    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 10, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-116

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

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

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

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

                                     _____

               Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade

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

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

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

                                   Witnesses

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

                               Submitted Material

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

        INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016

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

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

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

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

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

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

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

                      STATEMENT OF ERIK PRITCHARD

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

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       STATEMENT OF JONATHAN GOLD

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

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                     STATEMENT OF RACHEL WEINTRAUB

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

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                      STATEMENT OF MARK S. FELLIN

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

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]