[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 2, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-171
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-725 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
______
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
MARY BONO MACK, California
Chairman
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JIM MATHESON, Utah
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas officio)
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 5
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 6
Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, prepared statement.................... 85
Witnesses
Inez Tenenbaum, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission..... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 86
Robert S. Adler, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Answers to submitted questions............................... 127
Nancy A. Nord, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission.. 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Answers to submitted questions............................... 138
Anne M. Northup, Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Answers to submitted questions............................... 181
Submitted Material
Letter, dated August 1, 2012, from Rosario Palmieri, Vice
President, Infrastructure, Legal, and Regulatory Policy,
National Association of Manufacturers, to Mrs. Bono Mack and
Mr. Butterfield, submitted by Mrs. Bono Mack................... 76
OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mary Bono Mack
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Mack, Blackburn, Bass,
Harper, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, McKinley, Pompeo, Kinzinger,
Barton, Butterfield, Schakowsky, Sarbanes, and Waxman (ex
officio).
Staff present: Paige Anderson, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade Coordinator; Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk; Brian
McCullough, Senior Professional Staff Member, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press
Secretary; Shannon Taylor Weinberg, Counsel, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief
Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Felipe Mendoza,
Democratic Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; and
William Wallace, Democratic Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Bono Mack. Good morning. The subcommittee will now
come to order.
It has been a year now since Congress, at the urging of our
subcommittee, approved key reforms to the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Today we are going to check
under the hood, talk to members of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, and see how it is working.
And the Chair now recognizes herself for an opening
statement. And I appreciate that general counsel changed the
clock from 86 minutes to 5 minutes, but I will keep it to 5
minutes.
So, established in 1972, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission is an independent agency created by Congress to
protect consumers against unreasonable risks of injuries
associated with consumer products. By and large the CPSC does
an admirable job of protecting Americans, and I remain very
supportive of its work, but on occasion the agency makes some
puzzling, head-scratching decisions which create economic
hardships for U.S. businesses without appreciably improving the
safety of certain products.
By law the CPSC has the authority to regulate the sale and
manufacture of more than 15,000 different consumer products,
ranging from baby cribs to toys and from all-terrain vehicles
to swimming pools. Without question the CPSC has very broad
authorities, which makes congressional oversight critically
important. The agency has the power to ban dangerous consumer
products, issue recalls of products already on the market, and
research potential hazards associated with a wide range of
consumer products.
Today the CPSC learns about unsafe products in several
ways. The agency maintains a consumer hotline and Website
through which consumers may report concerns about unsafe
products or injuries associated with products. It also operates
the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which
collects data on product-related injuries treated in hospital
emergency rooms.
The broad reach of the CPSC was on full display in 2007,
which has been referred to as the ``year of the recall'' in the
U.S. Fueled by the Chinese toy scare, the CPSC alone imposed a
record 473 recalls in 2007, many of these recalls involving
lead in toys and other children's products. These much-
publicized safety issues prompted Congress to take action and
resulted in passage of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008, also known as CPSIA.
Among other things, CPSIA increased funding and staffing
for the CPSC, placed stricter limits on lead levels in
children's products, restricted certain phthalates in
children's toys and child-care articles, and required the CPSC
to create a public database of their products. The public
database, saferproducts.--excuse me, yes,
saferproductsdot.gov--no, OK, staff thinks I wouldn't notice
saferproducts.gov--thank you, staff.
So, this remains a source of controversy. Manufacturers
continue to express their concern that most of the complaints
are not vetted by the CPSC before they are made public, opening
the door to all kinds of mischief, whether to fuel lawsuits or
to try and ruin a competitor's brands.
Within months of enactment of CPSIA, it became clear that
implementing a number of provisions would be extremely
problematic, prompting the agency to issue several significant
stays of enforcement prior to 2011, including the imposition of
lead limits for ATVs, off-road-use motorcycles and snowmobiles.
Why the agency even considered such limits is one of those
puzzling, head-scratching decisions. So last year, after
several hearings, and after bicameral and bipartisan
negotiations, both the House and the Senate passed H.R. 2715,
offered by myself and my good friend and colleague Mr.
Butterfield. On August 12, 2011, President Obama signed that
legislation into law. Our purpose was to relieve unfair and
costly burdens imposed on American businesses, while still
maintaining critically important consumer safeguards. Today I
am very anxious to learn how well that new law is working.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bono Mack follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Bono Mack. And with that, the gentlelady from Illinois
is now recognized for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Let me just say that Mr. Butterfield will be here. He is on
the floor and unable to come now, but I want to yield first to
Mr. Waxman, who is the ranking on the full committee, for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Ms. Schakowsky, for your
courtesy in allowing me to go ahead of you at this time because
of scheduling problems that I have.
I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing
to conduct oversight on the activities of the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and I am pleased that we have all
four Commissioners here today to provide testimony.
This month will mark 4 years since enactment of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, or what is
called CPSIA. It will mark 1 year since enactment of Public Law
112-28, which gave the Consumer Product Safety Commission
additional flexibility in implementing the law.
This law was a landmark piece of legislation. It
fundamentally changed how we protect children from potentially
dangerous products. Implementation of this law has been the
predominant focus of the Commission. The goal of the law was to
transform the agency's mission. The Commission used to be an
underfunded, ineffective, reactive agency. Today the Commission
is still underfunded, unfortunately, but it is no longer
ineffective and reactive. Today the agency is on a path toward
anticipating risks to children and acting to prevent them.
No transformation is easy, and this has been no different.
There were some rough waters in the early days of
implementation, and a year ago we had to act to pass some
targeted fixes to the law. But make no mistake about it, this
law has been a success. Thanks to this safety law, we now have
strong standards for products used by infants and children,
including cribs, toddler beds, walkers, and bath seats. We now
have a product registration system that enables manufacturers
or retailers of durable infant and toddler products to contact
parents with recall or other safety information.
We now have a consumer products safety information database
where the public can file and view reports about harm from
consumer products. And we also have testing of products to
ensure that they are safe before they ever make it into our
children's hands.
And the results of the law are clear. Toy-related deaths
have fallen, recalls due to lead have declined by 80 percent,
and recalls overall have continued to decline as products have
become safer. Border enforcement is also up.
These protections matter to parents. They matter to
children. So I look forward to hearing--the hearing today from
the Commissioners about their continuing work. While I may not
be able to be here throughout your testimony, I certainly will
have a chance to review it after you have given it, as I have
for your statements that have been entered into the record. And
I thank all four of you for being here and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank the gentleman.
And at this point I will recognize Ms. Schakowsky for 5
minutes for a statement. We have nobody requesting time on our
side.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I thank you, Madam Chairman, for
holding this hearing. I think it is important for the
subcommittee to hear from the Consumer Product Safety
Commission about its activities, and particularly the ongoing
implementation of the landmark Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act.
A few weeks ago, I joined Chairman Tenenbaum, and Danny
Keysar's mother, Linda Ginzel, at a press conference to mark
the adoption of the strongest standard in the world for play
yards. The play yard standard is significant because it was a
dangerous product that led to Danny's death at his day-care
center when it really was used as a crib, collapsed and choked
him. And the portion of this CPSIA that I authored and that
mandated the new standard bears his name.
I mention the play yard standard because it is a specific
example of how the CPSIA's safety standard for toys and
children's products will save lives. That was our goal at the
outset of drafting the legislation, and it is the one that we
met.
Last year we passed a bill with some narrow fixes so that
implementation of the law could continue smoothly. And I
welcome today's opportunity to review progress, but want to say
clearly that I believe it is absolutely critical that we
continue to support and uphold the fundamentals of this
historic legislation.
I want to highlight that CPSIA was a bipartisan effort. It
passed the House 424 to 1, from the beginning to the end, and
is a model for what this Congress can achieve on behalf of the
American people.
And, Chairman Tenenbaum, I commend you for your leadership
on implementing the safety standards for children's products,
and also for your ongoing work to improve the safety of table
saws and window coverings, and I thank you for leading this
Commission in a way that continues to provide safety and
security to the American consumer. And I also deeply thank
Commissioners Adler, Nord, and Northup for their service, and
for being here today. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Bono Mack. I thank the gentlelady.
And we turn our attention now to the panel that we have
before us today. Each of our witnesses has prepared an opening
statement that will be placed into the record. You will each
have 5 minutes to summarize the statement in your remarks, but
I am sure you all are very familiar with this--the way it
works.
Our distinguished panel includes the Honorable Inez
Tenenbaum, Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
and we thank you very much for postponing or changing your
travel plans to be with us today, and thank you very much for
that. We also have with us the Honorable Robert Adler,
Commissioner at the CPSC; the Honorable Nancy Nord,
Commissioner; and our former colleague, it is great to see her
again, the Honorable Anne Northup, another Commissioner at the
CPSC.
So good morning. Thank you all very much for being here
today. And with that, Chairman Tenenbaum, you may begin with
your 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF INEZ M. TENENBAUM, CHAIRMAN, CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION; ROBERT S. ADLER, COMMISSIONER, CONSUMER
PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION; NANCY A. NORD, COMMISSIONER,
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION; ANNE M. NORTHUP,
COMMISSIONER, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF INEZ M. TENENBAUM
Ms. Tenenbaum. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bono Mack
and members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and
Trade. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission's operations and activities
to keep consumers safe from dangerous and defective consumer
products.
The agency is in the strongest position to meet its mission
than it has been in more than a decade. In the limited time I
have today, I would like to focus on a few recent achievements
as well as look ahead to 2013.
The first area I would like to use is the CPSC's ongoing
work to ensure that infant and toddler products meet some of
the world's strongest safety standards. In the years leading up
to the passage of the CPSIA, there were numerous instances of
injuries and deaths to infants and small children in defective
infant and durable nursery equipment. As a result the CPSA
contains section 104, which requires mandatory safety standards
for most infant and toddler products.
When I assumed the chairmanship of the Commission in the
summer of 2009, there were no mandatory safety standards for
any of these products. Since then I have moved to implement
this mandate as quickly as possible. In December 2010, the
Commission passed the toughest crib safety standard in the
world. Subsequently we also passed mandatory safety standards
for baby walkers, baby bath seats, bed rails, toddler beds, and
play yards.
In addition to infant and toddler products, the Commission
has also implemented the CPSIA's requirement that all
children's products in the market be subject to periodic
independent assessment of the safety by a third-party testing
laboratory. We provided manufacturers with a great amount of
flexibility and choice on how to comply as long as they have a
high degree of assurance that their children's products are
compliant. We are currently reviewing our staff's report on the
potential ways to reduce third-party testing costs consistent
with ensuring compliance as required by Public Law 1228.
I am also very proud of the work by Commission staff to
implement and maintain the publicly searchable database
saferproducts.gov. Overall saferproducts.gov is a model of open
government and consumer empowerment, and I appreciate the hard
work by many of this subcommittee to further improve
saferproducts.gov during the Public Law 1228 debate.
The best way to ensure that dangerous consumer products
never get into the hands of consumers is to ensure that they
never enter the United States. As Chairman I have place special
emphasis on the past year on the continued development of the
CPSC's Office of Import Surveillance. This office works hand in
hand with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in major
U.S. ports of entry to inspect and detain shipments that
violate U.S. Consumer Product Safety standards. In fiscal year
2011, CPSC import surveillance staff was able to stop
approximately 4.5 million units of violative and hazardous
consumer products from entering the United States.
In 2013, funding permitted, I am optimistic that the CPSC
will be able to take additional steps toward full
implementation of a fully integrated targeting system, often
referred to as the risk assessment methodology, or RAM. This
will allow CPSC staff to analyze a greater number of import
shipments, identify those that are more likely to violate
consumer safety laws, and ensure that our limited resources are
dedicated to those shipments.
I would also like to highlight a number of positive
collaborative relationships we have established. The first is
in the area of educating parents to ensure that infants have a
safe sleep environment. As part of this I have reached out to
major retailers who sell sleep products like cribs and play
yards to ask them to join me in educating parents that the
safest way for their baby to sleep is alone in a crib on its
back.
Accidental ingestion of coin and button cell batteries is
another area in which we are keenly focused. We had very
productive meetings with the major battery manufacturers, and a
range of possible solutions from design changes to safer
packaging have been discussed.
The third collaborative model is occurring in youth sports,
particularly in the area of head injuries in football. I am
very pleased that after much hard work initiated by my office,
a group effort led by the National Football League is under way
to provide economically disadvantaged youth football programs
with new helmets, and to conduct an education campaign to bring
about a culture change in this sport.
In the coming months and years, I see a CPSC addressing
hazards I have already mentioned as well as moving to address
emerging hazards. At CPSC we are carrying out a statutorily
required, proactive regulatory agenda, and consumers are safer
because of this approach.
With an increasing focus at the ports, with more meaningful
standards coming online, and with even greater public/private
efforts, I envision safer and safer products in the hands of
consumers. They deserve no less.
Chairman Bono Mack, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I am happy to answer any questions you may have later.
Thank you.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tenenbaum follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Bono Mack. Commissioner Adler, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. ADLER
Mr. Adler. Thank you very much. Good morning.
Mrs. Bono Mack. If you can just pull it much closer for--a
little bit closer. And is it turned on?
Mr. Adler. I have no idea. The one that says push?
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you.
Mr. Adler. Let me try that again.
Good morning, Chairman Bono Mack and members of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today along with my fellow CPSC
Commissioners. I am pleased to be here today to discuss an
agency that I have been associated with in some fashion since
its establishment in 1973 and have been a Commissioner at since
August of 2009.
This October will mark the 40th anniversary of the passage
of the landmark Consumer Product Safety Act, and looking back
now, I believe Congress and the agency should take great pride
in what the agency has accomplished, especially considering the
immense scope of our mission, which is to protect the public
from any and all unreasonable risks associated with roughly
15,000 categories of consumer products.
What has the agency accomplished? As a starting point I
would cite the estimated 30 percent reduction in the rate of
deaths and injuries associated with consumer products since the
agency's inception. And I would particularly point to the
dramatic drop in death and injuries to children, such as the
reductions of over 90 percent in childhood poisoning deaths and
crib-related deaths.
In short, CPSC has produced an excellent return on
investment. By our calculation this drop in deaths and injuries
has resulted in over $16 billion in reduced societal costs, or
many, many times the resources the CPSC has been given to do
its job. And as a very small agency, we have had to produce
these benefits at very low cost.
Of course, even efficiency has its limits. As of 5 years
ago, the CPSC had shrunk to a skeleton crew of less than 400
and a budget of $62 million. To Congress' credit, in 2008,
almost unanimously you passed the CPSIA, providing the agency
with more tools and directing it to do more work and do it
faster. Put simply, the CPSIA revitalized an agency that was
underfunded and undermanned, and for that I am sure consumers
across the country are grateful.
Undoubtedly the biggest change felt by the children's
product community has been the mandate in the CPSIA that all
children's products be tested by third-party independent
laboratories before they enter the market, and on a continuing
basis thereafter. Let me assure you that we at the Commission
have worked very hard to implement this mandate in a thoughtful
and measured way, and I can report that we finally reached the
point where the final rule will take effect in February.
Of course, such a strong safety step forward carries broad
implications for our regulated community, and we know that and
are fully aware of our need to work closely with them as we
implement the law.
As we approach the fourth anniversary of CPSIA, it is worth
reflecting on two common themes in the law. The agency needed
more resources and other tools to accomplish its safety
mission, and it needed to change its approach to vulnerable
populations, particularly children. I think we will keep this
in mind as we move forward into the future.
I do want to note one particular provision in the CPSIA
because it is something the Congress changed in the CPSIA. I
believe that in section 9 of the CPSA, and other sections of
our laws, we have the most burdensome cost-benefit requirements
in the entire Federal Government. Under these requirements, by
my count, the Commission has managed to issue a grand total of
nine safety rules in 31 years, or roughly one every 3 \1/3\
years.
The Congress recognized this, and Congress took major
strides to lessen the burden. Congress didn't abolish the need
for cost-benefit; Congress retained it in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. And to drive the point home, you prescribed
extraordinarily short deadlines for the promulgation of rules
for children's products. This approach, to me, clearly has
succeeded. By the most conservative count possible under these
procedures, we have issued 10 safety rules in the past 4 years,
or 2 \1/2\ rules every year as opposed to 1 every 3 \1/3\
years.
In closing, I want to share one major concern about a
growing and increasingly vulnerable population, older
Americans, of which I am now one. In fact, despite being only
13 percent of the population, older Americans suffer 60 percent
of the deaths and injuries associated with consumer products.
The fact that I now fit within this demographic has definitely
helped me understand what a serious challenge we face in the
coming years as America ages.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the
members of this subcommittee as we focus on our mission to
protect our citizens from risks of unreasonable injury or
death.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you, Commissioner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Bono Mack. And welcome, Commissioner Nord. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD
Ms. Nord. Thank you so much. I am delighted to be here.
You have in front of you four different statements
representing the views, the opinions, the observations and, in
some cases, the criticisms of the four Commissioners of the
CPSC. And yes, we all agree on many things. Of course, we all
agree that children are our most vulnerable consumers and, more
importantly, our most precious asset.
Of course, we all agree that increased resources for
engineers, compliance officers, scientists, port inspectors,
and yes, dare I say, some lawyers has allowed us to really bump
up our game in carrying out our mission.
Of course, a state-of-the-art testing lab, which I am very
proud to have initiated the efforts for, has met with rave
reviews, and moving our information technology systems into the
21st century has met with strong approval.
Indeed, we find common ground in dealing with serious
issues like mandatory safety standards for infant and toddler
products and using our new authorities to address hazards like
drawstrings. And we are all very, very proud of the great work
that our staff is doing, especially in the ports and out in the
field.
So in many cases it is not the what, it is the how. And I
am very concerned that we are falling short on the how, whether
it is on big items or things with smaller significance.
As I mentioned in my written statement, I have major
concerns about how we develop the testing and certification
rule; how we have defined children's products; how we have
justified dropping the lead content limits from 300 parts per
million to 100 parts per million. That is 99.99 percent lead
free.
I have concern about how our limited resources are being
used. Did we really need to spend almost $2 million on
consultants to tell us how to rewrite our strategic objectives
and our mission statement? Will we know how we are going to be
spending our funds come the October 1st beginning of the fiscal
year if we have yet to establish our priorities in an operating
plan?
But more importantly than resources, it is how rules are
being proposed, considered, and promulgated. If staff strongly
suggests the Commissioners not move forward with finalizing the
testing rule, but rather seek public input as directed by
Congress, and the majority ignores that and puts a rush on the
rule, how can we say that that is thoughtful and measured
decision-making?
When Commissioners decry the use of cost-benefit analysis
and say, well, the Regulatory Flexibility Act is all we need
because that focuses the impact on the impact on small
businesses, yet consistently turns around and disregards the
information that is in the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
it doesn't lead to a desired regulatory result?
When a claim is made that section 6(b) of our law is ultra-
restrictive and inhibits to the point of virtual prohibition
releasing information to the public in a timely way, yet the
agency in the past year three times has released inaccurate and
misleading information, contrary to 6(b), that almost
jeopardized the major recall in one case and caused the agency
to do a public retraction in another?
We can all agree that each Commissioner here today has a
strong commitment to safety, and that differences of opinion as
to regulatory issues should not be viewed as a lack of
commitment. And believe me, I am not looking for trouble from
my colleagues, but I am very troubled about how we approach
issues.
Interestingly, I note that one of my colleagues with whom I
often disagree in the statement says, quote, ``The necessary
but delicate balance of new safety requirements with new
burdens.''
I agree it is necessary. I agree it is delicate. I think
that the agency's actions, over the past 2 years in particular,
fall quite wide of the mark and have created a great imbalance
between safety and new burdens, and as a result American
consumers are overpaying for safety. We cannot close our eyes
to the harm that we are causing many businesses that produce
perfectly safe products and pretend that that harm does not
exist. I think we need to work harder to find the balance that
is missing.
Thank you.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you, Commissioner.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nord follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Bono Mack. And again, a welcome to our former
colleague. It is great to have you here. And, Commissioner
Northup, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANNE M. NORTHUP
Ms. Northup. Thank you. I am delighted to be here, and as
the Commissioner that is rotating off the Commission at the end
of October, this will probably be my last opportunity to share
with this committee some of my observations and concerns as we
go forward.
I appreciate the remarks of the other three Commissioners
that preceded me. I agree with Commissioner Nord, who talked
about many of the accomplishments that we have done, the
durable goods standards, the mandatory standards, our work at
the borders and imports. All of those are claims that I think
all of us are very supportive of.
But I am going to specifically talk about several examples
of the impact of what this Commission has done and share it
with the committee so that they can judge whether or not that
is what they anticipated when they passed the CPSIA and as they
have funded this Commission.
The dropping from 300 parts per million to 100 parts per
million was done last year. August 1st it took effect. That
meant we reduced from 99.97 percent lead free, to 99.99 percent
lead free. Our staff found--and I am taking this right out of
their proposed package--that it contributed minimally to the
overall lead exposure of children. That is the benefit of it.
Conversely, the Commission's economist concluded that mandating
the lower lead limit would have significant adverse economic
impacts, including the use of more expensive low-lead
materials, costly reengineering of products to use lower-lead
materials, increased testing costs, increased consumer prices,
reduction in the type and quality of children's products
available to consumers, businesses exiting the children's
market, and manufacturers going out of business.
There is no question that these effects have been felt.
Unfortunately the businesses that have left the market or that
have gone out of business are no longer here to testify to you
and to provide information to you because they have left the
market.
What did this do? This created an enormous new hidden tax
on consumers and parents. Many, many manufacturers have shared
with us the bells and whistles that they took out of their
products, the lack of choices, the fewer models that they
offer, the cost increases that they have had to pass on to
consumers for something that has almost no measurable benefit
to a child.
That is the kind of decision that has concerned me
throughout my term, this sort of out-of-context rulemaking that
we do. I know, as Members of Congress, that as you pass
legislation, you consider what is good for consumers. At the
same time you consider the unemployment rate, the cost of
living, all of the other global impacts that you have that you
bear on your shoulders. But when you are at the Commission, no
one has to think about any of those other things. In the name
of safety, this Commission has taken actions that far overreach
any necessary protection to consumers.
Probably the biggest decision that we made that I have
found so discouraging, and I think it is important to share
with you, is our reversal on unblockable drains. The Virginia
Graeme Baker Act required that we protect children, protect the
public from deaths in pools where--it is called evisceration,
where a blockable drain can trap a child or an adult so that
they cannot become free, and they are eviscerated. And after
you passed this law, you gave us a great deal of choice. We
could have backup systems or any other technology that we
thought was equal to that. In the meantime American inventors
came up with several inventions with the ability to change a
blockable drain to an unblockable drain. And the Commission
found that that met the requirement.
After a year, and at great cost to many the pool owners
that adopted this new technology, the Commission reversed
itself because one Commissioner changed their vote. And it
meant that that unblockable drain cover no longer satisfied the
law. And so now everyone has to have a backup system. A vacuum
alert, which is the primary system they use, is not dependable.
It goes off when it shouldn't. It doesn't go off when it is
supposed to, as it didn't in Tennessee just last month. It is
not available to private pools. It is much more expensive. We
were overwhelmed with the number of letters that came into us
and told us that this was a less safe direction to take, and
yet we proceeded down that direction at great cost to the
public.
We estimate over 1,100 pools have closed--not our agency,
but the association that oversees pools. We know that many
States have said they simply can't bring pools into compliance,
and here there was a much less costly, much more available
technology that could have been available to pools, but was
reversed by our Commission. I can certainly answer more
questions about this if there is more time.
In the end, though, this Commission has made many
decisions, many rules, completely disregarding the cost, the
lack of choice it is going to give consumers, the inability of
small companies to comply with these regulations all in the
name of children's safety despite the fact that our staff has
told us many of these will not increase safety for children.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Northup follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you, Commissioner, and again, I thank
you all very much for your testimony and for your hard work and
your dedication to these issues.
And now I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questioning
and would like to direct my first question to Commissioner
Tenenbaum. It might be a little bit outside of the ordinary
question you get, but something that I have been looking at and
you all came screaming to mind is the problem with bath salts.
In recent months the news has been overflowing of the reports
on the health implications of designer drugs that are sold and
labeled as bath salts. The CDC has reports on file that date
back to 2010 showing numerous instances of people being
hospitalized and even dying from these substances. Despite the
fact that the DEA has banned some ingredients, online
pharmacies and small minimart-type stores continue to sell
them. They are labeled bath salts, and they clearly say on them
``not for human consumption.'' And it is an attempt to avoid
the DEA ban. And despite that fact, there is no legitimate
purpose as a bath salt.
Does the CPSC have any jurisdiction to regulate the sale of
products like legitimate bath salts?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
That may fall under the category of cosmetics under the
Food and Drug Administration, but I would like to check with
our legal staff when I return to the Commission and get you an
answer for that. But it might be a cosmetic and, as such, would
not be under our jurisdiction.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Has this ever risen to the level of your
interest? Have you seen it out there? Have you seen the stories
and said, ``Can I take a look at that?''
Ms. Tenenbaum. I have seen the stories. I don't believe our
staff has investigated it because it might not fall under our
jurisdiction.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Could you possibly take a look and see if
there is--I mean, these have very seriously----
Ms. Tenenbaum. Certainly, I certainly will.
Mrs. Bono Mack [continuing]. Dangerous substances that are
out there, and I would hope that Commissioner Adler as well
would take a strong look at that and see how we can throw the
kitchen sink without these dangerous bath salts.
Ms. Tenenbaum. And we also could meet with the FDA to talk
about how jointly we could address the hazards. So we will
follow up on that for you.
Mrs. Bono Mack. I appreciate it very much.
Also something, I did send you a letter, Commissioner
Tenenbaum, about the thought of launching a Facebook fan page.
Can you tell me what the status of the Commission's plans are?
Did you happen to send a letter back to me on this matter?
Ms. Tenenbaum. No. First of all, all the Commissioners have
voiced support for the concept of having social media and using
social media to educate the public on risks such as soft
bedding, carbon monoxide, drowning, and furniture tip-overs.
There is an issue, however, on whether or not Facebook would
violate section 6(b) of the CPSA, which requires us that if we
obtain information on a manufacturer, that we cannot give that
information out publicly without obtaining the consent of the
manufacturer. So the issue is can someone--if we had a
Facebook, and a person posted something about a manufacturer as
a comment, would that mean we obtained information; as such
would we have to scrub all of that information and ascertain
its accuracy before it is posted? That would require too much
resources from the Commission.
So we have not made a decision. Our general counsel's
office is continuing to work on all of the issues, and we will
provide you with that memorandum when or if we decide to go
forward with Facebook.
Mrs. Bono Mack. So to clarify, the general counsel just has
not opined on that matter yet at all?
Ms. Tenenbaum. She and her staff have worked hard on that,
and it is not completed. Other offices in the Commission, other
Commissioners had raised other legal issues that required more
legal research, and so they have not finished that memorandum.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you.
And Commissioner Northup?
Ms. Northup. Madam Chair, I think it would mislead,
misrepresent the position of at least myself and maybe
Commissioner Nord that we are all in support of opening a
Facebook page. While we acknowledge that we can understand the
benefit, I, at least, and, I think, Commissioner Nord, believe
it absolutely would violate the overarching rules in our
Commission, and that 6(b) is not exactly as the chairman
described it. That sort of misrepresents 6(b)'s requirements.
But I would also point out to you that the database, in the
database, that you all suspended the 6(b) requirements for the
database, and then we wrote that rule, and it is now under
attack in the courts. Someone has filed suit against us that
they have not--that we have violated the laws. If we lose that
case, it would almost certainly say that any putting up of
Facebook would violate the protections of 6(b).
And I might say it will make--if we lose that case, we
could possibly undo millions of dollars of work we have done on
this and have to rewrite the rule, something that I claimed all
the way through the process.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you very much.
At this point I will recognize Mr. Butterfield for 5
minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. I thank the chairman, and also thank the
gentlelady from Illinois for sitting in the Chair for me this
morning. I have had a very busy morning, and I thank her very
much.
In March 2011, I wrote a letter to Chairman Upton and to
the chairman of this subcommittee asking that the subcommittee
hold a hearing concerning questions about the level of
protection new and used football helmets provide athletes of
all ages. In particular, concerns had been raised around this
time about what kind of injuries can be prevented with the
football helmet, and about whether used helmets continue to
provide a sufficient level of protection against the injuries
they are designed to guard against.
So far this subcommittee hasn't acted to look further into
these issues. I understand the CPSC has been engaged on these
issues since they first drew scrutiny, and that you plan to
become more engaged through a new initiative with the NFL and
the CDC, among others. So I am going to ask the Chairman,
Chairman Tenenbaum, can you please discuss all aspects of the
work the CPSC is doing in this area, the status of that work,
and where you plan or might like to see these efforts go?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Thank you. I would be happy to talk about
our work with the NFL. Like you, I am very concerned with the
brain injuries in football and sports, especially those that
affect young people, high school and college athletes. Because
these injuries have such devastating consequence, this issue
has been a priority for me. And our efforts have a short-,
medium-, and long-term focus.
In the short term, we would like to have a partnership with
the NCAA, and the NFL, and the CDC, major manufacturers, and
the voluntary standards to see what kind of reconditioning
steps that we can take. All manufacturers with the exception of
one have agreed to put a label on the new helmet which says the
date that the helmet was manufactured, and gives a date that it
should be reconditioned, optimally within 10 years.
We also have worked with the NFL and will be making
announcements this weekend in order to drive a culture change
and have education in terms of how to avoid head injuries when
playing football. Also, the NFL has funded a program for four
communities where they will give helmets to schools where
economically disadvantaged youth play. So these new helmets
will help tremendously as well.
Mr. Butterfield. Well, thank you for your work in that
area. Is there anything we can or should do legislatively to
support what you are doing?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, we have--the research on helmets is
not complete in terms of we have not found that there is a
helmet that will prevent concussions. So we hope to monitor
that. We hope this committee will stay interested in that and
work with us on it because that would ultimately prevent
injuries.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
Mr. Adler, is there anything that you can add to this
conversation about helmets?
Mr. Adler. What I want to add is my personal thanks and
commendation to the Chair for taking this on as a personal task
and for dedicating a very valuable staff person to go around
the country and work on this. I think what you have heard from
the results that she has discussed are really wonderful
results. I think she deserves almost total credit for doing
that, and I think it is an important endeavor, and I hope it
continues.
Mr. Butterfield. Well, when I met with her in my office a
few months ago, she told me it was one of her priorities.
Mr. Adler. Well, it is, and I think she and her staff have
done an excellent job.
Mr. Butterfield. Yes. All right.
Let's see. One of the biggest victories for consumers,
consumer advocates, and those of us who believe in government
transparency was the creation through CPSIA of the publicly
available Consumer Product Safety Information Database. This
database launched in March of last year at
www.saferproducts.gov. There consumers can both file safety
complaints about consumer products and view complaints by other
consumers that have met the standards for inclusion in the
database. And before Congress mandated creation of this
database, the American public had almost no access to
information provided by consumers to the CPSC about injuries
from the products they use.
Let me ask the Chairman or Mr. Adler, can you please
discuss some of the statistics and trends you are seeing
related to the database, like how many complaints are being
filed and what types of complaints, et cetera?
Ms. Tenenbaum. We receive on average 600 per month. In
total we received a little over--almost 9,600 reports of harm
posted on the saferproducts.gov as of July the 27th of this
year. Over 1,000 of these reports have been assigned to follow-
up by our investigators, resulting in 875 completed
investigations to date.
There were some on the Commission that said this would be a
place where trial lawyers would try to salt the database. We
have found that 97 percent of all reports are of consumers who
own the product and who have had experience personally with the
product. The three top categories have been kitchen appliances,
33 percent; nursery equipment or supplies is about 8 percent;
and toys are about 5 percent.
When you amended the CPSA to Public Law 112-28, you asked
to us require the serial number. We found that the model of the
serial number now, 88 percent are filling that portion in; 88
percent is nonblank. So we have used it to recall two products,
and we think that it has been generally well accepted.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. I believe my time is expired. I
thank you, and I thank you all of the Commissioners for the
service that you render to our country.
I yield back.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the
recognition, and thank you for my colleague from Kentucky here
with us today, and who some of you may know, or may not know,
her sister was one of our great Olympians in 1984. And so
talking about swimming pools and athletes here today, it is
really--how proud she made Kentucky and how proud she made
America.
There is another Louisvillian, I can tell this, Chris
Burke. Many of you know about Chris. He played at St. X. He hit
the walk-off home run for Houston to beat the Braves. And
somebody said about him, said when he was like 6, he was out
hitting the ball every day. And they said he lived a moment of
a lifetime, but he spent a lifetime getting to that moment. You
know how hard our Olympic athletes are working to get there,
and it is always great to praise your sister. Those great
billboards in Louisville are always fun to see.
In Shelby County in my district, there is a table saw
manufacturer, and I am not going to ask a question, I just want
to bring up--and their concern, you were going down--the
Commissioner is looking at table saw technology, and nobody is
saying that what--the technology you are looking at is not
safer and makes things safer. Their concern is, is it patented,
and the expense of it. So just making sure that there are
some--as we look at new standards as opportunities for other
types of technologies and things move forward, that creates the
same kind of safety standards. So I just wanted to bring that
forward.
But I want to talk to Commissioner Northup on the President
has issued Executive Orders on regulations, and he talked in
the State of the Union how the regulations are strangling the
economy in a lot of ways, and putting forth opportunities to
move forward. I think there were two Executive Orders, and I
guess my question--I can tell you what they are, but I think
you guys are aware of them; if not, I can go through. But I
just want to know what the CPSC has done to implement the
Executive Orders of the President on reviewing regulations.
Ms. Northup. Well, we are considering a package right now,
although it has been a couple of months. It has been sort of
dangling out there without agreement.
Let me just say that the President and Mr. Cass Sunstein
have both written extensively about it. They have both said
their primary purpose, and I have a quote right here, is to
insist on pragmatic, evidence-based, cost-effective rules. They
specifically talked about looking at major rules, rules that
affected a significant portion of the economy. They also talked
about doing cost-benefit analysis.
You have seen both in the previous testimony of the Chair
in the Senate and now Commissioner Adler today the sort of
resistance to cost-benefit analysis, that the benefit has to
justify the cost. And this has been something we have publicly
debated. I think that in the name of safety, you can just about
adopt the most expensive, as we have seen, new standards that
drive businesses out of business. So I believe we ought to do
some cost-benefit analysis on the rules that we look at.
The second thing is we need to look at major rules, and
this year, for example, we have talked about two retrospective
ones. One is the testing of toy caps. Toy caps, that is an old
standard, was--has long been out of date. Nobody uses it. It
was absolutely a nothing regulation. Nobody was using it. It
has been overcome by the new F963 toy standards, new testing
standards. And so to say we used retrospective review to bring
the toy cap standards into modern times is to ignore, in my
opinion, the intention of the Executive Orders and the spirit
of them.
And so as we talk about what our plan is going forward, I
think we should agree that we are going to look at major rules,
rules that have a significant economic impact as the President
and Mr. Sunstein have talked about in their articles and,
secondly, agree that we will do some cost-benefit analysis, and
the conclusion of cost-benefit is that the benefit will be in
proportion to the cost.
Right now we have Reg Flex analysis. You will hear some of
the Commissioners talk about, well, isn't that enough? But we
have blown through rule after rule where it is clear that the
analysis of the economic impact does not justify the new
safety. It didn't matter. With Reg Flex analysis, all you have
to do is the analysis; you don't have to create a finding that
it is justified.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you. I am about out of time. And I
just want to say, as we look at the reg review process in your
Commission and all over, in terms of just the number of regs
that we were looking at, what is actually hurting the economy?
And there is a cement plant, Louisville Cemex over on Dixie
Highway, that is in my district actually that is threatened by
some regulations coming forward. So we can look at numbers of
regs to look at or what actually makes big impact, and we need
to look at ones that make big impact on the economy.
I yield back.
Ms. Northup. Of course, I agree.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you.
And, Ms. Schakowsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
You know, I am looking at your testimony, Commissioner
Nord--no, I guess it was Northup--and you have in there ``the
feverish regulatory pace.'' You know, we passed the CPSIA 4
years ago, and this idea that somehow we are in a feverish
regulatory pace--and it was in Mr. Adler's testimony that in
the 31 years that--since the CPSC was saddled with unique
requirements, I think you are talking about the emphasis on
cost-benefit analysis, there were nine consumer product safety
rules, over roughly one every 3 \1/2\ years. And so in the last
4 years, I am happy to say there is 10 safety rules that came
out.
And, you know, I mean, I have worked with kids in danger on
this crib stuff for a very long time, and the play yards for a
very long time. I don't think that most consumers would think
this is about a feverish regulatory pace of finally getting
this done.
So I want to ask you, Chairman Tenenbaum, how would the old
way have impacted your ability to improve the safety of durable
infant and toddler goods? Would you have been able to
promulgate the crib rule as quickly as you did, or the play
yard rule, and what impact would that have had on the safety of
our children, which ought to be, it seems to me, the chief
focus of the hearing today?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Thank you, Congresswoman Schakowsky.
We would not have been able to promulgate the infant
durable nursery equipment rules on the schedule that Congress
mandated that we promulgate them. We are required under the
CPSIA to put forth two rules every 6 months on durable nursery
equipment. Since the CPSC--CPSIA passed, we have written 41
rules, all of which were required by the law. We have not gone
off afield and created rules. All of the rules were required of
us under the CPSIA. So had we not been able to work with the
standards committee and industry to write the standards for the
crib and then adopt it as our rule, it would have taken years
to do cost-benefit analysis.
I am not against cost-benefit analysis. I think sometimes
it is justified, but when you are looking at trying to have
rules that protect the safety of children and infants as this
Congress--as Congress passed under CPSIA, having the
Administrative Procedures Act helped us expedite the process,
and we worked hand in glove with industry. Industry helped
write these rules.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Ms. Northup. May I respond?
Ms. Schakowsky. Actually I have a question for Mr. Adler on
a totally different subject, and I just want to get it in,
because I have a--I am cochair of a seniors task force of the
Democratic Caucus. And you briefly mentioned about older
Americans and a particular vulnerability, and I am just
wondering if you could explain that a little further.
Mr. Adler. Yes. One of the things that the Congress has
been particularly sensitive to is vulnerable populations. And
as it turns out, the vulnerable population we have been
dedicating our attention and resources to over the years,
properly so, has been infants. But as part of this growing,
almost exploding demographic, I have been very concerned about
the impact of dangerous products on the senior population.
If you look at the injury patterns for seniors, they almost
always exceed the population at large. It is not as though--and
falls are a huge part of it, and fires are another huge part.
There are a number of products that we could probably take
some measures to help the elderly with, and I will give you
just one quick example. The Commission just wrote a section 104
rule for infant bed rails. Well, as it turns out, the elderly
suffer death at a much greater rate from bed rails than infants
do.
And it may well be that the fix for adult bed rails is not
too different from infant bed rails. In other words, there are
many, many projects that we ought to be addressing themselves
to.
The CDC just came up with a national plan for dealing with
childhood injuries, and I have called for a national plan with
CDC for adult injuries as well. It is a very, very important
issue, and I hope to convince my colleagues to pay more
attention to it. And I thank you for asking.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I am out of time, and I yield back.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you, Ms. Schakowsky.
The Chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee,
Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and thank you
all for being with us this morning. Nice and timely. I will
have to say you have created quite a little stir in the last
week over an issue of Buckyballs. And I would just like to ask,
Madam Chairman, how it is that you have taken such a hard-line
stance against Buckyballs.
And I tell you, reading all this and looking at it after
the information came out, and having two grandchildren, one
that just turned four and one that just turned three, you can
compare this to toys like Hungry Hungry Hippo, which comes with
all these marbles. It has been on the market for about 30
years. There is a Fishing Well that also comes with marbles. It
has been on the market for a long time. These are toys that we
play with.
So you know what I am having a hard time doing is
understanding how you could come down against Buckyballs and
Buckycubes when it is clearly noted that they are for children
ages 14 and above and Hungry Hungry Hippo and Fishing Well are
for children that are 3 and above. So it doesn't make a whole
lot of sense to me as to what you are doing. So I was
wondering: Why?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, I appreciate that question. It
certainly is timely.
I want to explain to you why we cannot comment on the
merits. We did not ban Rare Earth magnets, which is what
Buckyballs and the category that they are. We referred the
matter to an administrative law judge. That administrative
law----
Mrs. Blackburn. I am going to stop you right there, if I
may, please, ma'am.
You made the decision to go ahead with the recall, didn't
you?
Ms. Tenenbaum. No, we did not. We made the decision to
refer the matter to an administrative law judge. That judge
will make the determination what to do with the product.
Mrs. Blackburn. What caused you to make that decision? We
as Members of Congress have the right to ask you that question.
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, we will be the appellate body if the
administrative law judge's decision----
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Then let's talk about the
administrative law judge.
Ms. Tenenbaum. I just wanted to lay the groundwork why I
can't really get into the merits. Because we will be the
appellate judges, so to speak.
So let me say that we have a well-documented record as
being alarmed by the serious and hidden hazards to children.
The difference between Rare Earth magnets and marbles is that
marbles do not cling together in the intestine. Children have
had--a large number of children have had invasive surgery to
remove these balls once they are in their intestine because
they clamp, causing a huge blockage.
Mrs. Blackburn. They are clearly labeled ``Not for
Children.'' So let me ask you this: What about sparklers? We
have just had July 4th. So why don't you outlaw sparklers?
Ms. Tenenbaum. We do set limits on sparklers in terms of
the heat they can generate. We do have rules.
Mrs. Blackburn. But you have injuries. You don't issue
recalls.
We have just built a playhouse for the grandsons. My
husband engineered this great thing. He had all sorts of power
tools out there, and they had their little Black & Decker play
set. What about power tools?
Ms. Tenenbaum. There are a number of hazard in the
marketplace. That is why the Consumer Product Safety Commission
exists.
Mrs. Blackburn. What about alcoholic beverages?
Ms. Tenenbaum. There certainly are.
Mrs. Blackburn. You have always got these alcohol poisoning
cases and things of that nature.
So let me go back to this administrative law judge.CPSC
does not have an administrative law judge, correct?
Ms. Tenenbaum. No, we referred this to an administrative
law judge for a hearing, and that judge will determine whether
or not the product----
Mrs. Blackburn. Where is that judge going to come from?
Ms. Tenenbaum. That judge would be right here in
Washington, DC, probably, or it might be in Maryland.
Mrs. Blackburn. So when this case is filed, the lawyers who
try the case have to be separated from those who advise the
Commission, correct?
Ms. Tenenbaum. That is correct.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Now that the lawyers all work together
in the Office of the General Counsel, how will you ensure
appropriate separation with these two groups of lawyers?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Our Office of Legal Counsel has set up a
wall, and we are all abiding by that.
Mrs. Blackburn. A physical wall or an understood----
Ms. Tenenbaum. A wall within the legal context so there
will be no communication.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. And the Director of Compliance
recently left that position and is now working with the Office
of General Counsel also, is that correct?
Ms. Tenenbaum. That is correct, but I can't comment on the
involvement of that official.
Mrs. Blackburn. And who is now the Acting Director of
Compliance?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Marc Schoem. But he has recused himself and
has not been involved in this case.
Mrs. Blackburn. Is he a lawyer?
Ms. Tenenbaum. No, he is Acting Director.
Mrs. Blackburn. It is supposed to be a lawyer. The CPSA
requires that a lawyer be the Director of Compliance.
Ms. Tenenbaum. We do. And it is in transition. And so we
have, I believe, 90 days.
Mrs. Blackburn. So you have got 90 days to make that right.
Ms. Tenenbaum. We have 90 days in order to fill the
position with a lawyer.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Ms. Tenenbaum. I am saying it is 90 days. It could be more.
I have to look at the statute.
Mrs. Blackburn. The Commission authorized the filing of the
complaint against Buckyballs last month, right?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Yes. It was a bipartisan decision.
Mrs. Blackburn. And it was signed by the executive
director?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Yes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Is he a political appointee?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Yes, he is. An SES as well.
Mrs. Blackburn. We have got other questions. I am out of
time.
You have been generous. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Bono Mack. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Nord, if I have some time at the end, I will let you to
respond to my colleague from Illinois.
I want to thank the Commissioners for being here. I want to
touch on a topic that has the potential to impact several
manufacturing sectors, which is important to my district.
As the Commissioners are aware, phthalates are important
components in products ranging from wire coverings, flooring,
and in automobiles. The Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel's review
of phthalates could set a precedent for the use of the product
outside of children's toys, and I want to ensure the science
that is used is transparent, properly peer-reviewed, and
publicly available.
Chairman Tenenbaum, OMB has described peer review as one of
the important procedures used to ensure the quality of
published information meets the standards of the scientific and
technical community. To ensure the scientific integrity of the
document, the draft report should be released for public
comment before it goes to peer review, stakeholder
participation should be encouraged, and the peer reviewer
should be provided with all the data and studies provided to
the CHAP.
Can you ensure us that the peer review of the CHAP's draft
report will be conducted in accordance with current OMB
guidelines for peer review of highly influential scientific
assessments, with particular attention to the need for
transparency and public participation?
I think this should probably be a fairly quick answer.
Ms. Tenenbaum. The Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel is
continuing its work. We keep an arm's-length relationship with
that panel because they operate independently. I would like to
talk with our Office of General Counsel to see how they are
proceeding in terms of the peer review and write you a letter
and get back with you.
Mr. Kinzinger. That would be great. I would love to hear
back. Because I think obviously to have that as an open and
transparent process for something so big and so important is
essential. We will stay on top of that, and I appreciate your
responding to that, too.
Do you believe that the CHAP should review all relevant
data, including the most recent best available peer-reviewed
scientific studies?
Ms. Tenenbaum. I certainly do.
Mr. Kinzinger. What procedures have you put in place to
ensure that the CHAP and the Commission are weighing all
relevant data and the best available science?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Again, the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel was
mandated under CPSA, and we created it to look at phthalates,
the three that were temporarily banned and other phthalates if
they so find that others should be in the report. We are
awaiting their report. The Commissioners do not interact with
the CHAP because it has to be an independent body, but our
staff has been there to make sure they follow appropriate
procedures.
If you have questions, if you will just submit them to us,
we will write you and give you the full detail on how the CHAP
has operated.
Mr. Kinzinger. You all specifically, though, comply with
OMB's peer-review process and everything like that, right?
Ms. Tenenbaum. The peer-review process was vetted through
the Office of General Counsel, and they were advising the CHAP
on how to proceed with that.
Mr. Kinzinger. Can you assure me, before the Commission
issues its final rules under section 108, that you will publish
a proposed rule for comment first?
Ms. Tenenbaum. I will have to get back with you on that. I
don't know that that is the procedure that we will follow. We
will receive the report and then--but we will answer your
questions fully on the procedure.
Mr. Kinzinger. But prior to that what would be your
concerns with publishing a proposed rule for comment?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, I want to first make sure that the
CHAP operates independently and that it has no undue influence
by any of the Commissioners and that it makes its best
scientific findings. And then we will also, in the spirit of
transparency, which we operate at the Commission, we will
follow what the advice is of counsel on how to proceed.
Mr. Kinzinger. We look forward to staying in touch with
you.
Ms. Tenenbaum. We will certainly answer your questions in
written form, too, so that you will have these.
Mr. Kinzinger. Ms. Nord.
Ms. Nord. Thank you.
In responding to the question about a feverish regulatory
pace compared to what we were doing before, I just would like
to draw the committee's attention to the information in
Commissioner Adler's statement about all the accomplishments of
the agency from 1972 through the 30 years following and how big
an impact this agency has made. So I don't think that we were
acting at a snail's pace.
With respect to the crib standard, first of all, I
supported the crib standard. All of us did. In fact, I
initiated when I was the acting chairman the AMPR that got the
thing rolling. What I am concerned about is the manner in which
we implemented the standard, and I think it flows directly from
the fact that we didn't do the hard workup front.
Just to give you a flavor of this, the staff came up with
an effective date. The staff in their Reg Flex analysis said
that they didn't anticipate that small retailers would be
impacted. The retailers had worked out a deal with
manufacturers for a retrofit kit. We did not even approve the
use of that retrofit kit until about a month before the rule
goes into effect. Another group comes in and says, oh, we can't
meet the effective date; can we have longer time? We give them
2 years. Another group comes in 2 weeks before the effective
date and says, we can't make this date. We give them another
year.
It was just a very sloppy rollout of a rule. And that is of
concern.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you, Mr. Kinzinger.
Mr. Sarbanes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chairman Tenenbaum and Commissioners, for being
with us this morning.
There is a staggering number of products, obviously, that
we import, and in certain categories of percentages it is
equally staggering when you think of it. Apparently, as I
understand it, 99 percent of toys, 96 percent of apparel, 95
percent of fireworks, 78 percent of electrical products sold in
the U.S. are manufactured someplace else. So the task, the
charge, the responsibility of the Commission to kind of keep
its eyes open as these imports are coming in to make sure that
the standards we would like to see are being applied,
obviously, that is an important part of what the Commission
does.
And you have taken steps, I know, to improve that oversight
and monitoring. In fact, as a result of the CPSIA and the
increased authorization levels for the Consumer Protection
Safety Commission, I think you have now increased the number of
employees that are posted at U.S. ports of entry to do this
kind of oversight, and monitoring has gone from zero, which, of
course, was completely ineffectual, to now 20. The U.S. has
more than 300 ports of entry.
So the question is, if you have got, as I understand,
employees posted in only about 15 of them, how is this going?
From what I have heard, you have made great strides in the
oversight, but I would be interested, Chairman Tenenbaum, in
your perspective on the effort and is having the kind of
coverage you now have producing a kind of deterrent effect with
respect to the other ports of entry so that you know that the
things coming in meet the standards. What other things can we
do on that front?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, thank you, Congressman.
You are right. We have 20 members of our Ports Surveillance
Team. And we have over 300 ports of entry. That is why it is
very important that we have the methodology to target
succinctly products that we think are violative coming into the
ports and also that we have a very strong relationship with
Customs and Border Protection.
CBP allowed us to be the first agency to have a memorandum
of understanding. We now have live streaming data through their
CTAC office, their Center, so that we know when shipments are
coming into the port and what are in those containers before
they reach the port.
With the pilot project that we have implemented, Risk
Analysis Methodology, we are able to then look at repeat
offenders, also products that are highly suspect or those that
we monitor closely like electronics and fireworks, and we are
able to with pretty great accuracy target those shipments
before they are even into port and then interdict them and not
let them be unloaded.
Mr. Sarbanes. Would your experience--if you caught
something at one of the 15 ports that you are monitoring, I
guess what I am hearing is you are then in a position to be
alerted to those kinds of imports coming into many other ports
of entry and take action.
Ms. Tenenbaum. We are. We know repeat offenders. We also
know if there is a company that doesn't have a record with us.
We are hoping to establish--and we have already created
this Importer Self-Assessment Product Safety Program with CBP
where we know those that are consistently in compliance, and we
don't hold those shipments up. And we can let them go through
the port and unload quickly. But those where you have suspect
cargo or cargo that is repeatedly in noncompliance or repeat
offenders, we are able to target them.
The most-stopped products are children's products. The
largest categories are lead, continuing to see lead violations,
flammability, and small parts that pose a choking hazard. So we
are able to, with our RAM and working with CBP, be highly
effective.
Mr. Sarbanes. And over time is there a plan--again, I don't
understand your methodology, because I haven't studied it--but
would the ports of entry that you are covering with your
personnel, would you rotate that? Or the ones that have been
chosen ones that you want to continue to monitor always because
of the nature of them? How does that work?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, with 20 people, we also rely on our
field investigators. So we have 90 field investigators in 38
States. If we know a shipment is coming in, we can move those
investigators to that port to work with CBP and the person
already stationed there. So we can move people around.
And I think that is why it is so important that we get this
data before the ships enter the port where this live streaming
data that CTAC provides us, we know the contents of the
container before it reaches us.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Pompeo for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am not surprised.
Now I will talk about the database a little bit. I still
contend that it is happy hunting ground for the plaintiffs bar,
in direct contrast to what Ms. Tenenbaum said. She said in her
written statement: I think the saferproducts.gov has gained
wide approval and acceptance.
I know there is a lawsuit. Ms. Nord, do you agree with that
statement, that it has gained wide approval and acceptance?
Ms. Nord. I don't. I have heard a number of concerns
expressed that indicate that there is not wide approval and
acceptance out there.
With respect to plaintiffs using the database, when this
thing rolled out and I was given a briefing on it by a
consultant, the consultant went into the database and very
randomly pulled up a record. The consumer was listed as a law
firm. And so that has since intrigued me. And just 2 weeks ago
I asked our staff if they had any idea of how many of those so-
called consumers were actually law firms, and they said they
had no way of knowing, but they assumed quite a few.
When the chairman says 97 percent of the users of the
database or submitters of the database are consumers, you
should understand that consumer is defined so broadly to mean
any living person. And you don't have to have a relationship
with the product or any interaction with the product in order
to file a complaint as a consumer.
Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate that.
Ms. Northup, there is a lawsuit filed by some businesses.
Has the court yet ruled on whether the agency has
misinterpreted the law? I certainly think that it did. But has
the court ruled?
Ms. Northup. We don't have that information yet. As I said
earlier, when we wrote the rule I wrote extensively at that
time that I thought that we were writing the rule in a way that
we would be vulnerable to a lawsuit. The claims made in the
lawsuit were litigated publicly, and the claims they made were
the very ones that we made in our argument that I think will
stand. I agree with them.
If we do lose that, it will mean that our rule will have to
be rewritten. It means our software will have to be redesigned.
It means we could be vulnerable to a class action lawsuit by
other people that feel that it has been arbitrary and
capricious, was the idea what I wrote extensively about. And so
this is why paying attention to the law and not rushing to
regulate and glossing over facts is important.
Another fact that is important not to gloss over is that
when you say 88 percent of the items have something in the
model or serial number, you should know that in many cases it
is not the model or serial number. And we know that. And it is
important that we give that information honestly to you. It
might say: yellow high chair. And so, of course, if good
information is good for consumers, bad information is really
harmful to consumers.
Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate you clarifying some of the
responses Ms. Tenenbaum gave.
Ms. Tenenbaum, yes or no, if the Federal court rules
against the CPSC in the pending database lawsuit, will the
agency pledge to immediately take down the database?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Will you repeat your question?
Mr. Pompeo. Yes, ma'am, I certainly will.
Yes or no, if the Federal court rules against CPSC in the
pending database lawsuit, will the agency pledge to immediately
take down the database?
Ms. Tenenbaum. No. That is not the scope of that lawsuit.
Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate the answer.
Ms. Tenenbaum. The lawsuit is under seal, and we cannot
talk about it.
Mr. Pompeo. I understand. So your answer is no.
When we passed H.R. 2715 last year, it gave the CPSC
authority to take steps to reduce the cost of complying with
CPSIA and particularly the cost of third-party testing. I am
very concerned about it. Why has the agency not done anything
about that yet?
Ms. Tenenbaum. We have done something. In fact, under this
Public Law 112-28 we were required within 60 days to go out for
comment, and we did. We went out for comment, we received those
comments, and the staff is writing now the report, which we
will receive any day now. So we have done that.
In terms of rule review, the executive orders ask us to
look at any rule that has an impact of a hundred million
dollars annually on the economy. That is one of the rules that
we are going to look at in terms of rule review.
So we have followed what Congress passed.
And regarding the model numbers for the database, 73
percent have a numeric value. So 73 percent----
Mr. Pompeo. Is it an accurate numerical value?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Yes, I assume it is. If it is in there as
accurate. It doesn't say ``yellow high chair.'' It gives the
model number.
Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate that.
Ms. Nord, I hope you will encourage the Commission to do
more under the authority to reduce the cost of third-party
testing. Are there other things you all could be doing?
Ms. Nord. There are a number of things we could be doing.
In fact, I submitted a whole list of about 40 items to the
staff.
But I think the takeaway for you all should be that third-
party testing is really, really expensive. So let's use that
for the riskiest items. Let's have the most aggressive testing
for the riskier items, and let's ease off for things that have
less risk or where we know there is high compliance. We can
adjust that under the statute as it exists now.
Mrs. Bono Mack. I hate to cut you off, but your time has
expired, and we are trying to get in as many members and
questions before we have a series of votes on the floor.
Just to let members know, it is my hope we can get
everybody through. So if we try to stick to under the gavel
even, that would be great.
The Chair recognizes Mr. McKinley for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I think it is always broad looking at the consumer product
safety. I am not always sure what all that incorporates. It is
consumer product safety. Do those little compact light bulbs,
do they fit under your purview?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Are you talking about button batteries or
the light bulbs?
Mr. McKinley. The compact fluorescent units, CFBs.
Ms. Tenenbaum. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. They have mercury in them. And we know that a
typical household with 30 of those is the equivalent of a ton
of coal being introduced inside your house. Same amount of
mercury in a ton of coal as in 30 light bulbs. I just wonder,
are people actually following the rules? They are taking them
in a little bag and taking it up to a special disposal? Or how
many of them are just throwing them in the trash can and they
go to the landfill?
Ms. Tenenbaum. I don't have that data, but I share your
concern.
Commissioner Adler, did you have anything to add?
Mr. Adler. No, other than to say those definitely are our
jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is incredibly broad, as the
chairman noted.
Mr. McKinley. I don't know where you are going with it,
because I don't think anyone is adhering to the guidelines. And
the fact that we have such a fear right now of the mercury
poisoning from burning coal but yet we just put 30 light bulbs
in our house that bring in as much mercury as--I hope you will
take it more seriously about the direction.
But let me add a couple of other things, if I could.
The lead in Chinese marbles, I understand that not too long
ago there were some lead--lead was detected in some children's
marbles, and those marbles obviously were rejected,
appropriately. But the United States manufacturers who had
never had marble detected in there now are going through some
very draconian testing to see that they stay in compliance, but
they have never not been in compliance. So they are being
punished because of what China was doing.
Ms. Tenenbaum. The law, as passed by Congress, requires all
children's products to undergo third-party testing to make sure
that the lead content is below 100 parts per million, and that
was set by statute as well. So domestic and imported----
Mr. McKinley. Do you determine the frequency of testing to
make sure? Surely you are not going to test every marble.
Ms. Tenenbaum. No. You have to test a sample initially. You
pull a sample and test that. If you have a material change in
the manufacturing----
Mr. McKinley. Who pays for that test when you come into a
plant?
Ms. Tenenbaum. The manufacturer has to pay for it.
Mr. McKinley. So here is a manufacturer that has never had
a violation, but maybe once a quarter they have had someone
come in and do some testing. But now we are up to less than
once a month they are coming in, and it is costing you $3,000-
some for every one of those series of tests. And they have done
nothing wrong. There has been no grounds for this other than
the fact that China was trying to--once again, like they did
with drywall, now they have done it with marble, that has
caused this company now to spend thousands of dollars. Is that
reasonable?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, under the law that Congress passed,
all children's products must be third-party tested initially,
if there is a material change, and periodically. And that is
the law.
Mr. McKinley. Well, there is no change on this.
So let me go to the next, the indoor air quality. Would
indoor air quality be a product safety--the fact that we have
carpet formaldehyde, resins, cleaning agents, other things
that--we seem to be so concerned with--and rightfully so--the
health of our children and adults, and we put them in an indoor
air quality that has--90 percent of your time you are spending
indoors, and they are exposed to all these elements. And we
say, but they get asthma when they go outside. They get asthma
when they go near a coal-fired powerhouse. But they spend 90
percent of their time in a home.
Ms. Tenenbaum. That is the jurisdiction of the EPA, just as
the disposal of the mercury containing lights.
Mr. McKinley. You just kind of wash your hands.
Ms. Tenenbaum. No, I don't. I respect the jurisdiction of
other agencies.
Mr. McKinley. Then you support that? Of having--you have
some standard. You say it falls under your purview, but yet the
disposal of it is not. You give that to the EPA.
Ms. Tenenbaum. The law gives it to the EPA.
Mr. McKinley. Would you change the law?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, we work in partnerships with many
agencies.
Mr. McKinley. Would you change the law so that it stays
under you so you can have control over it? Because it sounds
like you----
Ms. Tenenbaum. No, you have to change the law. I am an
executive branch. I follow the law.
Mr. McKinley. Would you change the law? Because you seem
like you say I am ready to get rid of it.
Ms. Tenenbaum. No, that is not at all what I said. I was
just trying to clarify the jurisdiction of EPA and our agency.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Mrs. Bono Mack. The gentleman, Mr. Lance, you are
recognized.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Madam Chair; and Chairman
Tenenbaum and distinguished members of the Commission, thank
you for your service to the Nation.
I am interested in how we can explore ways to increase
efficiency and decrease costs and reduce red tape burdens
without compromising safety. Commissioner Nord, thank you for
the suggestions that you have made regarding this, particularly
for small-volume manufacturers.
Can you speak, Commissioner Nord, to the timeframe in which
we might implement the changes you have suggested, considering
the fact that Commissioner Northup may be leaving the
Commission?
Ms. Nord. Yes. I am so sorry to see Commissioner Northup
leave our body, because she has made such a contribution.
Mr. Lance. I certainly agree with that.
Ms. Nord. When we were considering the testing and
certification rule, the rule that was put out for comment had a
low-volume exemption from testing in it. That was removed from
what came up to the agency for a vote. I offered an amendment
to put that back in. That amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. At
that point, we had another Commissioner.
And so certainly a low-volume exemption would certainly be
a way to get at this. I have been talking with a number of
people who have said we have just stopped doing low-volume
manufacturing because we can't afford the testing costs. I was
out in southern California talking to a clothing manufacturer,
and they were very explicit about it.
There are a number of other things that we can do to help
companies that are struggling with how to comply with this
rule. It is a very broad--overly broad, in my view--rule that
imposes costs without real benefits. So I hope that the agency
will reconsider its position.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. I would urge the agency to do so. I
would be happy to work with all members of the Commission on
this issue, because I think it is important moving forward.
On recreational vehicles, off-highway vehicles, would you
please comment, Commissioner Nord or Commissioner Northup, on
the fact that if the CPSC is going to include a pass/fail test
as the main criteria to evaluate the stability of these
vehicles, this might cause some challenges. Shouldn't a test
that is meant to pass or fail a vehicle be repeatable so that
one can be assured that the same result is achieved?
Ms. Nord. Of course, any test that we would mandate,
regardless of the product, has got to be repeatable. You can't
put in place a testing method that nobody can predict the
results from. So of course we must have repeatable tests.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Commissioner Northup, do you have an opinion on that as
well?
Ms. Northup. No. I have not participated in the ATV because
I have a conflict of interest with my husband's company.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I will cede the minute and a half I have left
to colleagues.
Mrs. Bono Mack. We thank you very much and recognize Mr.
Harper for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Chairman, each of the Commissioners, thank you for your time,
your service.
Chairman Tenenbaum, if I may ask you a few questions, I was
certainly pleased to read your op-ed in The Hill last week
where you indicated that you were taking a more collaborative
approach with the window covering industry regarding cord
safety. I am further pleased that you have spent the time
visiting manufacturing facilities to better understand the
difficulties in eliminating cords for all products. Can you
tell me, without revealing any proprietary information, about
these visits and what you have learned?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Thank you.
It was my pleasure to travel across the United States and
meet with the three major manufacturers as well as the major
retailers of window coverings. I have expressed concern about
the strangulation hazard for children publicly, and the Window
Covering Manufacturers Association and other stakeholders are
in the process of rewriting a voluntary standard, which we will
have in September.
But what I have learned is that there is concern from the
industry about the strangulation hazard. There are many new
technologies which would remove completely this hazard.
However, the industry also is--they are willing to work with
us; however, they don't want to see a standard that completely
does away with the cord. They can make the cord where it is not
accessible to children and there are all kinds of technology
that they share with us, but they don't want to eliminate
having a cord entirely.
However, I am very optimistic, meeting with retailers and
with the association, that everyone wants to do a massive
education campaign. So that if you are buying shades and you
have children at home, then you would go cordless. You would go
cordless or have no shades. You could have shutters or
draperies. But you remove the hazard if there are children in
the home. So I am very encouraged by my conversations with
them.
Mr. Harper. How are you proposing that we move forward from
here?
Ms. Tenenbaum. In September, we will receive the standard
from the Window Covering Manufacturers Association. They will
have voted on it. And we will continue to work with them to see
how we can more and more eliminate the hazard.
We also want to work with major retailers so they can train
employees at the point of sale, so that there are kiosks online
that have baby registries that can also bring to the attention
of people that if you have a child in the home you need to go
cordless. But see if we can't address some of the fatalities
and reduce the number of fatalities by an educational program
that was robust.
Mr. Harper. I am certainly a big supporter of cooperation
between government and industry, particularly when it comes to
some of these safety issues and how best to achieve the safest
product possible.
You also discussed in your op-ed your efforts to better
educate the consumer. With this in mind, can you tell me about
your plans for the rest of this year and next with the Window
Covering Safety Council and your efforts to educate new parents
about potential hazards to children associated with window
covering?
Ms. Tenenbaum. We are in the process of working with major
retailers and also associations to draft that plan. So that is
in process, Congressman. But we are committed. I am personally
committed, because I think we can reduce the number of
fatalities with a robust education program and collaboration
with the industry.
Mr. Harper. Does the Commission plan on utilizing any of
its funds towards this education effort?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, we have limited funds. Unlike the pool
safety campaign, where Congress gave us a direct appropriation,
we don't have one for this. But it would be a great help to us
to have one. But I think working with industry and with the
retailers we can accomplish a lot without extra funding.
Mr. Harper. Are promoting education and raising awareness
some of the best tools that you have in your arsenal?
Ms. Tenenbaum. No question about it. That is how social
media fits in, as well as working with people, so that we can
all have a strong education campaign on any hazard.
Mr. Harper. Thank each of you for being here, and I yield
back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Olson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. I understand that votes have
been called, so my comments will be brief.
But I want to thank the witnesses. Thanks for coming.
Thanks for your expertise.
Chairwoman Tenenbaum, nice to see you again outside of a
big storage facility outside the Port of Houston. Nice and cool
here as opposed to the heat we had, even though it was the
fall. Good to see you again.
As my nameplate says, I am from Texas. As you all know,
Texans love the outdoors. They like to go tubing on the Hill
Country rivers. They like to fishing on our lakes, the Gulf of
Mexico. They like to go out there and do some hunting. Or just
look at the bright stars of the Texas night sky. And one way to
get access to all these great things is with ROVs. So I am very
concerned when I hear that the Federal Government may be
threatening the quality of life in my home State.
And so my question is for you, Commissioner Tenenbaum. I
would like follow up with the line of questions by my colleague
from New Jersey about the pass/fail stability tests. I
understand CPSC staff supports adoption of a pass/fail
stability based on the CPSC methodology. In a recent meeting,
however, CPSC revealed that it has conducted no repeatability
testing of its methodology or results. Do you agree to it being
appropriate to base a mandatory pass or fail standard on the
sample size of a single test--one test?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, let me premise this by saying I will
need to get back with you on what the staff is talking to the
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association and manufacturers.
One of the things that has been brought to our attention is
the number of deaths and injuries in 7 years, between 2003 and
2010. We had 165 deaths and 329 serious injuries from ROVAs is
what we call, or ROVs. And 70 percent involve lateral stability
turnover.
So we are looking and working with industry to develop a
stronger lateral stability test. We have issues of
understeerage and occupant protection. I do hope that the
industry will work with us to develop a standard. My staff met
with the ROVA representatives on July 19, and we are saying
that we need to upgrade that standard to prevent the turnovers.
And we could go to a mandatory standard, but it is always
better if we can agree with industry and come up with a strong
voluntary standard.
Mr. Olson. Yes, ma'am. I am sorry I cut you off. I am
running out of time here.
Commissioner Nord, any comments on that line of
questioning, ma'am?
Ms. Nord. Well, lateral stability has been just a really
perplexing problem not only with ROVs but also withATVs, and it
has been something that we have been struggling with for years.
So if we are going to be putting forward a standard that
addresses lateral stability, we have got to make sure we have
get it right, got to make sure we solve the problem, and we
have got to make sure that we have a test that works and is
repeatable. And I think that is where we are working forward.
I fully agree with my chairman when she says that it is
best to try to work cooperatively with industry to come up with
something in a voluntary mode, and I hope that we can do that.
Mr. Olson. In working cooperatively with industry, are we
allowing the industry representatives to observe the testing to
have some firsthand knowledge of what you are doing there so
they can respond right on the scene?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Well, collaboratively means that we share
information. They have shared their stability tests with us.
They came in and shared it with us, and the staff had some
issues with it. We need to be very open and collaborative in
sharing these tests, and also the industry should realize that
and say, ``Yes, we have a lot of lateral turnovers, and we want
to address it voluntarily.''
Mr. Olson. Sharing is a two-way street. Industry shares
with you. You share with them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Bono Mack. I thank the gentleman very much.
As you all have heard, our votes have been called. We are
down to the wire. So to begin to sum things up, I ask unanimous
consent that a letter from the National Association of
Manufacturers be included in the record of the hearing. It has
been previously shared with Democrat staff.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Bono Mack. And, again, I would like to thank all of
the Commissioners very much for your time today. I think you
have shed a lot of light on some very important consumer
product safety issues. I know that our committee looks forward
to an ongoing and productive dialogue.
I would like to thank my colleagues, especially Mr.
Butterfield and Ms. Schakowsky, for working together in a
bipartisan fashion to pass H.R. 2715 last year. We enacted a
very good bill that saved a lot of American jobs while
providing important protections to U.S. consumers. We call that
a win-win around here.
So I will be asking questions for you to submit back to us.
Specifically, Ms. Northup, I had one all teed up for you. I
will ask you in writing, if you could submit in return, simply
to give us your conclusions in writing about your service. And
thank you for your service as you leave the Commission. We are
going to ask a big softball question for you. Say all you want.
How would you improve the world of consumer product safety? So
we look forward to that in writing.
I remind members they have 10 business days to submit
questions for the record. I ask the witnesses to please respond
promptly to any questions that you receive.
I wish you all a very wonderful August and safe travels.
The hearing now is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]