        With that, I yield back the balance of my time and
    recognize the ranking member, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes for
    the purposes of an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Chairman, and I certainly
    want to welcome all the witnesses today. We do look forward to
    your testimony, your expert testimony on both of these bills,
    and I certainly want to thank Mrs. Matsui for her bringing to
    our attention the formaldehyde issue with her legislation, H.R.
    4805, which is the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood
    Products Act.
        I don't think there is any question that all of us
    recognize the concerns with formaldehyde, and the purpose of
    these hearings of course is to bring out issues that are of
    concern to us, and one of the concerns that I have about this
    particular bill, which does not mean I am opposed to it in any
    way, but it does not write an actual standard into law and it
    does not direct the scientists at EPA to investigate this
    matter. Instead, it explicitly cites a State regulation that
    was adopted in California and it refers to the California
    provision. The California regulation has not been fully phased
    in yet. We cannot get a complete picture of any incremental
    improvements in public health or how smoothly businesses
    subjected to it have transitioned and whether consumers,
    particularly low-income Americans, have been able to have
    access to affordable products. On top of those concerns but no
    less importantly, I do always have a concern when we set a
    federal standard that there is not federal preemption, and I
    know that one of the witnesses, I believe maybe it was Mr. Tom
    Julia, although I am not 100 percent certain, expressed concern
    about their only concern about trying to push for federal
    preemption was that it might slow down this process. So I think
    that is a couple of issues that we can explore today in this
    hearing.
        And then I certainly want to thank Mr. Matheson for H.R.
    1796, the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, which we
    also recognize is a real problem. I suppose that one issue that
    we will want to explore in this hearing as well relates to
    right now I guess about 25 States have voluntary standards on
    this issue and I believe this legislation makes it mandatory,
    and it is my understanding the Consumer Product Safety Act that
    the Commission can invoke a mandatory standard but it has to be
    under certain conditions and whether or not those are met in
    this situation, I am not sure.
        One other concern that I have, particularly with our
    current financial situation in America with a $14 trillion debt
    is starting a new grant program, and I don't remember precisely
    how much money is authorized for this per year but my
    recollection was maybe it is a couple of million a year, but
    those are issues that you all are going to help us address and
    so I want to thank you for being here, Mr. Chairman, and we
    look forward to their testimony today.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, the
    author of the bill that is currently under consideration, Mr.
    Matheson, for 2 minutes for the purpose of opening statements.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing. I do look forward to hearing from the
    witnesses and look forward to hearing from my colleagues
    because that is the purpose of these legislative hearings. We
    try to look to work together to build more consensus, and I am
    certainly not wedding to the specific text of the initial draft
    of the bill. I think that is why we are here today is to learn
    and improve on that to deal with what I think is a really
    important issue. We have roughly 500 deaths a year in the
    United States from carbon monoxide poisoning. An additional
    15,000 people are hospitalized due to this. If there are
    efforts we can make that are prudent to create greater
    awareness of prevention, I think that is a worthy cause to take
    up, so I am glad that this subcommittee has scheduled this
    hearing on this legislation.
        Just real quickly, there are three basic components to the
    bill. It codifies current voluntary standards for carbon
    monoxide detectors into law. It mandates labeling standards for
    portable generators and establishes a grant program for States
    that want to raise awareness and provide carbon monoxide
    detectors.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate you calling this
    hearing. I hope it is a productive hearing for all of us and we
    look to improve on this legislation as we move forward. I yield
    back my time.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Dr. Gingrey for 2 minutes for the purposes of
    opening statement.
        Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I would like to
    ask unanimous consent to submit my prepared remarks for the
    record.
        Mr. Rush. So ordered.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

        Mr. Gingrey. I want to spend my 2 minutes, Mr. Chairman,
    relating something anecdotally, and I hope you will bear with
    me. It was 53 years ago that I was a 14-year-old kid and my mom
    and dad owned a small mop and pop motel at the state line
    between South Carolina and Georgia, and in Georgia, it was
    permitted to drink at age 21 but in South Carolina it was
    permitted to drink at age 18. So a lot of the soldiers at Fort
    Gordon would come across the river on the weekends and stay at
    our motel for a couple of nights for relaxation and yes, of
    course, to go across the street and drink a little beer. On a
    cold March night on a Saturday night, we had three soldiers in
    one of the motel rooms. Sunday morning my mom and my two
    brothers and I, all Catholic, went to Mass, and when we came
    back to the motel, we were shocked to see Army hearses in the
    parking lot from Fort Gordon, Georgia. And what had happened
    is, those three soldiers in that motel room died from carbon
    monoxide poisoning that night because of a faulty heater. My
    dad has been dead for a long time. I wish he were alive today
    so he could know about Mr. Matheson's bill and be here and
    listen to what we discuss today because he never got over that
    emotionally. It wasn't his fault but of course as I say, he
    felt to blame for the deaths of these 18-year-old and I believe
    one 19-year-old soldier from carbon monoxide poisoning. Their
    bodies were found right next to the door trying to get out of
    that motel room. They almost made it but not quite. So I have
    very strong feelings about this and I told my staff that
    instead of reading the great written remarks he had prepared
    that this really means a lot to me and it all comes back. It is
    like it happened yesterday.
        So this is serious business and I really commend Mr.
    Matheson and I commend my good friend, Mrs. Matsui, as well. I
    look forward to the testimony from the witnesses and discussion
    from my colleagues, and Mr. Chairman, with that I will yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Gingrey follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.001

        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    California, Mrs. Matsui, for 2 minutes for the purposes of
    opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
    much for calling today's hearing. I would also like to thank
    the panelists for appearing before us today and I look forward
    to hearing your views.
        The legislative proposals being discussed will help
    industry achieve consistent standards of compliance, create
    jobs, protect public health, boost consumer confidence and
    reduce harmful emissions. It is for these reasons that
    Congressman Matheson is to be applauded for sponsoring H.R.
    1796, which will require the United States Consumer Product
    Safety Commission to enforce stronger standards to protect
    people nationwide against the deadly dangers of carbon
    monoxide. As we continue to discuss ways in which certain
    products impact American consumers, it is critical that the
    federal government adopt approaches that are stimulative,
    effective, innovative and efficient. It is equally important,
    however, that we ensure that our Nation follows best practices
    and adheres to the toughest production standards in the world.
        Toward that end, I have partnered with Congressman Ehlers
    to introduce H.R. 4805, which would establish national
    standards for formaldehyde in domestic and imported composite
    wood products. The emissions of formaldehyde, which is a
    chemical widely used in a variety of composite wood product
    applications, are known to have adverse effects on human health
    and resulted in cases of toxicity for those storms victims
    provided FEMA trailers following Hurricane Katrina.
        H.R. 4805 would apply the rule recently adopted by the
    California Air Resources Board, otherwise known as CARB, in
    collaboration with industry, regulatory authorities and public
    interest groups to lower limits for formaldehyde emissions in
    those composite wood products. In doing so, the bill would
    direct the EPA to accept the standard that is already being
    practiced by our domestic industries and ensure that ongoing
    economic recovery efforts continue. I urge my colleagues to
    favorably consider this bipartisan, bicameral legislation which
    is publicly endorsed by industry, environmentalists, labor and
    health care advocates, and I commend Senators Klobuchar and
    Crapo for offering the Senate counterpart and for their
    leadership on jobs and consumer health issues.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for calling today's hearing
    and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 2 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
    Whitfield for having this hearing today.
        I believe it is important that our subcommittee continue to
    examine chemicals and substances that are used in our everyday
    lives as well as the laws governing their use in commerce. It
    is our obligation to ensure that consumers are properly
    protected. As I have said before, we must also find the
    appropriate balance between protecting our health and the
    environment and protecting jobs in this economy and the
    manufacturers who make the products that we enjoy.
        Of particular interest to me and my constituents for this
    hearing is formaldehyde. It is a chemical that is widely used
    but one that unfortunately my constituents are all too familiar
    with. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed more than
    300,000 homes and displaced approximately 700,000 people. As a
    result, FEMA and its contractors shipped over 200,000 mobiles
    home, travel trailers and other temporary housing units to our
    region. These temporary units helped meet the critical housing
    need following the 2005 hurricanes. Only later did we find out
    that some of these trailers contained formaldehyde and had
    exposed people to health risks associated with this chemical.
    According to the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector
    General, approximately one-third of the units had ``significant
    potential formaldehyde problems.'' This led to many people
    experiencing health and respiratory issues and some even had to
    move out of the trailers.
        Given the challenges we have faced, formaldehyde is an
    issue that we take very seriously in south Louisiana. That is
    why I am pleased to see some of my colleagues focusing on this
    issue and introducing legislation aimed at setting standards
    for formaldehyde in composite wood products. However, I do have
    concerns with the legislation and would like to see changes
    made. My office has discussed this legislation with a number of
    organizations and businesses involved in the composite wood
    industry and they have all echoed support for these changes.
    Chief among these is preemption. As many members have already
    said, I am afraid that without preemption, businesses will face
    a myriad of different state regulations that will only make it
    more difficult for them to conduct business. If California is
    essentially setting the national standard, what is to prevent
    them from changing the standard again, thereby creating
    different requirements and compromising the national standard?
        I am also concerned about the timing requirements and
    restrictions that could be placed on businesses. It is my
    understanding that implementation was delayed in California
    because of the challenges business faced in meeting the
    requirements. I hope that we would look at these issues and the
    potential unintended consequences that could result from this
    bill.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, formaldehyde is a serious issue that
    has impacted many of my constituents and I am pleased that we
    are having this hearing. I do hope that we will fully examine
    the legislation and proceed carefully when debating the
    possibility of implementing the prescriptive requirements of
    one State across the Nation. I look forward to hearing from our
    panelists on their views on H.R. 4805, particularly on whether
    preemption would improve the bill. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton, is
    recognized for 2 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Ms. Sutton. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and thank you for
    holding this hearing on these two bills that are critically
    important moving through the subcommittee. I am proud to be a
    cosponsor of these initiatives and I commend Mr. Matheson and
    Mrs. Matsui for their leadership on these very important safety
    issues.
        The Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act
    will require all manufacturers to meet widely accepted
    standards for carbon monoxide detectors, and the Formaldehyde
    Standards for Composite Wood Products Act will protect the
    health of American families from high uses of formaldehyde in
    common household products like flooring, paneling, cabinets and
    doors, both important objectives.
        Carbon monoxide poisoning is the leading cause of poisoning
    death in the United States and formaldehyde has been recognized
    as a carcinogen. National standards will certainly enhance
    safety for consumers and will level the playing field between
    foreign and domestic manufacturers. Currently, foreign
    manufacturers who use unsafe levels of harmful toxins like
    formaldehyde are able to undercut domestic manufacturers who
    put safety above profit. Every year, countless Americans are
    injured, sometimes fatally, by harmful products that have been
    manufactured abroad and imported into the United States.
        I recently introduced the Foreign Manufacturers Legal
    Accountability Act of 2010 to protect American consumers and
    businesses from defective products manufactured abroad. It is
    our job to protect American consumers. The American people
    expect and demand that the products that they are sold are safe
    for themselves and their families. When they install a carbon
    monoxide detector, they expect that it will warn of dangerous
    levels of carbon monoxide, and when they install a new
    countertop or paneling, they expect that the wood products are
    harmless, and we must ensure that that is the case regardless
    of where products are made. Dangerous products are dangerous
    products, and those who would profit over the safety of the
    American people must not escape accountability simply because
    they manufacture unsafe products abroad and ship them to the
    United States for our use, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
    subcommittee, the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for
    2 minutes.

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

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to be a
    cosponsor of the Residential Carbon Monoxide Prevention Act,
    which would establish a mandatory safety standard for all
    carbon monoxide detectors and requires warning labels on
    portable generators, a major source of carbon monoxide
    poisoning. I can't think of more dramatic and compelling
    testimony than we heard from Representative Gingrey about how
    important this legislation is, and I am not going to try and
    elaborate on that.
        We do know, according to the Illinois Department of Public
    Health, however, that infants are even more susceptible to
    carbon monoxide poisoning because their hemoglobin binds with
    carbon monoxide better than adults do, so this is a special
    problem for children. The highest rates are among seniors
    because they are most likely to mistake the symptoms of carbon
    monoxide poisoning for the flu or general fatigue. So I am very
    happy to join my colleagues in H.R. 1796.
        The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act
    is another very important bill, and I would ask my colleague,
    Representative Matsui, to add me as a cosponsor of the bill to
    establish a strong standard for emissions of formaldehyde from
    the covered products, which are very common in usage and in
    most of our homes and backyards. But I think it is important to
    emphasize that Congress is being forced to act on this measure
    because the Environmental Protection Agency hasn't been able to
    do so under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act. This is
    another reason why we will turn our attention to reforming TSCA
    later this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska,
    Mr. Terry, for 2 minutes.
        Mr. Terry. Waive opening statement.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 2
    minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. I will put my opening statement in the record.
        [The information was unavailable at the time of printing.]
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 2
    minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and good morning,
    everyone.
        It is a good day when we can come to a hearing and discuss
    bipartisan legislation that will put more Americans back to
    work and make families and communities safer. I am supportive
    of both of these bills because there is no doubt they will save
    lives and jobs. When industry and public health can agree that
    new laws are in the best interest of all involved, that is very
    positive. However, I want to stress that these bills should be
    viewed as just steps in the path to where we really need to go.
    They don't really bring us across the finish line.
        Now, H.R. 1796, the carbon monoxide bill, requires that the
    voluntary standard for carbon monoxide alarms be made
    mandatory, as many of you know, carbon monoxide, it is the
    leading cause of poisoning death in the United States each year
    so the urgency to pass this bill is particularly acute for
    Floridians because we are beginning to plan for hurricane
    season, and besides bottled water and batteries, Floridians are
    going out to buy generators, and when the big storms roll up
    through the Gulf or the Atlantic, they lose power and start
    their generators, and these generators, they will put them in
    the garages and the gas is colorless, odorless, and this poison
    can kill them while they sleep and we have had some very sad
    occasions there. So we need to pass this uniform standard. This
    is going to protect all of us. It is a good start but what we
    really need to do is pass comprehensive TSCA reform so that we
    don't create more loopholes with piecemeal chemicals
    legislation. We need to give EPA the authority to regulate
    harmful chemicals in many of the products that are being dumped
    on us from overseas.
        So in closing, I strongly support both of these bills and
    encourage my colleagues to vote for them as well.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and the Chair
    thanks all the members for their opening statements.
        It is now my privilege to welcome our panel of witnesses
    before this subcommittee. It is indeed an esteemed panel, and I
    will introduce each panelist beginning on my left where we find
    Mr. Robert J. Howell, Jr., who is the assistant executive
    director of the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction
    for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Seated next to
    Mr. Howell is Dr. Eric Lavonas, who is the associate director
    of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, and he is an
    emergency physician at the Denver health Medical Center in
    Denver, Colorado. And seated next to Dr. Lavonas is Mr. John
    Andres, who is the director of engineering for the Kidde
    Corporation. And seated next to Mr. Andres is Mr. Mark Devine,
    who is the vice president of marketing for First Alert, which
    is an outstanding and illustrious company from my home State of
    Illinois located south of Chicago in Aurora, Illinois, where I
    visited many times, and First Alert is indeed an excellent
    Illinois corporate citizen.
        I want to welcome all of the witnesses today, and I want
    you to know that it is the practice of this committee that each
    witness must be sworn in, so would you stand and raise your
    right hand?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Rush. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
    all answered in the affirmative.
        And now we will invite Mr. Howell to present his opening
    statement. Mr. Howell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

        TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. HOWELL, JR., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
     DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND REDUCTION, U.S.
        CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION; ERIC LAVONAS, M.D.,
      ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POISON AND DRUG CENTER,
    EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN, DENVER HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN ANDRES,
       DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, KIDDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
     DIVISION; AND MARK DEVINE, VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, FIRST
                                 ALERT

                   TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. HOWELL, JR.

        Mr. Howell. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
    Whitfield and members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
    and Consumer Protection. My name is Robert Howell and I am the
    assistant executive director for the Office of Hazard
    Identification and Reduction at the U.S. Consumer Product
    Safety Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
    before you this morning regarding H.R. 1796, the Residential
    Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act and the overall
    dangerous of carbon monoxide poisoning.
        Before I begin, I would like to note for the record that
    the testimony that I will give this morning is mine and
    reflects the views of my technical staff. The testimony has not
    been reviewed or approved by the Commission and may not
    necessarily reflect the views of the Commission.
        Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas
    that results from the incomplete combustion of fuels such as
    natural gas, gasoline, oil, coal and other fuels. The health
    effects related to carbon monoxide depend upon its
    concentration in the blood, which in turn depends upon its
    concentration in air, the duration of exposure and each
    individual's general health.
        Some symptoms of CO poisoning may mimic common illnesses,
    such as influenza or colds, opening up the opportunity for an
    initial misdiagnosis. Patients are frequently unaware of
    exposures to carbon monoxide, and health care providers may not
    always consider carbon monoxide poisoning as a cause of such
    nonspecific symptoms.
        CPSC staff estimates that there were 180 unintentional,
    non-fire carbon monoxide poisoning deaths in 2006 associated
    with consumer products with 71 percent of these deaths
    occurring in homes. Gas furnaces and boilers have historically
    been a leading cause of carbon monoxide deaths associated with
    consumer products. However, portable generator-related have
    increased more than 350 percent in recent years from an average
    of about 16 deaths per year from 1999 through 2001 to about 75
    deaths per year from 2004 through 2006. But regardless of the
    type of appliance involved in the incident, CPSC data show that
    carbon monoxide poisoning and death are much more likely to
    occur in homes with no functioning carbon monoxide alarms.
        CPSC recommends that every home have a carbon monoxide
    alarm in the hallway near the bedrooms in each separate
    sleeping area. These alarms should be battery operated or plug-
    in with a battery backup. CPSC publishes annual press releases
    on the importance of maintaining home heating systems using
    carbon monoxide alarms, meeting the requirements of the UL 2034
    standard and installing carbon monoxide alarms outside every
    sleeping area in the home. We also issue our rapid response
    media alerts when an oncoming storm is likely to spur power
    outages, as happened in this winter's historic snowfalls. The
    Commission has also taken action to warn consumers of the
    specific danger posed by the improper operation of portable
    generators. In January 2007, the Commission issued a final rule
    making a portable generator labeling requirement mandatory on
    units manufactured after May 13, 2007.
        The Commission has also directed staff to investigate
    methods to address the carbon monoxide hazard associated with
    portable generators. CPSC staff is working expeditiously and
    making excellent progress to develop and demonstrate a proof of
    concept for technology that would lower the risk of carbon
    monoxide poisoning associated with portable generators. To
    date, the work has yielded promising preliminary results such
    as prototype generators which would significantly lower
    emissions rates than found in today's marketplace. However, it
    likely will take another 2 years of additional testing and
    modeling before the Commission is ready to consider a proposed
    rule to regulate carbon monoxide emissions from portable
    generators.
        CPSC staff supports the goals of H.R. 1796. Carbon monoxide
    alarms save lives by warning consumers of the presence of
    carbon monoxide before the onset of its debilitating effects.
    CPSC staff believes that the current edition of UL 2034 is an
    effective standard and that products meeting those requirements
    provide adequate protection against carbon monoxide poisoning.
    Making conformance to UL 2034 mandatory will establish a
    minimum acceptable performance standard for carbon monoxide
    alarms and will give CPSC greater authority to keep non-
    complying carbon monoxide alarms out of the U.S. marketplace.
        CPSC staff also supports the provisions in H.R. 1796 for a
    state grant program for carbon monoxide alarms. Reportedly,
    only 35 to 50 percent of U.S. households have carbon monoxide
    alarms. Working with state and local authorities is critical to
    amplifying our message on the dangers of carbon monoxide
    poisoning. Getting carbon monoxide alarms into more American
    homes, both existing and new construction, will save lives. We
    believe the passage of H.R. 1796 along with our work to reduce
    or eliminate carbon monoxide emissions at the source, alerting
    consumers to the presence of hazardous carbon monoxide levels
    if they occur, and educating consumers to the hazards posed by
    carbon monoxide will provide a comprehensive approach to
    addressing the risk to the American consumer from carbon
    monoxide.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
    testify on H.R. 1796 and the overall issue of carbon monoxide
    dangers.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Howell follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.007

        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Lavonas for 5
    minutes for the purposes of opening statement.

                       TESTIMONY OF ERIC LAVONAS

        Dr. Lavonas. Good morning, and thank you. I would like to
    thank the committee and particularly Mr. Rush and Mr. Matheson
    for inviting me to be here today. As Mr. Rush said, I am an
    emergency physician and a medical toxicologist from Denver. I
    am one of Ms. DeGette's constituents. Thank you. I am the
    associate director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug
    Center, which is the State-designated poison control center for
    five States, and also a faculty member at the University of
    Colorado.
        As Mr. Gingrey said, this is serious business, and I am
    passionate about this, probably for the same reason that Mr.
    Gingrey is. Carbon monoxide poisoning is the leading cause of
    unintentional poisoning death. That is after you subtract out
    deaths related to complications from drug abuse. The most
    recent data from CDC reports 562 unintentional deaths caused by
    carbon monoxide poisoning. That was in 2004. That is not
    counting fire-related deaths nor is it counting another 1,200
    deaths due to suicide. There are approximately 20,000 people
    treated in America's emergency departments each year because of
    unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning. Again, that is not
    counting suicide attempts. As Ms. Schakowsky pointed out,
    infants and the elderly are at increased risk, as are women.
    Surprisingly, there is not much variation around the country.
    North, south, east or west, this is still a big problem. Of
    those 20,000 or so people treated in emergency departments
    every year, about a quarter will have lasting brain damage, and
    that is even with the best available medical treatment. This is
    a major public health problem in the United States.
        So Mr. Gingrey stole my thunder. Statistics are important
    but sometimes it helps to understand two or three deaths
    instead of 562. In November 2008, we had an incident in the
    Colorado mountains in which the Lofgren family from Denver won
    use of a ski house in their kids' Presbyterian school charity
    auction. Unfortunately, a vent pipe in the heating system of
    that home had come unglued, apparently well installed but some
    glue failed. A pipe was disconnected. Parker and Caroline
    Lofgren, their 10-year-old son, Owen, and their 8-year-old
    daughter, Sophie, never woke up the next morning.
        In January of 2009, we had a winter storm blow through
    Denver, as it is wont to do, and it loosened the chimney cap on
    an apartment building near the University of Denver. So the
    building super went up on the roof, tightened the cap down as
    you should do, and accidentally killed a 23-year-old graduate
    student named Lauren Johnson, who was found dead in her
    apartment the next morning.
        But let me tell you a success story, and these kinds of
    success stories are why I am here. So when I was in Charlotte,
    North Carolina, we helped to pass and then strengthen a
    residential carbon monoxide alarm ordinance. The Charlotte
    ordinance requires a carbon monoxide alarm in every dwelling
    unit in the county. So this January, about 2 months ago, a
    woman, presumably a single mom, for reasons that I don't
    understand decided to use a charcoal grill inside the house to
    cook a meal for herself and her three small children. Now, the
    landlord is a good landlord and he complied with the law so
    there was a carbon monoxide alarm and a smoke alarm in every
    dwelling unit in the building. Her carbon monoxide and smoke
    alarms went off but she knew the building wasn't on fire. She
    didn't understand about carbon monoxide and presumably she
    pulled the batteries. A few hours later, the carbon monoxide
    alarm in the upstairs apartment went off. The upstairs neighbor
    recognized the problem, went downstairs to check on his
    neighbor. He could hear people moving inside the apartment but
    nobody could answer the door, so he called Charlotte Fire
    Department. They gained entry to the apartment, found the
    mother semicomatose on the floor and the children severely ill.
    Happy ending. So if you want to know why am I here today, there
    are five very good reasons why I am here today. We had a good
    landlord spurred by a good law.
        The impact on the survivors is meaningful. For example, I
    took care of an international--this is a patient I treated, so
    I can't use his name but an international building business
    consultant who flew back from wherever he flew back from, got
    home to his apartment, dropped his bag on the couch, went to
    bed. In the middle of the night his carbon monoxide alarm went
    off. He had to crawl down the steps to get help but we were
    able to treat him. He initially made what looked like a good
    recovery and then subsequently developed some problems with
    concentration. I lost track of him after we had referred him to
    brain injury rehab but he was unable to work, unable to perform
    his job.
        So as you have heard, carbon monoxide poisoning is called
    the silent killer. This poison has no warning properties. You
    can't see it, you can't smell it. It mixes freely with air. The
    first signs that you are being poisoned feel like the flu:
    vomiting, diarrhea, achiness, fatigue, headaches. Doctors miss
    this diagnosis a lot, sometimes with tragic results.
        If we are going to do something about this, we need three
    things: source reduction, early detection and public education.
    Now, I am sitting next to an expert from the Consumer Product
    Safety Commission so it is silly for me to talk about source
    reduction. I am not an engineer. Public education is important
    and both CDC and CPSC are doing aggressive messaging for public
    education. We can always do more. But we are here today to talk
    about early detection, carbon monoxide alarms. Even if you
    could control the behavior of 303 million Americans, there are
    127 million households in this country and things break. I have
    had a carbon monoxide leak in my own home, and my home is 2
    years old. Carbon monoxide alarms are inexpensive. They are
    about 20 bucks, and the price keeps going down. The sensor
    reliability for modern alarms is very good. We tracked our
    false alarm rate in Charlotte and found that about 60 percent
    of the time when Charlotte Fire Department got called for CO
    alarm activation, they found CO in the home.
        As Ms. Castor said, this bill is a small step towards an
    important goal and I support the goals of this bill, and would
    look forward to an opportunity to come back with something even
    more effective and impactful in the future. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Lavonas follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.011

        Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Andres for 5
    minutes.

                        TESTIMONY OF JOHN ANDRES

        Mr. Andres. Good morning. I am John Andres, director of
    engineering for Kidde Residential and Commercial Division
    located in Mebane, North Carolina. Thank you, Chairman Rush and
    members of the committee, for the opportunity to contribute to
    the discussion on the prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning
    in the United States.
        Kidde Residential and Commercial Division is part of UTC
    Fire and Security, a subsidiary of United Technologies
    Corporation. We are a proud leader in designing and
    manufacturing lifesaving residential carbon monoxide alarms and
    other fire safety devices and are committed to strict
    compliance to industry standards.
        Kidde supports enactment of H.R. 1796, the Residential
    Carbon Monoxide Safety Act. The Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention report each year unintentional CO poisoning kills
    more than 400 Americans, requires 20,000 more to seek emergency
    medical attention and causes more than 4,000 hospitalizations.
    H.R. 1796 is a strong first step toward preventing these
    tragedies. I commend Congressman Matheson for his leadership in
    elevating this public health and safety issue.
        H.R. 1796 would focus much-needed federal attention and
    resources toward ending accidental carbon monoxide poisoning,
    The bill's provisions to create a grant program supporting
    residential CO alarm laws are especially important. However,
    for the purposes of today's hearing, my comments will focus on
    describing the carbon monoxide hazard and how CO alarms operate
    to provide warning and on explaining why it is necessary to
    establish mandatory federal product safety standards as laid
    out in H.R. 1796.
        Known as the silent killer, carbon monoxide is a byproduct
    of incomplete combustion. Potential sources are gas-burning
    appliances such as a furnace, water heater, stove and grill as
    well as other fuel-burning devices like fireplaces and engines.
    If such devices are improperly installed or malfunction, carbon
    monoxide can build up inside a home. Carbon monoxide easily
    mixes with the air and can quickly reach dangerous levels.
    Because one cannot see, taste or small carbon monoxide, the
    only safe way to detect the gas is to install working carbon
    monoxide alarms. Kidde and fire safety experts such as the
    National Fire Protection Association recommend placing carbon
    monoxide alarms outside each bedroom and on every level of an
    occupied dwelling.
        When inhaled, carbon monoxide bonds with the blood's
    hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin, which then deprives cells
    of oxygen. The CO alarm works by measuring CO concentrations
    over time to ensure that an alarm will sound before a person's
    blood level reaches 10 percent carboxyhemoglobin. Below this
    level, a normally healthy adult will not experience symptoms of
    CO poisoning.
        Two key attributes of carbon monoxide alarms are accuracy
    and reliability. These form the cornerstone of Underwriters
    Laboratories UL standard 2034, an independent third-party
    standard for which carbon monoxide alarms are voluntarily
    tested and listed. UL 2034 is an American National Standards
    Institute, or ANSI, accredited standard that combines input
    from medical experts, approval bodies like UL, government
    agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act,
    the National Fire Protection Association, users and
    manufacturers in order to create a robust standard of
    performance. First published in 1992, UL 2034 has gone through
    several revisions, each of which is based on years of field
    test data intended to progressively strengthen the standard.
    Kidde supports this standard because it specifically tests the
    product design for electrical safety, mechanical robustness and
    the accuracy of CO detection over time and in different
    environmental conditions. UL 2034 is continually reviewed by a
    standards technical panel in order to keep pace with
    technological advances and past lessons learned. This revision
    process has led to the creation of CO-sensing technology that
    is more advanced, stable and reliable than past generations.
        To date, 24 States have enacted laws requiring CO alarms in
    residential dwellings, and while most mandate that CO alarms
    meet UL 2034, there is no uniform requirement. More States will
    likely adopt similar legislation in order to avoid confusion
    among regulators, consumers and the industry. State lawmakers
    need a consistent standard to define what constitutes an
    approved alarm. Without such a reference, conflicting
    regulations arise that counter one of the CPSC's objectives,
    which is to develop uniform safety regulations for consumer
    products and to minimize conflicting State and local
    regulations.
        In closing, each week we hear families whose lives have
    been saved through the use of carbon monoxide alarms. Having a
    CO alarm can make the difference between life and death. A
    federal standard would provide an umbrella of protection for
    all consumers in the United States as well as increased
    awareness and save lives.
        Again, I thank the committee members for their
    consideration of H.R. 1796 and for raising awareness about CO
    dangers. Congressman Matheson, we look forward to working with
    you to pass this important legislation expeditiously. Thank you
    for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Andres follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.016

        Mr. Rush. Mr. Devine is recognized for 5 minutes.

                        TESTIMONY OF MARK DEVINE

        Mr. Devine. Thank you very much, and good morning. As the
    chairman indicated, I am Mark Devine, vice president of
    marketing for First Alert and BRK Brands in Aurora, Illinois. I
    would like to first take this opportunity to thank all of the
    members for bringing this important issue in front of us all
    today. I would like to also thank Chairman Rush for his kind
    words regarding our company. We do enjoy being in Illinois with
    you, sir. In addition, I would like to thank Mr. Matheson for
    really representing this whole event in front of us today.
        First Alert is a whole-home safety company with a
    foundation in fire safety, carbon monoxide safety and
    extinguishing products. Our name is very synonymous with
    alarms, and like Mr. Andres, we also take pride in our quality,
    innovation, engineering and our manufacturing. We are also a
    leader in our industry in terms of public outreach and
    collaboration with all the fire safety organizations.
        I speak for First Alert when I say that we are concerned
    about protecting and preserving human lives. That is the
    primary reason that we support in its entirety the Residential
    Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, H.R. 1796. As we
    understand it, this bill would require carbon monoxide alarms
    to be installed in residential dwellings and places where
    people sleep. This provides an effective way to reduce the
    incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning.
        The need for such federal regulation is strong. Carbon
    monoxide continues to be the number one cause of accidental
    poisoning in the United States. Each year, tens of thousands of
    people as we have heard are driven into the medical care
    facilities as well as over 400 lives are lost each year. We are
    keenly aware of how many fatal CO poisoning incidents occur in
    this country. Another example is just recently Amanda's Law
    took effect in the State of New York. This was named for Amanda
    Hansen. She died of CO poisoning at age 16 while sleeping at a
    friend's house. The law requires that New York State residents
    take necessary precautions to protect themselves from the
    silent killer. Amanda's father, Ken Hansen, has become a vocal
    proponent of measures that would require consumers to protect
    themselves from carbon monoxide poisoning.
        Moreover, each year we receive hundreds of calls, letters
    and e-mails from individuals whose families have been saved,
    and I brought just a few examples today of the literally
    hundreds of examples that we receive from people who purchased
    alarms and who have had unfortunate incidents but the alarms
    saved their lives. These people take the time to literally
    write in, call in, e-mail, send photographs because they feel
    so compelled after they have had the saving incident from the
    alarm, so it is a strong testimonial as to why I am here today
    is to help more individuals understand the necessity for alarms
    within their homes.
        To better ascertain consumers' knowledge about carbon
    monoxide and their awareness, we conducted a survey in 2009
    where we spoke to 1,000 adults across the United States. The
    survey that we conducted, we found some very startling
    statistics. Forty-seven percent of households still do not have
    carbon monoxide alarms. These products have been in existence
    for well over 10 years, a lot of education, a lot of
    information, but again, nearly 50 percent still do not have
    alarms. We also asked consumers do you understand the
    importance of carbon monoxide. Seventy-three percent of those
    individuals said yes, they do understand carbon monoxide is
    very hazardous and it is very important to them that they have
    protection but yet they are not going out and purchasing
    products to protect themselves. We also learned that 23 percent
    of those individuals who have purchased alarms have never
    replaced them. These products, as you stated, have been in
    existence for well over 10 years. They do need to be replaced
    as time goes on, just like any electronic device within your
    home. So the message is not fully penetrating the American
    public at this time.
        With this said, we can also confidently state that
    education can work. In 2002, there was a study that indicated
    that 40 percent of households claim to have a carbon monoxide
    alarm, but in our recent study that number has only increased
    in 7 years by 9 percent. So there are still many homes that are
    unprotected. Because of the effectiveness of education, we do
    support earmarking grant money for additional public education
    efforts. We believe this will further curb the rate of
    accidental carbon dioxide poisoning. We greatly are encouraged
    by the number of States and municipalities who have enacted
    legislation. We also are grateful to legislators like
    yourselves who are now working hard to gain that federal
    support.
        Again, I want to thank all of this committee and the
    chairman, Mr. Rush, for allowing us to be here today to provide
    this testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Devine follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.018

        Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair thanks all the witnesses,
    and now the Chair recognizes himself for the purposes of asking
    questions of the witnesses, and the Chair recognizes himself
    for 5 minutes.
        I am going to begin with you, Mr. Howell. In your
    testimony, you state that a properly functioning carbon
    monoxide alarm should be installed in all residences and
    currently many States and localities require that carbon
    monoxide detectors be installed in homes to protect against
    carbon monoxide poisoning. The question that I have, actually
    four questions, I will ask them all in consideration of the
    time that I have and you can answer them, and if anybody else
    wants to chime in, please. The first question is, have these
    State and local regulations generally been effective in
    protecting people from harmful exposure to carbon monoxide, and
    are there any inconsistencies that give you concern? Should
    some form of these State and local requirements be adopted at
    the federal level, and lastly, States and localities also have
    regulations on fire detection. Are there efforts being made to
    ensure that the two detectors, fire and carbon monoxide, that
    they work together or be combined in some way?
        Mr. Howell. Thank you, sir. In regards to the first
    question, as far as the effectiveness of State and local codes
    in requiring alarms, they certainly are effective. Given the
    fact that our data shows that 35 to 50 percent of homes have no
    alarms at all, I think I need to emphasize that there is an
    urgent need to get an alarm in every home, so whether it be a
    federal requirement or a State or local requirement, any move
    that would put an alarm in every home would certainly be
    effective in reducing the number of incidents, death and
    injuries, from carbon monoxide poisoning. As far as the
    question regarding a need for a federal requirement versus
    State and local, you know, I represent the technical arm of the
    agency and that truly would be a policy question. From a
    technical perspective, once again, regardless of what the
    source of the requirement was, any move to get an alarm in the
    home would certainly improve the odds of the American consumer
    surviving if exposed to hazardous levels of carbon monoxide.
        Mr. Rush. And what about combining fire and----
        Mr. Howell. There are combined smoke alarms and CO alarms.
    You know, at this point in time as technology advances, you
    know, certainly there be an opportunity to combine those but
    the sensing technologies required for those devices are
    certainly unique and we want to ensure that the performance
    standards for each device reflect the particular hazard that is
    trying to identify an alarm to.
        Mr. Rush. Dr. Lavonas, do you have any response to that?
        Dr. Lavonas. Certainly. In answer to your first question, I
    absolutely agree with Mr. Howell. The State and local laws are
    generally effective. They are a patchwork quilt of some strong
    and some weak provisions. However, every step in the right
    direction gets you one step further in the right direction.
    There are inconsistencies, and I would love to see a federal
    standard on this, but that would be a much longer discussion
    than what we are prepared for today.
        In terms of the combinations, in my home I have two
    combination dual-head smoke-carbon monoxide alarms, three wire
    nuts to switch them. I dropped down the existing smoke head,
    three wire nuts, put up a smoke-carbon monoxide combination
    head. That takes advantage of the interconnect system that is
    part of smoke alarms in the code. Both of the major building
    standards, code-setting organizations have adopted carbon
    monoxide alarms. It is in the most recent version of both the
    international residential code and the National Fire Protection
    Association 720 code. However, building codes only trigger when
    you build or renovate a structure so if we are going to use
    building codes to solve this problem, it will take a good 30
    years. We are losing people every week, so I would love to see
    a strong federal initiative on this question. That is my
    opinion.
        Mr. Rush. I am going to now recognize Mr. Whitfield for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    all very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Howell, I want to start off with you, a couple
    questions. I notice in your testimony that you said that the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission supports the goals of H.R.
    1796. Do you all support this specific legislation?
        Mr. Howell. We do certainly, and this is from a technical
    staff perspective. Technical staff certainly supports the
    intent of the legislation. We believe that there is a need to
    work together on the language of the warning label, but beyond
    that, certainly putting a smoke alarm in every home, a grant
    program and, you know, making the UL standard for carbon
    monoxide alarms mandatory, we certainly support that language.
        Mr. Whitfield. So on the technical side, the warning label
    is just one area that you would like to----
        Mr. Howell. And it is really a minor issue. Warning labels
    are a tricky science and we have human factor experts that
    would certainly be willing going forward to work with committee
    staff to develop the appropriate language for a warning label.
        Mr. Whitfield. And would there be any other technical areas
    that you would be concerned about?
        Mr. Howell. No, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, one other question I wanted to ask you.
    Under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, you all
    have the authority to promulgate a safety standard if two
    conditions are met. Do you have the authority to mandate the
    standard of alarms?
        Mr. Howell. Section 7 of the CPSA requires the Commission
    to rely upon voluntary consumer product safety standards rather
    than promulgate a consumer product safety standard whenever
    compliance with the voluntary standard is adequate or would
    eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury and it is
    likely that there is substantial compliance with the standard.
    At this point we believe that the standard is indeed adequate
    to reduce or eliminate the risk of injury and we also believe
    that there is substantial compliance.
        Mr. Whitfield. So that would prohibit you from making it
    mandatory?
        Mr. Howell. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        I notice in the legislation on page 4, and Mr. Andres, have
    you read this legislation?
        Mr. Andres. Yes, I have.
        Mr. Whitfield. It says, ``Paragraph 2 does not apply to any
    carbon monoxide detector not covered by the standard as
    provided in section 1.4 of the standard.'' What is that
    referring to?
        Mr. Andres. We actually read through that and we were a
    little bit confused by some of the language in there, and I
    think we need to work with Mr. Matheson to look at some of the
    language. I think the way that the provision is written right
    now, there is a lot of confusion between the term ``detector''
    and ``alarm'' and they use those two terms interchangeably, and
    technically they are actually two different devices. So I think
    there is some language adjustments that need to be made to
    clean that up because honestly I didn't really understand what
    they were referring to in that section.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, so I think it is important that we
    remember alarm and detector are two separate things, correct?
        Mr. Andres. That is correct, and oftentimes a different UL
    standard would be applicable.
        Mr. Whitfield. And on page 3 where they make this a
    mandatory standard, it says ``mandatory consumer product safety
    standard, the American National Standard for single and
    multiple station carbon monoxide alarms.'' What is that safety
    standard in layman's terms? What is that?
        Mr. Andres. Well, UL 2034 is the standard for conformance
    so----
        Mr. Whitfield. For performance?
        Mr. Andres. It not only looks at performance but also has
    requirements for design characteristics, so Underwriters
    Laboratories would actually accept a manufacturer's, a number
    of their alarms, and that particular standard would be used to
    test the design characteristics of that. When it comes to
    carbon monoxide alarms, they are going to look at not only
    electrical and mechanical safety but they are also going to
    look at specificity to detection of carbon monoxide. They are
    also going to look at the accuracy of carbon monoxide
    detection, which is very important, and they are going to look
    at the accuracy over time. So the UL 2034 standard has evolved
    over the years and it is actually a very good standard now. It
    has gone through a number of changes that have made it a very
    robust standard.
        Mr. Whitfield. I know that we have an issue in the United
    States of not enough people have these in their homes, but how
    many alarms would you say are being sold in the United States
    today that do not meet this standard that is set out in this
    legislation, or would you have any idea?
        Mr. Andres. I actually think today we are fortunate that
    most alarms that I am aware of are actually listed to this ANSI
    standard. I am not aware of any right now that are not.
        Mr. Whitfield. Even imported alarms?
        Mr. Andres. Correct.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah,
    the author of the legislation, Mr. Matheson, for 2 minutes.
        Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Howell, you may have referenced this a little bit in
    your opening statement but there is a Senate version of this
    bill, as you are aware, and in the Senate version, it includes
    a provision that mandates the use of a shutoff switch, it is my
    understanding, on portable generators, where the machine
    would--you know, there is detection of carbon monoxide level at
    some point and it would disable the generator. And I understand
    the CPSC has been working in conjunction with the University of
    Alabama in looking at the development of this type of a device.
    Could you just give us a quick update on the progress of this
    study and how effective the shutoff switch has been in reducing
    the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning?
        Mr. Howell. Yes. CPSC staff investigated two approaches to
    the concept of a gas-sensing shutoff device to shut off an
    operating portable generator before it created a hazardous CO
    exposure. Both methods pose significant disadvantages. One
    approach was that of a shutdown system in which the CO-sensing
    device was mounted on the generator to detect the level of CO
    in the vicinity of the generator. Staff found that a
    disadvantage to this approach was a propensity for false
    shutdowns when the generator was operated in a ventilated
    outdoor environment but where the exhaust tended to accumulate
    around the generator. Staff also is concerned about the sensory
    reliability and life which may be comprised when exposed to the
    door environmental conditions, engine vibration, combustion
    products and heat.
        The second approach the staff investigated involved a CO-
    sensing device located in a remote location away from the
    generator where occupants in the house might be that would shut
    down the portable generator using wireless technology if unsafe
    CO was developing inside the house. We conducted a
    demonstration using off-the-shelf components including a
    residential CO alarm, a radio frequency receiver and
    transmitter, and a portable generator. One disadvantage, and I
    want to say a major disadvantage of this approach was that it
    required the consumer to properly locate the remote sensor in
    the occupied area in order for it to work successfully and
    therefore it could be easily defeated by the consumer.
        Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get the Consumer Product
    Safety Commission's understanding of those difficulties because
    that is one of the differences between the House and the Senate
    bill, and the reason we did not include this language in the
    House version was because of these concerns about how well a
    shutoff switch would work, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes for 2 minutes the gentleman from
    Nebraska, and the Chair acknowledges the fact that the
    gentleman waived his opening statement so if you require an
    extra 2 minutes----
        Mr. Terry. I appreciate that. My questions will be short. I
    am not sure about the answers, though.
        Let me first attack, or not attack but talk about the
    standards for both the detectors and the alarms. You need to
    help me work through why we need to have Congressional law to
    mandate the standard when it seems to me that that isn't really
    what the issue is. The issue is that too many homes don't have
    CO detectors. Which one of you said that you actually had
    incident in your own home? Was that you, Doctor?
        Dr. Lavonas. That was me, Mr. Terry.
        Mr. Terry. Yes, we have had the same thing in our home. I
    have got three little kids, and we had our CO detector go off
    and found out that there was some crack in a part of the
    furnace, and so I am a believer in having those, but making the
    standard that everyone seems to agree on is adequate today
    mandatory, I am not sure we need to do that.
        Mr. Howell, you are on the technical side. Explain to me
    why the voluntary standard that two of you have already said
    seems to be adequate needs to be made mandatory.
        Mr. Howell. Mr. Terry, the decision to make this standard
    mandatory certainly would be the prerogative of the Congress.
    CPSC, as I indicated, not only is not currently involved in a
    move to make this standard mandatory but the CPSA actually
    prohibits us from making it mandatory as long as we feel like
    there is substantial compliance and that the standard
    adequately protects the American consumer.
        Mr. Terry. So if there wasn't compliance to this voluntary
    standard and that was inadequate, then you could make it
    mandatory?
        Mr. Howell. We could make it mandatory or we certainly
    could promulgate a standard that was more stringent than the
    current UL standard.
        Mr. Terry. But you think that the current voluntary
    standard is adequate, if I buy a CO detector that is going to
    meet the standards?
        Mr. Howell. Absolutely. Having said that, if I may, making
    this standard mandatory would give CPSC greater authority to
    keep any non-complying carbon monoxide alarms out of the U.S.
    market should they try to enter the market.
        Mr. Terry. Have you found instances of noncompliance?
        Mr. Howell. At this point we have not.
        Mr. Terry. And then the other is on the warning labels and
    pictograms on portable generators. I think Jim has done a good
    job of showing why I think we probably need to do that, but the
    question then is begged, why does Congress need to mandate that
    on you? And that would be your-sorry, Mr. Howell. You get to
    represent the agency that has the authority.
        Mr. Howell. That is not a problem. As I indicated before,
    in 2007 CPSC actually mandated warning labels on portable
    generators and on the packaging, and very clearly identified
    the risk to the consumer and the correct behavior. Our label
    clearly states using a generator indoors--and this part is in
    bold and caps--can kill you in minutes. There are also
    pictograms that indicate the behavior that we wanted to
    discourage. It says never use inside a home or garage even if
    doors and windows are open, and then it also illustrates the
    correct behavior. Only use outside and far away from windows,
    doors and vents. The Commission upon staff's recommendation and
    the development of this label by our human factors experts felt
    like this was a good label and served the purpose.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you very much. Yield back my 4 seconds.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair wants to apprise members that the staff has just
    informed me, or reminded me, rather, that there are 5 minutes
    under the committee rules for questioning, 2 minutes for
    opening statements and 5 minutes for questioning, and those who
    have gone before, if you require more--you are OK for now? All
    right. Well, thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
    Mrs. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Andres, the CPSC has estimated that 180 unintentional
    non-fire carbon monoxide poisoning deaths occurred in 2006 and
    were associated with consumer products. Of these deaths, 71
    percent took place in homes. The data also showed that carbon
    monoxide poisoning deaths are more likely to arise in homes
    with no functioning alarms. To reduce deaths, CPSC has
    attempted to reduce carbon monoxide levels in homes by
    examining the limitations and detection capabilities of low-
    cost carbon monoxide alarms. Mr. Andres, I want to know how
    industry has worked with the CPSC and other stakeholders to
    develop voluntary standards to improve consumer product
    performance.
        Mr. Andres. Yes. In fact, as outlined in some of the ANSI
    protocols to develop a recognized standard, there is a
    technical committee that is formed. We refer to it as the
    standards technical pattern, and in fact, the Consumer Product
    Safety Commission oftentimes participates in technical
    discussion on the performance of carbon monoxide alarms, and I
    have personally attended a number of these technical panel
    reviews over the years, and if anybody were to look at the
    amendments that have been made towards UL 2034, you would see
    that the standard has evolved into a very robust-type standard.
    Some of the major changes that have been made toward the
    standard are, number one, a requirement to demonstrate whatever
    sensing technology you are employing that that technology be
    proven to be accurate, not just accurate on day one at the time
    that the Underwriters Laboratory engineering is going to test
    the product, but certainly accurate years down the line. We
    have at Kidde, for example, over 10 years of ongoing test data
    that is third-party witnessed by Underwriters Laboratories. At
    the same time, Underwriters Laboratories has imposed
    environmental tests so that sensing technology is proven to be
    accurate under high humidity extremes or low temperature
    extremes or high temperature extremes. The Consumer Product
    Safety Commission has participated in many of these technical
    discussions and they have also raised issues in the past about
    performance of these sensing technologies, brought those into
    industry so that we could all discuss it, and that has led to
    the evolution of much better sensing technology today.
        Mrs. Matsui. I think that many of us have been made aware,
    particularly some of the testimony here, about the tragedies
    that occurred, and I think some of us have experienced this
    historic storm that we had in February where many of us lost
    our power and our heat sources, and once again we were reminded
    about the dangers of carbon monoxide. And it is unfortunate
    that things like that have to happen for us to be reminded of
    that, and that is why, you know, I look at some of the data
    about the deaths and injuries that might occur. Do you believe
    that you are at a point where you don't need the stronger
    regulatory law? I mean, can we reduce more deaths or risks of
    deaths if we have a stronger regulatory law or reduce the risk
    of carbon monoxide as source?
        Mr. Andres. Alarms have evolved to a point where you can
    buy an excellent alarm for an $18 price tag that covers you for
    multiple sources of CO source. You know, we talked about
    generators but it is beyond generators. There are fireplaces,
    charcoal grills, attached garages with running cars, water
    heaters. I mean, for a $20 device being able to protect against
    all those individual sources, that is just a fantastic deal. I
    mean, the same time we look at what we are doing here today. I
    mean, this is National Poison Prevention Week. We are having a
    very good discussion on, you know, a very pertinent point,
    carbon monoxide. Anything we can do to raise awareness will
    naturally leave to saving additional lives, so we are going to
    raise the awareness to the American public. They are going to
    react to that, many of them, and purchase carbon monoxide
    alarms. What you are doing here today will help raise that
    awareness.
        Mrs. Matsui. And I just wanted to comment, I think that,
    you know, we are looking at these things sometimes in silos. We
    are looking at the alarms right now. But you mentioned the
    other aspects of it, you know, the generators and all of this
    that are really a greater part of it too. So in a certain
    sense, we have to address some of those concerns and how they
    might affect as being the source of this and so I think that
    you are right, it is absolutely important to do this but I also
    think that we need to look beyond this also because this is--
    partly it is education but part of it is also the
    interconnectedness of all of this, and I think that is really
    the important thing. So with that, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes now the gentlelady from
    Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
    to give an official welcome to Dr. Lavonas, who is my
    constituent, and almost as importantly works for Denver Health,
    which this committee has heard me sing the praises of many,
    many times and does such a wonderful job not just with
    providing health care to folks but with some of these public
    health issues throughout our region. I want to welcome you, and
    Mr. Matheson and I both agreed that the entire panel provided
    excellent testimony and in particular you, Doctor.
        I just want to ask a couple of questions of the panel. The
    first one, as we know, the legislation provides for grants to
    States and localities to assist in certain activities related
    to preventing carbon monoxide poisoning. Dr. Lavonas, do you
    think that the grants are a helpful way to address this issue?
        Dr. Lavonas. Yes, I do. I have been through--this is my
    third time working with a governmental body on questions
    regarding carbon monoxide alarms, and so I have heard from my
    previous experience the barriers that they face. The biggest
    barrier that the State of Colorado faced was cost. It costs
    money to implement a standard, particularly if there is
    government-owned housing or government-imposed requirements
    that are going to require training. I think this bill does
    address that. I think that it may be helpful to allow the
    States to use this grant money in some additional ways as well
    as they see fit, for example, to allow the States to apply for
    grant money to put alarms in State-controlled housing or to
    fund alarm programs to provide subsidized alarms for low-income
    communities. But fundamentally, cost is a barrier. Every State
    in the Nation is struggling with their budget this year.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes, and also the local governments, many of
    which like Pitkin County which passed a law after that tragic
    death in the family that you described and many other counties,
    they are struggling with their budgets too. So what you are
    saying is, if we are going to do a grant system, be sure we
    give maximum flexibility so that that money can be used as
    wisely as possible.
        Dr. Lavonas. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. I wanted to ask you, one struck me during your
    testimony about the patient that you had who had brain injuries
    from carbon monoxide poisoning because we do hear, there are
    these tragic deaths. Mr. Devine has letters from people who
    survived. But my question is, we have the tragic deaths but we
    have many more people who have the poisoning who are somehow
    rescued. What are the long-term health impacts on folks who
    have survived from these poisoning episodes?
        Dr. Lavonas. These impacts can be significant. About three-
    quarters of survivors do OK. About a quarter of survivors
    develop a brain injury that sometimes can get worse for a few
    days after the poisoning. The problems have to do with--
    everybody is a little different but problems with
    concentration, problems with what is called executive
    processing like can I read a map, can I follow instructions,
    problems with short-term memory and problems with movement,
    tremors, similar to somebody with Parkinson's disease.
        Ms. DeGette. And do we have any sense annually about how
    many of these lasting brain injuries there are as a result of
    carbon monoxide poisoning?
        Dr. Lavonas. Well, we know there are--if you add the
    suicide and the unintentional exposures together, probably
    about 45,000 or 50,000 people who visit an emergency department
    for carbon monoxide poisoning each year. We know from good
    research that about a quarter of these, perhaps more, will
    develop a lasting brain injury.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Howell, I am wondering if you can tell me,
    as you know, the bill requires the CPSC to publish the existing
    voluntary Underwriters Laboratories 2034 standard for carbon
    monoxide alarms as a federal mandatory standard. Do you know
    how--can you tell us--I am sure you know how--the Underwriters
    Laboratories standard for carbon monoxide detectors was
    determined?
        Mr. Howell. If you are asking how the standard came to be,
    it certainly is a gathering of technical experts, industry,
    stakeholders and of course CPSC is represented. Performance
    standard design criteria is developed and it is balloted and
    approved by technical experts that work to develop these
    standards.
        Ms. DeGette. Do you think it will sufficiently protect the
    public?
        Mr. Howell. At this point our indications are that it is
    adequate to protect the public from the risk as we see it
    today.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Just one last question. What proportion of
    carbon monoxide alarms currently available on the market
    conform to that standard?
        Mr. Howell. I do not have an exact number but it is our
    indication that there is substantial compliance with the UL
    2034 standards.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Devine, do you know?
        Mr. Devine. At this time we really understand that all the
    alarms that are available at retail establishments for
    consumers to purchase are compliant to the UL 2034 standard.
    Essentially all of the major retailers require us as
    manufacturers to have compliance to this standard today.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
        There was a question that came to mind, so the Chair will
    entertain any requests for one additional question from the
    members here, and the Chair recognizes himself for 1 minute.
        Can anybody provide any information on the threat of carbon
    monoxide poisoning in any other place other than homes? And I
    am particularly concerned or interested in any evidence of
    carbon monoxide poisoning in automobiles.
        Mr. Howell. Let me take the question as it began, which is
    any place outside of homes. CPSC actually has recorded
    incidents of people in outdoor environments, campers and tents,
    whether either through the use of generators or other fuel
    appliances that are used to either heat or cook have resulted
    in deaths to those from carbon monoxide poisoning.
        Mr. Rush. Anyone else?
        Mr. Devine. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In addition to outside of
    the residence, also concerning to us is the hotel-motel while
    people are traveling. There have been occurrences, unfortunate
    incidents where people have had carbon monoxide poisoning while
    they are in a hotel-motel from a variety of different sources
    as well.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes the ranking member for 1 minute.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Mr. Howell, I wanted to ask you a question. You didn't come
    up to testify on H.R. 4805, the formaldehyde bill, which
    applies to hardwood, plywood, medium-density fiberboard and
    particleboard, all of which are products, and since you are the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission, are you familiar with this
    formaldehyde legislation?
        Mr. Howell. I am aware that it was there. I have not
    actually studied the legislation at this point.
        Mr. Whitfield. I was just thinking that these are products
    and you all deal with products and whether or not maybe your
    agency should have the jurisdiction over this formaldehyde
    issue, but we can talk about that later. I was just curious if
    you had looked at it. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank the witnesses. You have
    really been providing an invaluable service to this committee
    with your testimony and your answers to the questions. The
    Chair would like for you to know that we will keep the record
    open for 2 weeks, and if there are any members of the
    subcommittee who are not present who would like to submit
    questions to you in writing, would you please respond to those
    questions promptly within a 2-week period. Thank you so very
    much, and thank you for your time and your investment in the
    future of America. Thank you so much and God bless.
        The Chair wants to thank the members of the second panel
    for their participation in this hearing and wants to introduce
    the second panel of this hearing for a discussion on the other
    matter that is before this subcommittee, the bill introduced by
    Mrs. Matsui. The Chair wants to thank all the witnesses for
    your investment of your time in this hearing.
        The Chair wants to introduce beginning at his left Mr.
    James J. Jones, who is the deputy assistant administrator for
    the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances of
    the U.S. EPA. Seated next to Mr. Jones is Mr. Tom Julia, who is
    the president of the Composite Panel Association. And seated
    next to Mr. Julia is Mr. Andy Counts, who is the CEO of the
    American Home Furnishings Alliance, and Mr. Don Ryan is sitting
    next to him, who is of the Sierra Club and a founding board
    member of the National Center for Healthy Housing. And next to
    Mr. Ryan is Dr. Melvin E. Andersen, who is the director of
    Program in Chemical Safety Sciences at The Hamner Institutes
    for Health Sciences. Again, we welcome all of the witnesses.
        It is the practice of this committee to swear in the
    witnesses, so will you please stand and raise your right hand?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Rush. Please let the record reflect that the witnesses
    have all answered in the affirmative.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jones for 5 minutes for the
    purposes of an opening statement.

     TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. JONES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
     OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S.
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; TOM JULIA, PRESIDENT, THE
     COMPOSITE PANEL ASSOCIATION; ANDY COUNTS, CEO, AMERICAN HOME
      FURNISHINGS ALLIANCE; DON RYAN, SIERRA CLUB, FOUNDING BOARD
    MEMBER, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTHY HOUSING; AND MELVIN E.
    ANDERSEN, CIH, PHD, DABT, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM IN CHEMICAL SAFETY
          SCIENCES, THE HAMNER INSTITUTES FOR HEALTH SCIENCES

                      TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. JONES

        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
    Radanovich and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today regarding the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency's efforts on formaldehyde and
    the potential legislative action in Congress.
        Formaldehyde is a widely used chemical and may be found
    both indoors and outdoors. It is used in building materials and
    household products and also produces a byproduct of combustion.
    In homes, the most significant sources of formaldehyde are
    likely to be pressed wood products made using adhesives that
    contain urea-formaldehyde resins.
        Inhalation of formaldehyde can cause irritation of the
    eyes, nose, throat and skin as well as inflammation and damage
    to the upper respiratory tract. Additionally, there is growing
    evidence that formaldehyde exposure may impact pulmonary
    function and increase respiratory symptoms, asthma and allergic
    sensitization in children. In 1989, EPA classified formaldehyde
    as a probable human carcinogen.
        EPA is currently engaged in a reassessment of the potential
    cancer and non-cancer risks of formaldehyde that will be
    entered into EPA's Integrated Risk Information, or IRIS
    program. As a result of this reassessment process, EPA is
    reexamining its conclusions regarding the cancer and non-cancer
    effects of formaldehyde. This assessment will be ready for
    external review soon. The agency has also asked the National
    Academy of Sciences to provide independent external scientific
    peer review, and EPA will offer opportunities for public
    comment on the underlying science.
        The recent focus of formaldehyde in the Office of
    Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances resulted from a
    March 2008 petition to adopt the California State regulation
    concerning emissions of formaldehyde from three types of
    composite wood products. They petitioned EPA to exercise its
    authority under TSCA section 6 to adopt and apply nationally
    the California formaldehyde emissions regulation for these
    composite wood products. In response, EPA announced on June 24,
    2008, that it was partially granting and partially denying the
    petition. While the agency denied the specifics of the petition
    request, EPA announced plans to issue an Advanced Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking to initiate a proceeding to assist us in
    obtaining a better understanding of the available control
    technologies and approaches, industry practices and the
    implementation of the California regulation.
        The ANPR was issued on December 3, 2008, and describes
    EPA's initial steps in that investigation and requested comment
    information and data relating to formaldehyde emissions from
    pressed wood products.
        The challenge of regulating chemicals under our current
    TSCA authority is worth noting. As Congress moves toward TSCA
    reform legislation, we have stated in previous hearings that as
    a result of the legal and procedural requirements TSCA places
    on EPA to collect data, there are large, troubling gaps in the
    available data and state of knowledge of many widely used
    chemicals in commerce. Chemical producers are not required to
    provide EPA the data necessary to fully assess a chemical's
    risks. In cases such as formaldehyde where EPA has adequate
    data on a chemical and it wants to protect against well-known
    risks to human health and the environment, there are legal
    hurdles that prevent quick and effective regulatory action.
        In regards to formaldehyde, the agency noted in its 2008
    ANPR that EPA does not have sufficient information to evaluate
    whether the CARB standard would likely be the least burdensome
    alternative necessary to protect adequately against such risks.
    This finding illustrates the inherent difficulty the agency
    faces in regulating chemicals under TOSCA even for a chemical
    such as formaldehyde where data and information are available
    regarding its health effects.
        Restoring confidence in our chemical management system is a
    top priority for EPA and an environmental priority for the
    Obama Administration. This Administration's principles for how
    TSCA should be revised and modernized call for stronger and
    clearer authority for EPA to collect and act upon critical data
    regarding chemical risks. Under a reformed TSCA, EPA should
    have the necessary authority and tools to quickly require
    testing and obtain other information from manufacturers that is
    relevant to determining the safety of chemicals and should also
    have clear authority to take risk-management actions when
    chemicals do not meet safety standards.
        EPA currently anticipates being able to make a
    determination on whether to pursue regulatory action on
    formaldehyde in 2011. If we were to propose a new regulation at
    that time, a final rule could be anticipated 1 to 3 years later
    depending on the comments we receive and additional analysis
    and consultations which may be required in order to finalize.
        As this committee considers legislation on formaldehyde, we
    agree that formaldehyde is a hazardous chemical and support the
    goal of legislation in reducing the risks of formaldehyde in
    pressed wood products. Reducing formaldehyde emissions in
    pressed wood products should be an important public health
    goal. California has made a valuable contribution to
    formaldehyde emissions reductions through it standards and is
    providing a clear model for addressing the problem.
        We look forward to working with this committee as it moves
    forward to reduce exposure to formaldehyde from these products.
    It is our hope that Congress will also be able to act on TSCA
    reform since the Administration believes it is important to
    work together to quickly modernize and strengthen the tools
    available in TSCA.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present EPA's views, and I
    am happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.023

        Mr. Rush. Mr. Julia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                         TESTIMONY OF TOM JULIA

        Mr. Julia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Radanovich, members of the subcommittee, and thank you in
    particular to Mrs. Matsui for taking the leadership to
    introduce this important piece of consumer legislation.
        I am Tom Julia, president of The Composite Panel
    Association, a not-for-profit association representing more
    than 90 percent of the North American production of
    particleboard, medium-density fiberboard and hardboard. We are
    representing manufacturers of two of the three products
    regulated under this legislation, and we are here to offer to
    our strong support.
        Composite panel products used in construction materials,
    furniture, cabinets and for hundreds of other uses are a major
    worldwide industry. In the United States alone, panel mills
    employ thousands of workers and the sale of our product affect
    hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, typically in small
    rural communities throughout the Nation. We are among the
    greenest industries in the world, and most U.S.-made products
    use 100 percent recycled residual or post-consumer wood. CPA
    itself is a world leader in quality assurance, product testing
    and certification and sponsorship of voluntary industry
    standards.
        I am proud to say today that nearly 100 percent of U.S.
    production capacity of particleboard and MDF is compliant with
    the California standard phase I and in many cases phase II, the
    levels that would be required under this legislation. Our
    sister trade association, the Hardwood Plywood Veneer
    Association, represented in the audience today, can tell you a
    comparable story for hardwood plywood products, the other
    product regulated under this bill.
        None of this happened by accident. It took a long-term
    commitment to lower emission levels, a major and ongoing
    capital investment in new technology, and an early commitment
    to the California rule and to meeting its deadlines. We wish
    that everyone would share this strong commitment to product
    stewardship and lower formaldehyde emissions, especially some
    of those making products overseas that are bound for American
    markets. Fortunately, most of the U.S.-based trade associations
    representing offshore producers have strongly committed
    themselves to supporting this bill and responsible importers
    are meeting the CARB rule. But there is still too much product
    entering the U.S. market made by companies who don't
    participate in trade associations, who don't get their products
    tested and certified, who don't sell into California and who
    often sell low-priced goods to the most vulnerable of our
    citizens. These are the bad actors that H.R. 4805 will reach
    while at the same time ensuring a consistent standard of
    compliance and enforcement throughout the United States.
        By establishing national requirements, you will give the
    American public full confidence that panel producers are doing
    everything possible to minimize the environmental footprints of
    our products, that a rigorous federal standard stands behind
    these products and that compliance doesn't just happen some of
    the time, it happens all of the time. We submit to you that is
    good for public health, this is good for domestic jobs and this
    is good for the American consumer.
        We are here today at a rare moment in history when industry
    and environmentalists, labor and health care groups can come
    together and support a common result. This is also a day to
    think, as we heard earlier today, about the emergency housing
    units provided to victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane
    Rita. Had there been a national emissions standards in place
    and third-party testing and certification to validate
    compliance, it is very possible there never would have been a
    FEMA trailer problem, at least one related to formaldehyde
    emissions from composite wood. And by passing this bill, you
    can make a statement that says we will never let it happen
    again.
        I cannot say enough about third-party testing and
    certification. Responsible industries around the world are
    embracing it and it indeed has become our industry's equivalent
    to what President Reagan called trust and verify. It is also
    the key to the success of this bill.
        In closing, I urge you to take what California has called
    the toughest production standard in the world and make it
    America's standard too. Earlier today there were some questions
    about preemption and the impact of this bill on the States, and
    I would be happy in my responses to questions to address those,
    Mr. Chairman, or at this time. Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Julia follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.029

        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Counts for 5 minutes.

                        TESTIMONY OF ANDY COUNTS

        Mr. Counts. Good morning. I am Andy Counts, chief executive
    officer of the American Home Furnishings Alliance. I would like
    to thank Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Radanovich, members of
    the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify. I would
    especially like to thank Congresswoman Doris Matsui for her
    leadership along with Congressman Vern Ehlers for advancing
    this important legislation.
        The AHFA is the world's largest trade association, serving
    the home furnishings industry. Member companies comprise an
    extensive global network of manufacturers who produce home
    furnishings or component parts constructed of composite wood
    products.
        AHFA supports the regulation of formaldehyde emissions from
    composite wood products, and we support H.R. 4805. We believe
    that a national approach is crucial in order to avoid
    conflicting State standards and allow for the harmonized
    distribution of products and supplies.
        AHFA along with wood products industry, environmental,
    health and labor organizations worked for more than 7 years
    with the California Air Resources Board to establish
    formaldehyde emission limits for composite wood products. These
    new emission limits are the most stringent in the world.
    Outside these emissions limits, however, there are several
    aspects of the California rule that cannot be implemented
    nationally. H.R. 4805 provides EPA the platform and flexibility
    needed to address these issues and modify the California
    approach, providing a commonsense, pragmatic national
    regulation.
        Of critical importance will be the inclusion of adequate
    compliance timelines and sell-through provisions. Due to the
    unprecedented economic conditions of the last few years,
    inventory levels remain high. Unlike in California where
    noncompliant inventories could be moved to other markets,
    adequate sell-through provisions are needed nationally to
    accommodate increased inventories and slow inventory turns. We
    request a sell-through period of 36 months finished products
    following the compliance deadline for composite wood products.
        It is important to note that the California formaldehyde
    standard and the national standard proposed under H.R. 4805
    regulate emissions from composite wood products and not the
    finished products that contain composite wood components. In
    fact, the value-added steps associated with finished products
    such as lamination and finishing have been proven to lower
    emissions of composite wood components. EPA must focus
    compliance and enforcement where it belongs: at the point of
    manufacture and process control. The regulations should not
    contain any provisions for the testing of finished goods such
    as furniture or cabinets. If the raw board component parts are
    properly regulated, downstream users of these products will be
    required to purchase them and to only use or resell these safe
    products to consumers. This ensures the overall safety of the
    global supply chain and the citizens who purchase home
    furnishings.
        AFHA applauds the efforts of our global suppliers that have
    worked tirelessly to comply with the California standards. We
    stand ready to educate the industry on the new national
    standard and provide the tools necessary to ensure compliance
    on a global basis. We also look forward to working closely with
    EPA during the development of this regulation.
        Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Counts follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.031

        Mr. Rush. Mr. Ryan is recognized.

                         TESTIMONY OF DON RYAN

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Radanovich and
    Representative Matsui. My name is Don Ryan. It is my pleasure
    to testify today in strong support of H.R. 4805. I testify on
    behalf of two organizations: the National Center for Healthy
    Housing and the Sierra Club. The National Center is dedicating
    to ensuring that all Americans' homes are healthy and safe
    through proven and practical steps. The National Center is
    concerned about formaldehyde because of the enormous body of
    scientific evidence documenting formaldehyde's human health
    risks. Formaldehyde is an irritant, an allergen, a cancer risk,
    and composite wood products are a significant source of
    exposure, and just as importantly, an opportunity to
    significantly reduce exposures.
        The Sierra Club is one of the Nation's oldest and largest
    environmental organizations. It is committed to protecting
    public health as well as natural resources. And it was the
    Sierra Club that first called the Nation's attention to the
    dangers of high formaldehyde levels in FEMA trailers after
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The primary source was
    manufactured wood products with formaldehyde glue, most of
    which apparently came from overseas.
        The painful story of formaldehyde and FEMA trailers is not
    yet over as just last week the federal government announced the
    sale of 120,000 of these travel trailers. I am concerned about
    the sale at several levels. The trailers may pose formaldehyde
    hazards. They may pose other health hazards. Some of these
    trailers may come to be occupied as permanent homes, even
    though that is not their designed intent, and there is a chance
    the warning labels may be removed before the resale to future
    buyers. What I want to drive home is that all these health
    hazards, these headaches, these heartaches could have been
    completely avoided, and that is why H.R. 4805's enactment is so
    important.
        I want to applaud Representatives Matsui and Ehlers for
    introducing this bill. I want to thank this subcommittee for
    holding this hearing and moving it forward.
        I also want to take a minute to salute the staff of the
    California Air Resources Board because the opportunity before
    us today to advance public health across the Nation is due to
    their hard work over the past 7 years to carefully craft the
    standard that is protective, that is practical, that is
    enforceable. But there are limits to what one State can
    accomplish when it comes to a worldwide market for products
    such as composite wood products. As we have seen with other
    consumer products, with drywall, with dog food, with children's
    toys, ensuring compliance by overseas manufacturers is
    absolutely critical and often very difficult. The California
    formaldehyde standard is the toughest production standard in
    the world. The standard has already taken effect. The standard
    is already working. Manufacturers are already complying.
        So at the most basic level, what H.R. 4805 does is two
    things. It extends the California standard's public health
    protections across the country as quickly as possible, and
    number two, it strengthens enforcement to level the playing
    field so that unscrupulous manufacturers cannot undercut
    responsible manufacturers. So this bill is a giant step forward
    for public health. It has the support of environmental, health,
    labor and consumer advocates and this bill is a giant step
    forward for responsible manufacturers because it levels the
    playing field. It will create green jobs for American workers.
        And finally, I want to note this bill is a big win for the
    American taxpayer because it avoids the complexities and the
    clumsiness of TSCA by directing EPA to issue its regulation
    without delay.
        So I would urge this subcommittee's support of the bill. I
    think it deserves your bipartisan support. I hope it wins your
    unanimous support, and I ask each of you to urge the full
    Energy and Commerce Committee to recommend this bill's early
    approval by the full House.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.034

        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        Dr. Andersen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    TESTIMONY OF MELVIN E. ANDERSEN

        Mr. Andersen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am
    Dr. Mel Andersen, director, Program in Chemical Safety
    Sciences, The Hamner Institutes for Health Science.
        I completely applaud the legislation. I think it is
    important for the American people, and I am here actually to
    take objection with the scientific basis of the California risk
    assessment that has been used to support the emissions
    standards.
        My professional career spans 40 years and five or six
    employers. My primary area of expertise is pharmacokinetics,
    how chemicals get to target tissues in the body, what they do
    there. In 1998 I served as a peer reviewer for an alternative
    risk assessment other than the California risk assessment that
    was developed by an organization, the Chemical Industry
    Institute of Toxicology, peer reviewed in Canada. I was a peer
    reviewer for that process.
        The Hamner is the successor to CIIT. I have worked at The
    Hamner since 2002. Before that I was a professor of
    environmental health at Colorado State University in Fort
    Collins, Colorado. Over the past 5 years, I have conducted
    research at The Hamner funded by the Formaldehyde Council to
    understand the changes in genes and gene expression in the nose
    when rats are exposed to formaldehyde. More recently, we have
    been studying this area called pharmacokinetics of formaldehyde
    in the nose.
        I want to stress that today I am here neither representing
    the formaldehyde council nor The Hamner. I am here representing
    a 40-year practitioner in toxicology and risk assessment.
        You, me, all of us have substantial amounts of formaldehyde
    in every single cell in our body. The number actually is 12,000
    parts per billion. It is part of normal metabolism. We have to
    have it. Formaldehyde causes toxicity when inhaled
    concentrations increase the levels in the tissues in the front
    of the nose to cause toxicity, cell death, regeneration and
    ultimately cancer at high concentrations.
        Our studies show that at 100 parts per billion, there is no
    increase in the amount of formaldehyde in tissues in the nose
    compared to background levels, background physiological levels.
    But formaldehyde is a carcinogen, yes. It is a nasal irritant,
    yes. In trailers where people are closed, it has irritant
    properties. It could cause asthma. And we need to protect
    against it and this legislation is a good legislation to help
    us protect people who are in these trailers, people who live in
    all kinds of homes.
        My comments really come down to just two points. The
    California risk assessment is extremely conservative using what
    are now antiquated approaches from the 1970s. They have not
    been updated by a better understanding of the biology of
    formaldehyde, its effects on tissues or a better understanding
    of cancer biology now that we have moved into the 21st century.
    They are technologies that are quite old. The CIIT assessment
    that was done 10 years ago is still in some ways outdated. It
    is better. It actually predicts risks that are probably 2,000-
    fold lower than estimated by the California risk assessment but
    it is still outdated. Neither one of them take account of the
    fact that there is a good bit of indigenous formaldehyde.
        I provided two visuals, one a table showing this comparison
    of the risks from what is an EPA risk assessment, almost
    equivalent to the California one, and one is the CIIT
    assessment. I provided a table that shows as a function of
    concentration different effects, different exposures going from
    5 to 10 parts per million in outdoor air to higher
    concentrations, and then ones in which we have irritancy, 300
    parts per billion, the threshold limit value of the American
    Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, and then on to
    concentrations which are clearly toxic.
        The proposed legislation sets limits on emission rates from
    building products. I am an industrial hygienist. Among all the
    letters after my name, CIH is certified industrial hygienist.
    As a certified industrial hygienist, it makes good sense to me
    to limit off-gassing of formaldehyde from these products by
    good manufacturing processes and to protect people from
    irritation, from a likelihood of asthma and from respiratory
    distress. However, I am here today because I find it, in my
    professional judgment, I find it objectionable that this
    decision is being taken based on outdated biologically
    deficient risk assessment, an assessment that neglected a broad
    body of research on formaldehyde carcinogenicity, on
    formaldehyde toxicity, ignores the attributes of biochemistry
    of cellular formaldehyde, a physiological material in our
    bodies, and it creates the impression that formaldehyde at
    concentrations only several parts per billion poses a
    substantial, quantifiable cancer risk in people. That is the
    piece of the legislation that I find most worrisome that you
    are indirectly agreeing when you accept this--that levels of
    formaldehyde well below any that would cause any significant
    changes in formaldehyde in the body will cause cancer in some
    definable number of people in a population.
        This legislation should endorse the reduction in emissions,
    clearly. I applaud the legislation. I applaud the people who
    have brought this legislation to the committee. I wish it could
    be done without endorsing the questionable risk assessment from
    California that significantly overestimates the risks of
    inhaled formaldehyde, and I believe in public concerns about
    some particular end points, especially cancer.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide this
    perspective on House 4805 and to visit a panel of this kind for
    the first time in my career. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Andersen follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.040

        Mr. Rush. Thank you very much, and I thank all the
    witnesses. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the
    purposes of questioning the witnesses.
        There are a number of questions that I might raise, and I
    guess in consideration of the limited time that I have, I
    really want to focus on this proposed sale that you alluded to,
    Mr. Ryan and Mr. Counts and others. This sale of these FEMA
    trailers and mobile homes, is this a wise undertaking by the
    federal government and are these mobile homes and trailers
    safe, and what course of action do you recommend that the
    federal government consider? I want to ask Mr. Jones and Mr.
    Counts and Mr. Ryan this question.
        Mr. Jones. I don't feel it is appropriate for me as an EPA
    official to comment on FEMA, Homeland Security. We have briefed
    the officials from FEMA about our assessment and so they have
    awareness of how we view the risk associated with FEMA but it
    really, I think, is up to FEMA and Homeland Security to respond
    specifically to the appropriateness of their actions.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Counts or any other--Mr. Ryan, Dr. Andersen,
    if you have any comments, I have 3 minutes.
        Mr. Ryan. I would note the FEMA trailers present a vexing
    problem. We certainly can't say they are safe. FEMA can't say
    they are safe or EPA or CDC. In fact, the trailers are being
    sold with a label, a cautionary label that is intended to warn
    future buyers. The trailers are not intended as permanent
    housing units but we have a housing crisis in this country and
    almost certainly some of them will come to be occupied and used
    as housing, and there is a concern in the resale of those
    homes, whether the warning label may fall through the cracks.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Counts.
        Mr. Counts. I feel I wouldn't be qualified to respond on
    the FEMA trailers. Our members are not in the trailer business
    nor do they supply to that industry. So I will----
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Julia, Dr. Andersen raised some serious
    disagreements on concerns about the California standards, and
    what percentage of your membership are affected by the
    California standards?
        Mr. Julia. Mr. Chairman, it is fair to say that virtually
    the entire U.S. industry is affected by the California
    standards, and indeed we believe that even prior to California
    our industry was manufacturing using exceedingly low levels of
    formaldehyde and emissions levels are exceedingly low, and once
    perfected under phase II of California and under federal law
    will be truly de minimis standards. Moreover, the California
    rule as this federal bill does incentivizes industry to develop
    even lower, what are called ULEF and NAUF adhesive systems
    which indeed would do exactly what I believe public policy
    should do which would be to promote technological innovation
    and capital investment in lower-emitting technologies. But it
    is fair to say that the California regulation has become a de
    facto law of the land. It is indeed practiced almost throughout
    the United States by virtually every significant manufacturer
    or user of composite panel products. The problem with the
    California rule is that it is only enforceable in California.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair's time is expired. The Chair recognizes
    Mr. Radanovich.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and I appreciate
    the testimony of all the witnesses.
        Mr. Andersen, I am going to ask you a question. As I
    understand your testimony, your research in the weight of the
    current scientific evidence on formaldehyde shows that emission
    levels significantly higher than those permitted in California
    would not pose a health risk. Give me an idea of why you object
    to the standard set in California but also if you can give me
    an idea of the consequences of an emittance level that is set
    dramatically low.
        Mr. Andersen. I think the consequences from my point of
    view is that California law is based on causing cancer. It is
    based on an observation of cancer in rats at high doses when
    formaldehyde is corrosive. I mean, formaldehyde would cause
    cancer in you or I if we let ourselves be exposed to levels
    which were corrosive in our nose for our whole lifetime. We
    would walk away from it. But that is the basis. So they use
    that to make projections of very low-dose cancer risks, levels
    where the contribution of the formaldehyde is minuscule, absent
    to natural formaldehyde. That is the first. The second
    consequence from my opinion is the stress on trying to set the
    standard based on cancer. The FEMA trailer issue was one of
    irritation, respiratory distress and asthma. The levels should
    be based on asthma recognizing that formaldehyde doesn't pose a
    low-dose cancer risk. That is my professional opinion, which is
    shared by a large number of individuals.
        Mr. Radanovich. Does formaldehyde air out? If you open the
    trailers in Louisiana for a certain amount of time, will that
    level diminish?
        Mr. Andersen. It will diminish, depending on how long
    this--there is so much in the wood and it will come out for a
    period of time and the concentrations in the air will
    continually diminish.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
        Mr. Julia, I appreciate your testimony. Your association
    comes out with a statement saying that the California standard
    is way too high and yet in your testimony, you support the bill
    and the legislation that sets it at the California standard. As
    I understand it, your association doesn't agree with what you
    are saying there. Do you want to reconcile that?
        Mr. Julia. I am not sure what is inconsistent, Congressman.
        Mr. Radanovich. In March 1, 2002, in wood products, there
    was a belief that risk assessments upon which formaldehyde is
    being considered for regulation by the CARB in California are
    outdated and greatly overstate the potential for formaldehyde-
    related health problems. This was in a testimony on March 1st
    under Wood and Wood Products by Chris Leffle, who is the senior
    vice president for Composite Products Association.
        Mr. Julia. That is absolutely correct. When this regulation
    was introduced at the very end of 2001, it called for a de
    facto ban on our products, a de facto deselection of wood
    products, which we felt would have been a dramatic overreach
    and was initially linked to a very great degree on what we
    believe were challengeable health findings. In the 7 years as
    that evolved, California through significant evaluation of
    economic conditions or economic performance of our industry,
    technical capabilities of our industry and a whole lot of
    public workshops, I then came to be persuaded that their
    regulation should be guided and I would have to therefore
    respectfully differ a little bit with the conclusion of my
    colleague on the panel here. California's decision, and indeed,
    I was in every one of those workshops, has been guided by
    technology, not by perceived cancer risk. Certainly they did
    that research and we have never said that--we have never
    acquiesced and said that we agree with those conclusions but
    their conclusions on the levels that they set in California
    were based on technological capability. It is, as they have
    characterized it, a ``technology-driven regulation'' and we
    think that is a very important distinction, one that is
    preserved in this legislation so it does not become a battle or
    a presumption that somehow current industry practices or
    current industry products present a health risk.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Julia.
        Mr. Andersen, that is kind of in conflict with what you
    were mentioning a little bit earlier, that it is a cancer risk
    assessment process and that your statements earlier mentioned
    being outdated and----
        Mr. Andersen. I think the cancer----
        Mr. Radanovich [continuing]. Less scientific. Go ahead and
    respond to that.
        Mr. Andersen. I think the cancer risk assessment from 1992
    fails to take into account a great deal of information about
    formaldehyde, its toxicity, its biology and it is outdated in
    that context. It is my understanding as I look through this
    legislation, and I have only been aware of it for a brief
    period of time in background, that the presumed risks from
    formaldehyde in the air were linked to this cancer model to
    develop emission rates.
        Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    California, Mrs. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a question for Mr. Julia. H.R. 4085 would build upon
    the CARB rule by establishing national technology-based limits
    founded on the technological feasibility of the standards on
    formaldehyde emissions from most composite wood products. Now,
    industry has had a longstanding commitment to lowering emission
    levels, investing in technology and working collaboratively
    with regulatory authorities and public interest groups to set
    limits on emissions. Now, despite the strong commitments from
    domestic producers to voluntarily comply with the CARB rule,
    unacceptable levels of composite wood products are entering the
    U.S. markets without meeting our standards.
        Mr. Julia, what are your estimates for the kind of economic
    productivity that heightening formaldehyde emission standards
    for composite wood products would create?
        Mr. Julia. Well, when the State of California first
    introduced its regulation, I think I was quoted at one of the
    first public hearings as saying that this was going to be the
    law of unintended consequences, that if in fact it didn't
    address trade issues, and indeed care and ensure a level
    playing field for domestic production, that we would in fact
    have the law of unintended consequences, that in fact domestic
    producers would be required to comply with a potentially very
    onerous regulation whereas offshore producers would perhaps not
    have to comply with it, and indeed more of that product, the
    very product that California was concerned about, would enter
    the U.S. marketplace.
        I think what we have seen is a significant evolution over 7
    or 8 years, particularly in the offshore industry, which are
    represented by at least one individual here in this room such
    that they have come to make, I would say, a significant
    commitment among the responsible ones to comply with this
    regulation. I can tell you a story, a brief story of one of the
    largest home furnishings manufacturers in the world which does
    a tremendous amount of sourcing in Asia, and it has reduced
    over the past 2 to 3 years its number of suppliers by almost 75
    percent. It really becomes a survival of the fittest sort of
    the thing where they have taken a look at the ability of their
    sources to meet the expectations not only in California but
    throughout the United States of the stewardship that is
    required in the California rule and would be required here and
    they have made the internal decision that for a matter of
    public policy, for a matter of corporate policy and for a
    matter of liability, they will only be sourcing for companies
    who can verify indeed that they produce products to lower
    formaldehyde levels.
        And if I may, just in closing, return to the testing and
    certification part of this legislation. That is indeed the key
    because on all these issues, if you get to what level is the
    right level, what level is the lowest level, how do we enforce
    against imports, how do we enforce against domestic products,
    the secret to all of that, I believe, is to have third-party
    testing and certification whereby nobody is going to try to
    test every single table, every single chair, every single
    nightstand. That is physically impossible to do. Nobody is
    going to go into every store, nobody is going to go into every
    furniture mill whether for the federal government or the state
    of California or anybody else. That would be prohibitive. But
    you can verify all that through third-party testing and
    certification and create a chain of custody and a label where
    you can track every product all the way up to the testing
    agency that actually performed the initial testing.
        Mrs. Matsui. Mr. Julia, I take it you have no concerns
    about the implementation of the CARB rule nationwide at all?
        Mr. Julia. Concerns?
        Mrs. Matsui. Yes. No concerns about this implementation of
    the CARB rule nationwide?
        Mr. Julia. Well, I do have concerns. I think quite frankly
    there are 49 States in which you cannot enforce the CARB rule.
    The CARB rule--you know, I draw my analogy, the earlier
    comments today about carbon monoxide. Like Congressman Gingrey,
    I have a personal experience where my daughter was exposed to
    carbon monoxide poisoning at Virginia Tech 2\1/2\ years ago and
    nearly died, and I understand that in the State of Virginia we
    have no regulation of carbon monoxide. I understand that in the
    State of Maryland there is a very significant regulation on
    carbon monoxide detectors. The ability to simply say that
    because you have a rule in California which industry is
    embracing that that somehow solves the problem, I would submit
    to you, Congresswoman, that it does not solve the problem
    because you don't have a patchwork of different States doing
    things. In fact, you have nobody else doing anything. There is
    not a single State that is able to enforce that rule.
        Mrs. Matsui. That is why we are here today in actuality. So
    I don't have much time so I would yield back until--unless we
    have further time later on?
        Mr. Rush. The Chair will consider that.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
    Scalise, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few questions,
    first for Mr. Julia.
        You had stated that if Congress directs the EPA to
    establish a federal standard based on California's parameters,
    this will only help ensure that other States are not tempted to
    initiate a rule of their own, and so I guess what I want to
    know is, do you know where specifically in the bill are other
    States prevented from passing different laws and regulations?
        Mr. Julia. Congressman, they are not. There is nothing in
    this bill that calls for federal preemption, and obviously that
    has been an issue of concern to a lot of folks. We would say
    perhaps in a typical situation, federal preemption is something
    we would support. This is a unique circumstance in which you
    have a State regulation where there has never been a federal
    regulation, there has never been any other State regulation,
    there is no other State that we are aware of thinking about a
    regulation, that California spent an awful lot of time working
    on and indeed a regulation they thought they would take a year
    or two to do. It took them 7 years to do, largely because they
    had a lot of input from stakeholders.
        Mr. Scalise. And it hasn't been fully implemented.
        Mr. Julia. It is in the process of being implemented. By
    the time this federal schedule kicks in, it will be fully
    implemented other than the sell-through periods of it.
        We believe that because of the unique situation here and
    because of the difficulty of reaching accommodation within the
    Congress on this issue of preemption or not preemption, if you
    take a look at the particular facts and circumstances that
    really make this situation unique, you have a rule that the
    regulatory community, you have a rule that all of the industry
    stakeholders throughout the supply chain have embraced, that
    the environmental community, health care and labor community
    have embraced. We would argue that, you know, there is--I would
    pose the question, the rhetorical question, where else would
    California or any other State go at this point if the federal
    government stepped in and said we are going to take that model,
    we are going to make it apply to the entire United States.
    Essentially I would say problem solved. There is really no
    other place for a State agency, California included, to go at
    that point in terms of regulating our products, and that is
    certainly our hope and intention.
        Mr. Scalise. Mr. Counts, you had stated that ``We believe
    that a national approach is crucial in order to avoid
    conflicting State standards and allow for the harmonized
    distribution of products and supplies.'' Yet of course, this
    legislation doesn't do anything to stop other States from
    enacting different or conflicting regulations. Would you be
    concerned if other States enacted different laws or
    regulations?
        Mr. Counts. It is certainly a concern. Any time you have to
    create different products for your supply chain in different
    States, it would be very cost prohibitive. It is our thought
    that this is the most stringent standard in the world and there
    is no incentive for other States to follow and develop their
    own formaldehyde standard if we have a national standard that
    is in place.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to announce that we will have
    additional questions of the witnesses. The Chair recognizes
    himself for up to 3 minutes and the Chair will allow 3 minutes
    for each member to ask additional questions.
        I want to clarify something for the record. In your written
    statement, Mr. Julia characterized the legislation as not
    giving EPA the ability to establish emissions limits that are
    different from those set by California. Mr. Jones, doesn't the
    legislation permit EPA to set formaldehyde standards at a given
    level after the initial rulemaking required by the bill?
        Mr. Jones. Chairman Rush, the bill initially requires the
    agency to set formaldehyde standards that are the functional
    equivalent of the CARB standard. That is what the provision
    itself does. That wouldn't take away EPA's existing authorities
    under TSCA section 6 to regulate formaldehyde if it could make
    the findings required under section 6. So that authority would
    remain intact despite implementation of the bill that is before
    the Congress right now.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the ranking member for 3
    minutes.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Julia, I recognize the national standard sounds good. I
    recognize your industry's concern about the bad players on
    composite wood. But does the industry also have a concern about
    a standard that is set unnecessarily low as it relates to the
    cost of the product that you are trying to produce?
        Mr. Julia. We absolutely would have such a concern, and at
    very many of the workshops in California this is exactly the
    argument that we made because if you look at the record, the
    initial proposals coming out of California were indeed very
    different than what ended up being the California rule and we
    felt that over a period of years and education and working
    cooperatively with the staff of the California Air Resources
    Board, they came to appreciate the technological capability of
    the industry, the curve that we have been on of lowering,
    lowering, lowering our emission levels. We have never said
    either prior to the California rule or since then that anything
    that we make is in any way, shape or form dangerous to public
    health. We have never addressed in those hearings that issue of
    the perceived risk.
        We believe it is a legitimate inquiry but we don't think it
    bears on the issue here in that the levels that we are talking
    about in this legislation are so low we don't believe that they
    rise to the occasion of asking the health concerns and the
    exposure concerns that some parties would like to bring to the
    table.
        Mr. Radanovich. Yet Mr. Andersen, your conviction is pretty
    firm that the standard could be 10 times higher and not pose a
    risk.
        Mr. Andersen. I believe that, but there is another
    significant concern I have, this idea that we are going to be
    conservative based on cancer and then talk about numbers of
    cancers people will have. I think this is a disservice to
    public health. It is a disservice to my neighbors, who only
    hear that this can cause cancer when it is not a significant
    carcinogen. It needs to be regulated based on the right
    reasons, and these regulations and assessments need to take in
    the body of information. I guess you are hearing a purist here
    that we have to do this for the right reason, and we shouldn't
    be scaring people. Right now we scare people with these
    conservative estimates that say you are going to have cancer.
    One in a million will have cancer. All people hear is, you will
    have cancer. And especially for things that aren't legitimate
    carcinogens at realistic human exposure levels. This is
    terrible public health policy. That is my professional
    judgment.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Andersen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rush. Mrs. Matsui is recognized for 3 minutes.
        Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a question for Mr. Counts. You know, we understand
    that this has been a long process and I think it has been
    addressed before--at the beginning of the process there was
    wide disagreement but through the process, I guess took about 7
    years or so, there became a cooperative effort here between
    industry, the regulatory authorities and the public interest
    groups. And I think that is something that you have to look at,
    the fact that this wasn't done overnight and it really took
    people working together. But after years of review and
    rulemaking, CARB finalized the rules establishing these
    standards, the first phase of which went into effect on January
    1, 2009. Now, we know H.R. 4085 will apply these standards
    nationwide. Now, Mr. Counts, do you believe that manufacturers
    of composite wood products outside the United States will be
    able to comply with this proposed standard?
        Mr. Counts. I am confident that if they are given the
    appropriate compliance times and sell-through provisions that
    they will be able to comply. They have had to comply with
    stringent European and Japanese standards for several years
    now. The biggest hurdle with California was a brand-new testing
    requirement that international labs were not familiar with, but
    they are getting up to speed on that and compliance is coming
    along very aggressively. So I am confident that on a national
    basis, given the proper timeline, they can comply.
        Mrs. Matsui. Does AHFA anticipate any issues maintaining
    adequate supply levels once the regulation is promulgated?
        Mr. Counts. Well, the United States is the largest market
    for home furnishings in the world, and this is the most
    stringent standard in the world, so as we get to phase II of
    the California levels on a national basis, there is going to be
    some trial and error from our panel suppliers to make sure that
    they are complying. Unless the economy improves greatly, there
    is going to be a lot of inventory out there that is not
    compliant. We have to make sure we have adequate time to sell
    through all that product and work through the kinks but
    hopefully that will not be a major issue.
        Mrs. Matsui. And what steps has industry generally and AFHA
    taken to reduce formaldehyde emissions over the years?
        Mr. Counts. Well, we have several members that distribute
    nationally and they are embracing the California standard on a
    national level. We have some members that do not sell in
    California and they are finding it harder and harder to find
    panel that would not be compliant with California. So we are
    instructing them that the national standard is very likely and
    they need to move forward in that direction, and we are
    providing education and tools to make that happen.
        Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Scalise.
        Mr. Scalise. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        A couple of questions for Mr. Jones. Some of the panelists
    lament the perceived length of a section 6A rulemaking process.
    If in attempting to apply the CARB standard, if EPA used the
    quality control order provisions in section 6B instead, are
    there such concerns?
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. Section 6B under TSCA
    allows the agency to do facility-by-facility regulation. For
    some industries where there may be two facilities, it might be
    more expeditious to go in that manner. In the case of
    formaldehyde in pressed wood, I believe there are hundreds of
    facilities and so it may actually be longer using 6B going
    facility by facility than just having a national standard under
    6A.
        Mr. Scalise. It seems to me that the major issue is
    imports. What can EPA do under all the existing legal
    authorities to address the issue of wood products with higher
    formaldehyde levels that are coming into our country from other
    nations?
        Mr. Jones. So if there were a federal regulation either
    because we acted under 6A or this bill became law, it would
    apply to imports.
        Mr. Scalise. But what can you do under your current legal
    authority? Are there more things you can be doing right now to
    address those imports that are coming in from other countries
    that have higher levels of formaldehyde?
        Mr. Jones. We would have to have a regulation in place,
    either one that we initiated or that was initiated because this
    bill became law before we could do anything related to imports,
    and right now there is not a federal regulation----
        Mr. Scalise. Clean Air doesn't give any kind of ability to
    you?
        Mr. Jones. I don't believe that a hazardous air pollutant
    regulation would have any ability to influence imports, but
    that is something we can confirm.
        Mr. Scalise. All right. Thanks. I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. The Chair will recognize himself for just a
    couple more questions. Any other member who has additional
    questions, you will be recognized.
        Mr. Jones, if EPA were to set different standards in the
    future, they would have to be issued under TSCA. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct, Chairman Rush.
        Mr. Rush. But EPA has found it exceptionally difficult, if
    not impossible, to use that statute to regulate chemicals like
    formaldehyde. Would you agree that the inherent limitations of
    TSCA raise serious legal obstacles for EPA on this or any other
    issue?
        Mr. Jones. I would agree with that. The agency is pursuing
    a formaldehyde assessment that may well lead to a regulation
    but it is going to be very difficult and tricky for us to get
    over the hurdle of least burdensome, the potential permutations
    that you need to analyze before you could be affirmative in
    your determination that you picked the least burdensome. It has
    proven to be very difficult for the agency. And so we are
    probably 3 to 4 years away from having a formaldehyde
    regulation in place but we are going to try to work with the
    existing statute to see what we can do.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Ryan, do you have any comments on this issue
    that I raise?
        Mr. Ryan. I would just endorse Mr. Jones' comments in terms
    of TSCA authority and the clumsiness of TSCA in getting to an
    early solution to the public health opportunity at hand.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
        The Chair thanks the witnesses, all of you. You have been
    very sacrificial in terms of your time and we really appreciate
    it. The Chair wants to thank the members who were present and
    those who have remained present. The Chair wants to note that
    we will have hearings of this type in the future, and now the
    Chair announces that the committee is hereby adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.059