 Good morning. Welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have one agenda item on today, or at least for this morning, and that is our priorities hearing for fiscal year 16 and 17. Before we get into that, though, there is one person in particular who worked really hard behind the scenes to make this work. And as the day goes on, if there's any glitches, that's totally on me. But as it moves smoothly, that's because primarily of the work of Rocky Hammond from the office of our secretary, and I don't know where Rocky is. If she's in the room or out of the room, I can't tell. She's out of the room I hear, but hopefully she gets word of this. It's really amazing what she does, and like I said, it's all unnoticed. It's behind the scenes, but we notice it, and I hope you notice it now how smoothly things are running. So our meeting today is important because it not only fulfills our statutory mandate in the Consumer Product Safety Act to annually hold such a public hearing, but far more importantly, it's an opportunity for the Commission to hear the concerns of the public and to help us prioritize the work that we do. This meeting is the one official moment, at least, for anyone to submit their thoughts on the big picture. Of course, throughout the year we get a lot of unofficial comments on what we should be doing and not doing, that's for sure. The testimony received from our panelists today, in addition to the written testimony that was submitted by others, has all been very closely reviewed and considered, and we're looking forward to hearing from you today, those who are here personally, and having a dialogue with you on your priorities. We're going to have three different panels this morning. Each panelist will have up to 10 minutes to speak, and after that, each of the commissioners will have up to five minutes to ask questions on the panel. Unfortunately, because of the long day that we have planned, we're going to deviate from our normal routine of having as many rounds of questions as the commissioners need, and we're going to stick to one round per commissioner. If at the end of the hearing this morning there is extra time, and commissioners wish to ask any of the panelists who are still remaining any of the questions that they might have, we'll try to accommodate that, but I can't make any promises. So in a few minutes, we're going to hear from those members of the public that have taken the time to be with us today, and again, we very much appreciate that. I'm just going to go over a little bit more on the scheduling, so folks have a chance to anticipate when the break is. We're going to do panel one from now until about 10.15. Then we're going to take a five minute break to organize for panel two, and then we're going to go from 10.20 to 11.30. We'll take a 15 minute break until 11.45, and then resume from 11.50, sorry, yes, 11.50 to 12.50. Try to get done by lunch, and then especially for those who are coming back for our two o'clock data hearing, we'll hope to start that on time. So with that, we'll introduce the first panel. We have Linda Kaiser, Erica Barnes-Thomas, Dr. Stephen Thomas, Edward Kelly, and Dean Dennis. So we're going to start. Ms. Kaiser, if we can begin with you please. Thank you all so much for your time. I am Linda Kaiser, founder of Parents for Window Blind Safety, and I want to thank the staff for the hard work, devotion, and heartfelt conviction they have given on the window covering court hazards over the past decade. We understand that the safety issue also involves not only the industry, but the retailers who need to stand with us on this go cordless safety message. And I would also like to thank the Chairman Kay for making corded window strangulations a priority and taking his time to speak with retailers across the nation. We are happy to see that the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted twice and voted unanimously to move forward on our petition addressing inaccessible operating cords on window covering products. I continue to be a mouthpiece for 136 children who no longer live and for grieving families who thought their homes were safe. And I sit here stunned because I cannot believe that 136 children have died since the founding of our organization 12 years ago on accidents that could so easily have been prevented. And as many of you already know, I lost my daughter 13 years ago, and I've been working on this issue for a long time. And I plead with you as a mother and as an advocate to keep window coverings a top priority in 2016 and 2017. And I am well aware that, you know, this agency has a lot of safety issues that they have to deal with. This issue does have a simple cure regardless of what industry leaders are claiming to the agency. The Commission has been fully aware of the safety issue for over 30 years and children have lost their lives or they've lost the ability to ever walk, talk or play again from long operational cords that have not been designed out of the current standard. Allow me to show you quickly just how the standard is allowing more dangerous window covering products on the market. Horizontal blinds are the leading cause of nearly 60% of all window covering accidents. And today they're designed more hazardous than they were 30 years ago. As you can see by the chart, the other design types cause significantly fewer incidents. So 30 years ago they were designed with a tilt wand and with a pull cord. It was looped, we cut it, or they cut it, and put the safety tassels on. And then today we have tilt cords and pull cords. So now there's four cords attached to the product, which gives an increased risk of strangulation. And this is, excuse me, blinds are also manufactured routless, which means they do not have any holes in the slats. And this is to allow no light to pass through. And so this is a routless blind here. And what happens is the inner cord is no longer going into the center of the slat. They're on the outside of the slats. And so the inner cord, there has to be two inner cords on each side of the slat. Okay, they put notches in there. And so the slat is tilted like this by those suspension strings or inner cords to allow the light in. And so what happens is this Means that there has to be more operational cords to raise and lower the window covering because of the routless blind. I hope that makes sense to everybody. I didn't bring any samples or anything. So this causes additional pull cords to be added on the horizontal blind no matter how small the width of the window covering. So They went from two cords to four cords to now up to six to ten cords on horizontal blinds that are manufactured today. This is a blind and the slide is a real wood blind. Okay, this is a 32 inch blind in width. Real wood blinds have more ladders, which will require more lifting cords and pull cords. Industry members will tell you, oh, my company would never sell a product with all those pull cords on it. They would never do that, but I'm telling you right now this product was bought in 2015. It was manufactured in 2015. And companies might say I would never install this product, but these products are installed. And the sky is the limit when it comes to operating cords on window covering products. And with no government action, manufacturers are permitted by the current standard to put on as many cords as they want. And today products are more dangerous than they were 20 years ago. I was um on the phone listening to the may 27th wcma meeting and Mr. Marker stated that the update with cord cleats is what they were working towards. And that the first focus was getting aligned with the other jurisdictions. And I believe that the first focus should be opening up the standard and dealing with section four, which is long operating cords. What is the purpose in placing cord cleats in the standard if operating cords are going to be effectively dealt with? I don't understand that purpose. The window covering council has had numerous chances to open the standard to address hazardous operating cords. And every single time section four was avoided for 30 years. And this is just another avoidance. The standard will apparently be opened up only to throw cleats in a box and force consumers to deal with the problem. Let me explain just exactly how I believe the current standard should not align with the eu the canadian and the australian standards. In the commission's 2014 july letter to the wcma the staff presented various reasons why cleats Would not effectively mitigate the hazard. There are two important factors that this letter left out So first is the multiple cords the more cords you have they get tangled together when you unwrap them from the cord cleat Have you ever opened the box of window blinds? I don't know if anybody has ever tried and if they have the more cords that they have It's a tangled mess like this one So the knotted mess intensifies as the more cords that are attached to the product So when you look at the photo imagine tying these cords around a cleat every day And let's all be honest with ourselves. Are we going to tie that those cords around the cleat every single day? We're all busy people. We have busy lives. Are we going to do that every day? Our consumer is going to do that every single day with every other thing that we have to do in our lives Products such as this one on the screen won't fit even on two cleats provided If the standard is aligned with other jurisdictions blinds with tilt cords And blinds with pull cords must have cleats on both sides of the window So not only do consumers have to wrap the cords around the cleats just to Raise and lower the window. They also have to have a cleat on the other side just to adjust the light of the window So two cord cleats on the side of a window, which would really be an eyesore also So the window covering safety standards in other jurisdictions Are not designed with disabled or elderly people who have children or grandchildren And this slide shows an adaptable room Or what a bedroom would look like designed for someone in a wheelchair And I have marked about where a cord cleat would be placed on a window according to the recommendations of the other jurisdictions And notice how far above the light switch it is On the other side of the room The other jurisdictions standards call for cord cleat heights of 1.5 meters or 160 centimeters from the floor Which is 59 to 62 inches The comfort reach zone for a disabled wheelchair-bound person is 54 inches from the side and 48 inches from the front So Hunter Douglas recommends two cord cleats six to 12 inches apart from each other And according to this recommendation cord cleats maximum height then would be 69 to 72 inches high So if you look at this ad Once the cord cleats are attached It's it's significantly higher than it would be just over the recommend recommendation height So cord cleats at this height would be really impossible for the disabled person to reach and it would also Be impossible for People of short stature to Reach a height of 72 inches without having to use some kind of a stool depending on how tall they were Honestly cordless blinds would be a lot easier for disabled people to operate or people of short stature to operate This ad is from hunter douglas also the industry has been selling extension pulls for window coverings for years Consumers who have skylights they use extension pulls to open and close their windows if they opt out of motorized shades They don't use cords to operate those kind of window coverings And this makes it easy for those who are disabled to close their window coverings And if you look at the ad it says wood blinds only the extension pull is available for operating blinds in hard to reach windows A decorative tassel would be will be attached to the bottom rail with a string The disabled i found out that they already use extension pulls for operating cordless window coverings And these are just examples of different extension pulls that are used for different types of cordless window coverings So, um, the american consumer is clueless when it comes to window covering safety and this is what we found in our organization A large phone pole was included in a penises a of the wcma comment as a means to provide data The phone surveys are nice to have For some things however, they lack control groups And what I mean is the study only involved the intent of the responder not the actions For example, will you follow the instructions may have been asked not did you follow the instructions for the past six months every single time And I understand that phone pulls can be effective in market research However, the data should be in the consumer's actions not in their intentions No additional time should be given to slow down the process in order to provide additional data that the industry has been unwilling to submit at this point And parents for window blind safety ask also that the cpsc in the next fiscal year Actively promotes window covering safety in the cordless safety message Through their social media quarterly or more It is clear to me that the wcma will continue to stall the process as long as possible And ridicule the petitioners and the cpsc as they did in 2012 by withholding data Again, I plead with all the commissioners It is vital that the mandatory rulemaking process for inaccessible operating cords move forward now The window covering safety message is in complete disarray Coming from three different organizations parents for window blind safety the consumer product safety commission and the window covering manufacturers association The american consumer is clueless when it comes to window covering safety. They really are The consumers are clueless when they walk into retail stores looking for safe products They are clueless when they install corded window covering products And they're clueless that their child could be the next child hanging lifelessly from a cord Thank you Thank you. Ms. Kaiser doctor and mrs. Thomas And on cue here comes mr. McGuggan to save the day So to keep on time I will start while they're going to fix the technology here So as mentioned, my name is uh, dr. Stephen thomas and i'm joined today by my wife erica barns thomas Before I start my prepared comments I'd just like to thank the commission for allowing us this opportunity to engage you as you Set your agenda and priorities for fiscal year 16 I'd also like to thank you for the attention and the work that you have done thus far on this issue I'd specifically like to thank the chairman Individually for not only leading the commission and and revitalizing the interest in this topic But also for the specific work that you've done not only from the perspective of rule making But from engaging industry those people who make these products and retailers those people who who sell these products On the first slide what what you will see shortly is the reason that erica and I are here Which is a picture of our son kormack. It's a great picture It was taken about less than 60 minutes after uh, he was born you'll see that he's very very alert and I would prefer to be here today to talk to you about his life But unfortunately, uh, the next 10 minutes i'm going to be discussing the circumstances of his death My wife erica and I are here today to respectfully request that the us consumer product safety commission Assign the issue of window covering safety the highest priority for the upcoming fiscal year We are here today because we have no other choice but to be here We are here because our family has been utterly devastated by the loss of our beloved son mac And we cannot sit by quietly and know that every month of every year If things continue as they are the status quo Numerous more families will suffer the same crushing agony and loss that we now live with every single day December 6 2013 was the last time that I held my two-year-old son Later that day. I deployed as an army physician in support of u.s. Military operations in the middle east It would not be until march 5th 2014 that I would hold him again However, this time it was at the funeral home The funeral home two blocks from this very hearing room On march 4 first 2014 four days prior to my return from the middle east my wife found mac lifeless beneath his window He had been strangled and exfixiated by an accessible window blind cord The window covering which took my son's life was only months old It was specifically chosen after extensive research And installed because of the very fact that it was engineered to be safe But it was not safe We want the commissioners of the cpsc to understand if this tragedy can happen to parents as loving Thoughtful and meticulous about child safety as us It can happen to absolutely anyone Anywhere and at any time And it is not a question of if another life will be taken But who's and when Despite what some may want you to believe death due to accessible window blind cords is not an issue of parental Negligence we were not negligent Our home was extensively baby proofed on a continued basis. We did our absolute best to understand the dangers To our children We consulted child care experts monitored child safety websites and read vast amounts of parenting literature The only time our boys were ever alone in a room of our home was when they went to bed each evening As an extra layer of precaution in max room. We had removed absolutely everything From his room except for his toddler bed and a rocking chair We wanted to ensure there was nothing in his room which could hurt him His blinds have been custom made what child safety releases on the pole cord so that they could not form a deadly loop In addition we followed the advice to wind the pole cords Even though they had this child safety release around a bracket at the top of the window paying near the ceiling It was impossible for him to reach Nothing in our window covering research identified internal cords as a child hazard After mac died My wife family friends and I began to explore how such a senseless tragedy could have just could occur despite all of our precautions Very quickly we learned that our precise tragedy Has been striking other families unabated for well over a decade We were shocked to learn that in the united states of america an industrialized nation with a culture of safety And risk reduction. There were no mandatory safety standards that governed window coverings A product which had been killing and disabling children routinely Every month since mac passed away We meet new families whose children have died due to blind cord asphyxiation The cpsc states they have been tracking this safety issue for more than 18 years During this time on average one child a month is killed or permanently disabled due to accessible window blind cords This means every two years an entire classroom of children is decimated The loss of life and secondary and tertiary effects on parents siblings and extended family and friends is incalculable Max older brother charlie was only six years old when he experienced the trauma of the emergency crews trying to bring his brother back The loss of a child is called the worst loss because that's exactly what it is The potential contributions of these children to our community society and world are erased in a matter of seconds Mac might have become a wise president or government leader a motivated teacher a gifted artist Or innovator solving difficult problems But we will never know we will never know for mac or the hundreds of children who have lost their lives Due to these unsafe products The voluntary standard Confusing and misleading child slave cordless window blind packaging and community educational outreach efforts have failed Child death and disability due to accessible window blind cords continues without an observable change in overall trends I ask you When will the death and disability toll reach significance for the window covering manufacturers association and those it represents When will enough children die so as to motivate substantive efforts to remove all accessible window blind cords? If a recent public hearing is any indication likely never at the cpsc hosted event on 27 may 2015 representatives from several manufacturers together with wickma Articulated their concerns regarding a mandatory standard to remove accessible window blind cords They were as follows number one It will take innovation and this is difficult number two cost of goods may increase Number three ability to reach low percentage niche corners of their markets may decrease Number four consumers may be inconvenienced and number five cordless alternatives already exist In summary a mandatory standard could impact profits and the death and disability toll does not warrant removal of unsafe products from the marketplace Because safe products already exist and the consumer doesn't seem interested in cordless options The concept of safety was not even discussed at the event until after 90 minutes had passed This was a safety hearing and it was not discussed until the urging of the meeting chair This is very telling According to its strategic plan the cpsc's mission is to quote protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products through education safety standards activities regulation and enforcement The time has come to take the responsibility for architecting safety standards out of the hands of industry and its representatives As they are clearly not invested in eliminating the safety challenges at the expense of profit margins As a father who has lost his youngest son to accessible window blind cords I would like to know when will the cpsc execute their duty to protect our children with effective mandatory standards As a physician and a scientist I need to understand how the cpsc cannot invoke a mandatory standard When the data indicates an irrefutable cause-and-effect relationship between accessible window blind cords and the continued death and maiming of children Finally As a soldier and senior officer in the united states army It is my expectation the cpsc will perform their duty to protect my family and the american public From the unreasonable risks posed by unsafe consumer products Just as you expect your military to protect america against all enemies foreign and domestic A mandatory true standard eliminating all accessible window cords Accords from window blind coverings is the only decision which will reliably protect the public Make the decision for a mandatory standard and save a child's life Nothing the chairman the commission or I can do will bring back my beautiful boy He has joined the ranks of hundreds of other child victims What you can do is save the next child the next family and the next future Please do not turn your back on the next child Thank you for your attention Thank you. Dr. Mrs. Thomas and my apologies for the technical Glitch we're trying to get that corrected as soon as possible But please know we do have the slides and we did go through them. And so we certainly saw the pictures of mac deputy chief kelly Good morning, mr. Chairman members of the commission I'd like to thank mr. Mrs. Thomas and mr. Kaiser and mr. Dennis for taking Turning their tragedy into what hopefully will save other children For the record, I'll be referencing positions taken by the international association of firefighters, which is our parent group But i'll be speaking as the president of the professional firefighters of massachusetts And I'd also like to publicly thank deputy fire chief jay fleming from the boston fire department for assisting me In compiling this testimony There are many consumer related issues related to fire safety in my opinion Firefighters are in a unique position to represent the interest of the consumer on these issues because of three characteristics First and foremost firefighters have a unique and intimate understanding of fire risk And we risk our lives Two firefighters work in locations, which consumers live i.e. their homes Three firefighters and their families are also consumers In many cases related to fire safety the cpsc defers to private organizations regarding the development of regulations I'd first like to discuss in general how the setup of private organizations while appearing to be fair Might actually work against the consumer I'll then discuss how these private organizations have dealt with smoke alarms and flame retardants and furniture Voluntary standard organizations Both smoke alarms and flame retardants are addressed by existing or proposed standards from the national fire protection association The nfpa and or the underwriters laboratories ul's these organizations are private voluntary standard organizations vsos That make decisions affecting the lives of american consumers and american firefighters It is imperative that the cpsc and other private and public entities that represent the consumer interests Are more directly and actively involved in the voluntary standards developing organizations vsos provide a tremendous benefit to the us as a whole and consumers in particular However, there is currently insufficient consumer input. Additionally in the standards development process There's often undue influence from those who stand to financially benefit who do not consider the needs of the consumer In a 2012 gao report the following conclusion was written about the cpsc's involvement in consensus consensus standards development Without more active participation from the cpsc Standards emerging from standards development organizations Risk being less stringent and may be inadequate to to protect the public from hazards The question for the cpsc to consider as it prepares future budgets Is how can this more active role be accomplished without massive increase in funds? The key in my opinion is to increase the participation of the groups outside the cpsc But who also share familiar concern for the safety of consumers i.e. the fire safety fire safety organizations and unions This will allow the cpsc To share the burden and responsibility that has to protect consumers At the same time the cpsc must limit the ability of the regulated industry to work against the entrance of the american consumer The cpsc must use its considerable influence with various vso's Which it works with which it works to implement three agenda items one Influence vso's to institute programs to fund the participation of public and private groups That can balance the influence of the regulated industry And to influence vso's to limit the percentage of any one interest group on a committee by 25 percent 225 percent Three influence vso's to ensure that a true measure of an industry's influence is made transparent By tightening up conflict of interest rules particularly one applied to quote-unquote neutral experts who often act as industry consultants When a state or local government delegates legislative and executive responsibility to prom promulgate legally binding regulations to a vso They create a monopoly for that organization to public publish and sell that code In return for this effective monopoly the NFPA and uL as well as many other voluntary standards organizations Should provide financial support to enforcers private consumer organizations and state public health and consumer officials In order to ensure that the codes and standards Reflect the will and or value judgments of the american public As noted in an xa Many groups have concluded That consumers do not have enough representation And that it is cost prohibitive for small scale consumers and unions To participate directly in the standard setting process Although the NFPA and uL have some funding available these programs should be expanded Item number two the consensus process used by the NFPA and uL allows an individual interest group To comprise 33 percent of the committee At the same time it requires 66 percent a 66 vote to approve new requirements As a consequence the manufacturers on a committee can veto any requirement. They do not like Both uL and the NFPA have nine categories of members including producer consumer enforcer, etc On a balanced committee each group should comprise approximately 11 percent of the total Why is one group allowed to have three times that percentage? On the committees or panels that affect their financial interests the industry being regulated always appears to fill up the allowable quota While some committees or panels have little or no consumer representation Limiting any one category to no more than 25 percent would help address this imbalance Item number three When developing standards participants who are consultants In a characterize as such for example a special expert in the NFPA system or a general interest in the uL system Generally refrain from voting on a specific issue if they have been retained for that issue However, vs. O still allow this member Who's being compensated financially by an industry member to be counted as a neutral quote-unquote expert on other issues? It seems unlikely that an expert who's being paid by a manufacturer on one specific issue Would vote against that manufacturer's interest on any issue As a consequence although the manufacturers are limited to one-third of the seats on the on an NFPA or uL committee They often have retained several other committee or technical panel members at some point Thereby creating a potential that their influence extends to more than one-third of the membership An example of some of the industry's undue influence with regards to smoke alarms in 2009 There were several proposals that would require marking on the packaging of an ionization smoke alarm That would warn warn the consumer not to purchase this particular smoke alarm if it was to be placed near a kitchen Although it receives support from the vast majority of enforcers government staff and representatives from consumer groups It failed to get the 66 of the vote which is required for consensus to be reached As a consequence no warning is required In a meeting with the underwriter laboratories uL staff on october 30th 1995 almost 20 years ago Representatives from the cpsc described one concern with smoke alarms Cpsc staff expressed concerns about ionization smoke detectors unable to respond to a smoldering fire situation Cpsc presented data from the norwegian fire research laboratory In this research the authors concluded that ionization smoke alarms Including the ul 217 smoke alarms responded too late in smoldering fires In 2014 the cpsc supported proposals for new fire tests in the ul 217 Which is the ul standard for smoke alarms proposed by the boston fire department These tests would have finally addressed the concerns regarding the adequacy of the ul fire tests that the cpsc first raised over 15 years ago As the cpsc is aware the proposal failed So despite being aware of this information for over 15 years The cpsc has once again allowed the vsos that it participates in to fail to adequately address these issues in a timely manner In relative to flame retardants and furniture The iafs supports federal efforts to remove disease causing flame retardants from upholstered furniture and other products And supports federal efforts requiring manufacturers To propose of such products to utilize alternative safety measures in lieu of these flame retardants These sentiments echo concerns raised by the cpsc in 2008 Despite the position of many state governments as well as many federal agencies The nfpa fire test committee seems determined not only to develop an open flame tests, which were rejected by the cpsc They also have discussed the need for a new test to make furniture resistant to much larger flames This would likely require a substantial amount of flame retardants to be used One should not be surprised with this outcome since the fire test committee also appears to be overly influenced By the industry representatives as well as quote-unquote neutral experts who often act as consultants to the industry In addition, although the cpsc serves on the main committee in a non voting capacity No one from the cpsc was assigned to the subcommittee charge at developing the new fire test In fact on the c cut on this key subcommittee No one represents either enforcers or consumers, which amplifies the influence on the industry members The iff has taken a position on the committee But it is too often finding itself alone and advocating that the public interest including the safety of firefighters be given a higher priority And that the health risk created by the new tests be taken into account when the committee makes value judgments It appears the nfpa fire test committee, which is heavily weighted toward it towards industry May not properly weigh the potential health risk flame retardants of flame retardants When making decisions regarding the need for a large open flame test If this new test is referenced by other nfpa codes Then it is possible that despite clear policies at the state and federal level to limit the use of flame retardants State fire codes based on nfpa one the national fire code and health facility facilities all over the country Which after comply with nfpa 101 the life safety code would end up with regulations opposed to those policies This outcome would be a consequence of government Delegating legislative and administrative authority to a private organization without adequate controls to ensure the regulations developed by a private organization reflect the public interest In summary the iff has increased its commitment to participate more actively in many codes and standards The iff is active in it in the efforts to improve smoke alarms and develop furniture flammability regulations that put consumer interest ahead of industry interest This will help keep firefighters safer as well as the public that we just want to protect However, this effort by union firefighters must be married by the cpsc in order to properly protect and represent consumers The cpsc should take a more active voting role on vs. O committees as well as influencing vs Policies on reimbursement Burstment and conflicts of interest The cpsc can accomplish this goal without considerable budget increase and without the need to participate in hundreds of additional technical committees Although vs. O's provide a tremendous benefit to the u.s. As a whole and to consumers in particular There is potential for insufficient consumer input I would like to finish by quoting admiral hyman rick ova the father of the nuclear submarine given before congress in 1970 The typical industry controlled coder standard is formulated by a committee elected or appointed by a committee Elected or appointed by a technical society a similar group Many of the committee members are drawn from the manufacturers to whom the code is to be applied Others are drawn from engineering consulting firms and various government organizations However, since near unanimous agreement and the committee must generally be obtained to set requirements Or to change them the code represents a minimum level of requirements that is acceptable to industry In a subtle way the use of industry codes of standards tends to create a false sense of security Described by code committees and by the language of many codes themselves as safety rules They tend to inhibit those legally responsible for protecting the public from taking necessary action To safeguard health and well-being Many states and municipalities have incorporated these codes into their laws Thus in effect delegating to code committees their own responsibility for protecting the public Thank you. I'm sorry for abusing my time. No problem. Thank you deputy chief kelly. Mr. Dennis Hi Hi, thank you. I'm very pleased to be here. I'm going to give bob just a second to see If he can pull up the powerpoint presentation. It's much of the presentation as you are aware of is visual so um I'll wait for the first slide to show but The the emphasis of the presentation is what happens with when uh industry voluntary complies To a flawed standard and I think this is exactly what's happening with ionization smoke smoke alarms I want you to meet my family We were a family of four. This was my first born andrea second born alley These are my girls growing up together There they are as young ladies This is the day to April 13th. We lose the andrea Happen to be four o'clock in the morning on a palm sunday Two years later four o'clock in the morning on a palm sunday at miami university. There's another fire Three more children three more students died The commonality between the two fires Eight students died more than 29 as the ancient smoke alarms were So-called protecting the house However, they weren't really protecting the house. I didn't learn this two years later when I started researching smoke alarm technology Now I'm going to fast forward as you know, I submitted a lengthy powerpoint and I did so so you had a lot of information So I'm going to kind of go quickly To the gist of the presentation That's the performance of ionization smoke alarms They're flawed simply put There's a standard by ul That is allows them to pass The smoldering test and that standard that test has been around for over 40 years And what they do is they smolder ponderosa pine sticks on a hot plate at 715 degrees Slowly crank up the temperature The alarms are given 70 minutes to sound Before a smoke obscuration level of 10 percent They actually had to change the wood from from douglas to ponderosa pine because years ago They had trouble getting the ponderosa pine that passed the test Now this has been controversial for 40 years since the 80s the The california fire chiefs did their own testing and only trusted photoelectric smoke alarms texas a nm university colorado for two and a half years Did testing they didn't use Hot plates roasting ponderosa pine sticks. They used actual furniture and cushions and started smoldering fires You have all this before you but i'm going to quickly show you a chart Ionizations failed over nearly 60 percent of the time In smoldering tests 60 percent of the time these are on our homes NIST has done testing on smoke on Smoke alarms here's the two technologies very little difference in the flaming test However, when you get into the smoldering test, you suddenly you're seeing several tens of minutes of response time This test NIST did I want you to concentrate on the bottom the smoldering test Two-story house smoldering fire downstairs. It could be in your furniture Smoke alarms placed outside the common living areas outside of the bedroom ASET means available safe egress time So when the alarm goes off how much time does the family get have to get out of that house? With the photoelectric 55 minutes The ionization passes because it gave 16 seconds and that was within a three minute escape time However, if the living room air conditioning was running The photoelectric time drops all the way down to 46 minutes However, you get a negative 54 seconds with an ionization smoke alarm. That's the problem It's the it's the physics of the technology and the people that work on these and understand them know that But for decades nothing's been done NIST issued a statement with the boston city council when they were looking at the at massachusetts passing a statute statewide and for For 20 years The the boston fire department only would pass out photoelectric smoke alarms because they didn't trust ionization technology That it's the state of massachusetts is the test case of how the difference between ionization and photoelectric technology Their statement is very clear ionization technology has been shown to fail and smoldering fires even in a room is filled with visibility In their 30 minutes sounding later on the average than photoelectric smoke alarms Here's the nist test As you can see this is from questions clarifying this is nist is clarifying The underwriter lab test that they used to prove the smoke alarms It was developed in the late 70s to mimic the smoldering mattress and furniture However, they're using ponderosa pine sticks furnitures made up of cushions and polyurethanes How's that work in the real world? 2% Of all fires account for 21% of all home fire deaths. They put that in perspective annually annually We have between 2,500 and 3,000 fire deaths What that's what number is 21% of that you're getting 500 needless fire deaths a year A lot of children are dying in the rooms a lot of parents are dying They have no idea. These things are defective and it's a flawed standard Here's a white paper report. It's public private counsel. You serve on that underwriter lab or service on that NFPA serves on that They acknowledge that against the fires that have an extended smoldering period There could be The ionization smoke alarms defeated anywhere from three to 25 percent of the total What's the total the total is our fire deaths? So now we're talking about anywhere between 90 and 6 or 700 people Here's the smoke characterization project UL decided not to Smolder ponderosa pine sticks, but actually bring in cushions Polyurethanes and test them in their labs. Guess what 100 failure on the part of ionization smoke alarms in that test What should be even more alarming to you is in one out of every five tests Using the ponderosa pine sticks the ionization alarms still failed Yet that is the singular test that they use in the large room that put their seal of approval on Ionization smoke alarm public has no idea. They go to the stores They want these for their kids rooms. They buy them And they're in the blind Death After death After death People are dying Ball firms on the bandwagon advertising Knowing stating that the manufacturers know the ionization smoke alarm has a history of failure and defect What's going on behind the scenes settlement after settlement after settlement is being settled out of court But yet there's they're still not labeled It's a little bit of irony that i'm here in in melain because your largest city is baltimore And the gentleman next to me is from massachusetts. This largest city is is boston As i mentioned earlier boston has had a culture Of photoelectric smoke alarm technology because they found the defects of ionization smoke alarm baltimore is in the dark because The statutes in marilin a smoke alarm is just a smoke alarm and the most important thing is to make sure it's operational And there's a battery in it. How does this play out in the real world? Here's a period between 2009 2012 baltimore had 75 residential fire deaths You've already seen the number that boston had that same time period for That's the problem with ionization smoke alarms Industry is complying to a voluntary standard, but that voluntary standard is deadly flawed Warning labels need to be put on these things if you don't ban them and recall them, which i personally think you should do They have no business in the marketplace There's photoelectric smoke alarms for a couple dollars more They have adequate protection across the full spectrum of fires Ionizations are only effective And the flaming stages of fires if they're not disabled and they do get disabled five times higher Then photoelectric smoke alarms once again because of the physics of the technology I know definitively that one of your top researchers here in the consumer product safety commission Arthur lee has grave concerns and i've seen letters shared that he's written to underwriter laboratories about their standards I think it's time that these things get a solid review by the consumer product safety committee committee You place on on your hazard list At minimum, I actually think you ought to recall him. Thank you very much Thank you, mr. Dennis and thank you to the panel for your testimony Again We can't do justice to these topics in five minutes per commissioner. So please do not Read into anything if your topic is not explored in the depth that you of course believe it deserves And we of course believes it deserves that that doesn't mean that we're not taking it very seriously We're just trying to stick to the time and be fair to everybody who's come To testify today I want to start dr. Thomas with you, please if I can Are you aware that the industry recently has come out with a best for kids as they're calling it campaign So at the the may 2015 hearing that I referenced in in my comments, uh, it was discussed I will say that Apparently they did not come with the final version. So there was some confusion There seemed to be confusion amongst those from industry as to what they were actually saying And you can go to the transcript to look because somebody actually said is that what we're saying I went on to the website to try and understand And it was very difficult. So personally, my feeling is that um Maybe it was a strategically timed launch It doesn't seem to make complete sense. It's it's an algorithm Um And it was not clear. So long answer. Yes, I am aware of it, but uh, Again, I don't think it's going to contribute to any, uh, Any demonstrable, uh Reduction, I don't Eric if you have yes, please miss one thought. Um One of the challenges with best for kids is that you're looking to label a box Or a product as this product is safe for children But what you're neglecting to do is to label the thousands of other boxes that are unsafe for children. So You know as a consumer, it is incredibly confusing when you go into a big box store For example, and you're looking at thousands of products or hundreds of products or even dozens of products Best for kids. What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything to me as a consumer Thank you. And miss keiser. I know that parents are window blind safety Has had its own labeling and outreach campaign for a long time Can you please explain a little bit more about that and how if in any way that differs with the industry best for kids program? Well, I'm not really sure how it differs because I to my knowledge the best for kids program has yet to be implemented I haven't seen the criteria that they're using to endorse products Um, we have been placing our seal on products for 10 years. Um, and we have Intercords are restricted and tested with a more effective hazardous loose loop test than what the NC standard has And we don't allow any operating cords at all To be on the products. Um, so In a nutshell, that's kind of what we require for our seal And how long is that campaign going on over 10 years? And from your perspective, you've obviously been involved in this for a long time Do you feel and I think I picked this up from your testimony, but I want to make sure do you feel that Education programs alone whether it's that type of program best for kids or any other type of education program and Including if it were the commission to invest a significant more amount of money if we were to be provided it by congress Do you feel that that would solve the problem? I feel it's needed for old old products that are already in the home But to solve the problem absolutely not I think there's just too much information out there for the public There's too many design types For the public to really understand I think there's over 20 different design types of window blinds and window coverings It's just too hard for them to understand which how to do this one and how to make this one safe and There just has to be some kind of Restriction when it comes to the standard Thank you, and dr. Mrs. Thomas. Do you have a different opinion or same opinion? I think we have the same opinion We feel that education is absolutely necessary in tandem with a mandatory standard We have talked to at this point Probably hundreds probably a thousand parents. We are highly educated. Our friends are highly educated conscientious parents and not One person that we talked to was aware that Blind cords or window covering cords presented a danger to small children I later surfaced one person that was aware because Her boss's son died due to cord blind Blind cord asphyxiation one person That's it's a problem Thank you and deputy chief kelly switching to your topic There is a proposed rule that the commission has out in response to that gao report that you cited That would change some of the role of the cpsc staff in the voluntary standards body processes Do you think that that would help and specifically i'm curious about your perspective on the cpsc staff having voting privileges as well as being able to lead subcommittees I think that that would absolutely Be beneficial to the consumer and I I think that the role of cpsc is certainly vital in that respect and I but I would Say that It probably should have been we should be doing that all along. I mean who better to advocate Okay, thank you and this is really for all of you, but mr. Dennis if you could jump in first, please uh, we can't do this alone and Hopefully you all are reaching out to your House and senate representatives and senators and being heard. Is that the case? I I'm very hopeful in ohio um The fire community came together the fire chiefs association in ohio um Wrote a letter and took a vote with their their members. They are only supporting photoelectric smoke alarms The ohio officials only support support photoelectric smoke alarms So we have the whole fire community only supporting photoelectric smoke alarms problem in ohio is the fire chief is The fire marshal is housed under the commerce department As we all know if you can save a penny in a house They're going to try to save a penny. So the only people fighting it is the commerce department recently Just last week senator site. So i've been working with for five years on this topic Basically said that's draft to make sure we have photoelectric smoke alarms per nfp code and everywhere every location is and And so i'm very hopeful that ohio will follow vermont and massachusetts And a little bit main somewhat and pass a statute Mandating photoelectric smoke alarms So It is positive we the fire community in ohio The neo fpa northeast or ohio fire prevention association They even have a website up in a sponsoring a non-profit to educate the public but We need your help. We're ohio. We can't cherry pick one city after one city after one city Um Just like the issue with window blinds issue whose child is next it could be in california. It could be In new hampshire could be in florida These smoke alarms when you pick up a packaging What was interesting? On the first alert packaging you flipped over the back of the ionization packaging It said for best protection you need both technologies The same model number on photoelectric you turn the back of that packaging over They didn't say you needed both technologies because a hundred percent of all lawsuits And deaths are because of one technology ionization technology. It's so simple And it to me it's It's very justifiable for you under the newest Act of the consumer product safety commission act was about 2010 I think you have granted extra powers where you can actually step in on this dangerous product Great. Thank you. Mr. Dennis and thank you again to the panel. Unfortunately my time has expired So i'm going to turn it over to commissioner other in a second But again, I we very much appreciate you coming here We probably will continue these dialogues with with you and I do hope that you're also Are reaching out to your u.s. House and senators and especially trying to reach them in your community seeing them in their local offices I think that'll make a huge difference. Thank you commissioner adler Thank you very much And I do have to note that as compared to last year in previous years the turnout for a priorities hearing is extraordinary To me that suggests that people have come to expect the commission to do things And that means we've created the expectations that we now have to meet so again I can't thank you all enough for coming and I particularly want to thank mr. Dennis the thomas's And miss kaiser for coming and talking about something that's such a terrible personal tragedy in their lives I think it takes incredible courage To do that and I just want you to know how touched and how grateful I am And i'm sure everybody here is for your willingness to come and share your stories So that something productive can come out of these ghastly tragedies Miss kaiser you ask you raised the question and so we're usually ones asking them and you're the ones answering them But you did raise the question. I'm sure it was rhetorical about the use of cleats Do we really expect the use of cleats in any way whatsoever to solve this problem? My answer is a resounding no I've lived in a house where we've had cleats I've been there five years and I think the number of times we've actually wrapped The cords and I'm as conscientious as anybody when it comes to safety is zero And I don't think that will be the answer One of the questions I really did want to raise was the notion that education can be the be all and end all of addressing these product safety hazards And I would like to ask the question from a slightly different perspective of miss kaiser and of the thomas's And that is to what extent do you think education is complementary to a mandatory standard? And why do you suppose that education? Falls short in terms of answering all of the safety issues that we have with these products And if I might start with the doctor or thomas or miss thomas and then move to miss kaiser I think one of the challenges and we've seen this You know certainly in in our circle of friends and those who know About our tragedy is that There is kind of an unwillingness to accept the idea that this might happen in your own home. So My parents by way of example were absolutely gutted by our loss We have educated them thoroughly about the dangers of accessible cords and window coverings And yet there was reluctance on their part to remove their window coverings Despite education because the expectation is lightning can't possibly strike twice When we all know that's not true Education is perhaps a piece of the equation, but I do think that it is The responsibility You know of our government quite frankly to protect consumers from Products that we know, you know year over year over year are are causing death And disability to children Thank you. Miss kaiser or i'm sorry. Dr. Thomas. Did you have anything to I'm just going to say and I think uh, you know linda already touched on it There are so many different products that are out there that are engineered in so many different and distinct ways That the number of educational Initiatives or the number of messages that you would have to deliver It would just not be possible You know if if you could have been at the hearing, you know, there were the displays set up I mean these blinds are it's like systems engineering sorts of things. I mean, there are so many components in so many parts Again, I just don't think it is feasible that in and of itself education is going to be Way however, if there is a mandatory standard that says no accessible window blind cords You have already taken a huge chunk of the risk out of the equation and then the remaining component of education becomes much simpler Miss country, do you have anything to add again? I wanted to say that the message is already confusing to the consumer and what I mean by that is that You know the messages are tie up your cords Put your cords and cleats Use tie down devices and then just the simple term of safety tassels Consumers when they hear safety child safety tassels, they assume that they're safe You can walk into some retail stores and walk down the aisle and it says child safety tassels on the on the aisle Shelf And so people just assume. Oh, this is safe because it's got those little safety tassels on there So they think those cords are safe They don't even think they have to tie them out of reach because they have the safety tassels on them And that's a big problem They just trust that they're safe. So I just think it's just too confusing. There's too many things for them to try to absorb You know Thank you. I've often said that it's Often not always but often easier to redesign a product than it is to redesign a consumer And unfortunately that's an indication of human frailty, which we all share I would like to turn my attention out to Mr. Dennis and Mr. Kelly and you both Indicate that you see serious flaws in the voluntary standards process I'll just say I've been observing voluntary standards development for 40 years and I will say there's been tremendous progress Uh in the voluntary standards organizations, but there's also been tremendous reliance on voluntary standards organizations And what we have and I can't remember which of you gentlemen Maybe both of you made the point is that we have now in effect made this a quasi public Process so that we are relying in effect We are handing over authority for setting the rules of safety to these organizations And so I think there's also a corresponding responsibility on their part to expand the degree of transparency to the degree of Involvement and to lessen the potential for conflict of interest So I guess my question of the two of you at least initially is Have you spoken specifically to these organizations? I really appreciate that you're sharing that information with us But can you just give us a sense of any conversations you've had with these organizations themselves and gentlemen If you can please try to keep your answer short. Thank you and I do apologize for going over So we when you in particular when you balance the influence of the Um the industry that's making money off whatever that standard is developing The way they're structured with 33 percent of the of the vote and you need 66 percent to be able to change anything It's very heavily weighted towards the industry And that's why I think in what we were hoping that the cpsc uses its influence to With those vs. O's to make sure that we have a better balance And that the consumers are being protected Briefly that's exactly why I'm here. I think The consumer product safety commission needs to step in I presented before the state fire marshals task force in california The fire officials on that task force recognized The flaws of ionization smoke alarm They couldn't get anything through because they was a two-thirds vote and it was stacked with industry Thank you commissioner hamler commissioner robinson Thank you, and thank you also to all five of you This is critically important what you're doing today and you can't possibly appreciate how much we need this kind of information I was going to ask some questions with respect to a window blind cord Education, but I think that the three of you have addressed that very very eloquently and well on why the education alone is not is not Adequate my office and my staff. We've spent an enormous amount of time and energy on this issue I've visited manufacturers both at both in this country and china We've looked at feasibility cordless blinds the costs of consumers the profit margins and so forth And I share with you that the packaging alone is enough to baffle my brilliant Staff on what in the world a parent would choose just from the packaging So I I share your thoughts on on education alone. I'm going to take a little different tack miss kaiser in your testimony You testified That the industry has been withholding data and one of the The onerous tasks we have at this agency in passing any mandatory standard Unlike any other agency in government is we have a multi-step cost benefit Analysis that we have to do and the data is critically important And I'm very interested in what data you think industry is withholding When I made that claim I was talking about the 2012 standard and when we were sitting at the table And that data I was talking about was a particular wraparound test that they failed to reveal the results to the room To the technical committee and to the steering committee They just refused refused to reveal those results to us And made the decision to move forward We were outvoted and the Long hazardous cords were continued to remain in the standard And that is why we walked out of the process Because the results were not revealed And I was under the impression due to the long extension period that they were given that they would be More data that was provided To The commission and I didn't see any kind of numbers I didn't see anything that was given to the commission in their comments So I was completely disappointed by what was submitted And I believe that the industry has the data that they can provide to the commission and they're failing to provide it Okay And one of the things I mean certainly an industry takes a lot of potshots at the cpsc data We all know that within the organizations within the manufacturers organizations particularly if you're dealing with lawsuits even That they have data as to particular Blinds and what has caused what deaths and so forth in your experience Have you seen industry ever share any of that data with the voluntary standards committee? no And I'd like to just ask one question about the survey that wcma Is doing and I know you've you've told us the shortcomings But do you see any information that could come from that survey that will be helpful to us in the mandatory standards? I think there is some yes. I I I didn't want to You know critique it all and say it was all bad I think there was some very valid information in there that I found very helpful good because because we look forward to getting that Mr. Kelly, I'd like to to turn my attention to you for a minute on the voluntary standards committees we I wish we had more control over them And I hope that you'll share your concerns with some of the voluntary standards committees because and with the organizations The auspices under which they operate because I I like your ideas. You've got some excellent ones We have a we have a voluntary standards notice of proposed room making which you may know And we received comments on it and we've not received the staff's recommendations and We were expecting something in 2015 now that isn't going to happen But in terms of our these standards would make would allow our people Not just voting but leadership positions within the voluntary standards committees and would change our approach to it Let me just ask you this in terms of those changes in making the cpsc staff more active and in leadership positions Do you think that such a change would be related to safety? Absolutely And why is that I think that because as we referenced earlier the balance of the Of the committees the composition is so weighted heavily Towards the industry that we need a better balance And I think the cpsc staff being leadership positions and serving on those committees Will take great strides toward providing that balance and I very much share your concern about about um FRs and um, I know that one of the problems that we have as a commission is looking again at data That is that comes from the nfi rs And what we've been told is that when we get causes of fires And I'm sure I don't want to go into full explanation with my five minutes But we need to it would be very helpful to us Let's put it this way If we knew the numbers of fires that were started with open start of open flame and smoldering It would be enormously helpful because with the smoldering they don't need frs in order to meet that standard We're getting it from firemen. I'm told that that data is sort of filled out by the youngest Manor woman who's leaving the scene of the fire and we don't always get all of that information Do you know and I've been my staff and I've been very busy trying to figure out where we have other pockets of data For example within homo homeowners insurance companies because they have people who put things together for subrogation claims If nothing else, um, do you have any ideas for us on how we might be able to get better data? Well, I think some of the data that um, mr. Dean referenced as relative to the smoke detector Investigations into the ionization versus photoelectric Reference some of the percentages of smoldering fires. I think it was 21 percent Fires cost 21 percent of the fire deaths that came from Excuse me two percent of the fire both of you. Sorry about that. No, that's that's fine It's actually I'll be presenting this afternoon and I'm going to be getting into that. Excellent. But two percent of the fires um Caused 21 percent of the fire deaths That were deemed to have started in upholstered furniture Those are generally smoldering fires in nature However, you never know when a fire gets reported where a child is lighting with a lighter a cushion But that's that's the statistic Okay, have either of you just started curiosity in any way tried to get Homeowners insurance companies to put together any of their data with respect to the causes of fires I'm working with that. I was awarded One of the educator of the year awards by mutual insurance and I'm trying to get my foot in the door on this topic An award winner should have a leg up on us. Thank you very much. Appreciate that many doors My time's up. Thank you commissioner robbins commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chairman. First, let me begin by saying thank you to you for holding this hearing and to uh, all of the staff who Make a day like this possible and to rocky who has once again, I think left the room for her work on this She's elusive. Um, I really don't have any questions What I want to do right now is just to thank each and every one of you for being here today For your very compelling testimony And to miss kaiser and miss thomas colonel thomas and to mr. Dennis You have my deepest sympathies for your unspeakable losses And I just thank you for your courage to bring the issue forward And to have the your willingness to relate the tragedies that you've sustained And I do appreciate that and I just thank all of you for being here today. Thank you Thank you commissioner berkel commissioner moho rovac. Thank you, mr. Chairman I'd like to echo the sentiments that were related earlier in terms of the courage that it takes to provide this kind of testimony And the impact it has on the commission You have my deepest sympathies as well as appreciation For your participation in the public interest. I've got a particular question for mr. Kelly part of your testimony Reminded me of my first go around at the at the commission and a staff capacity 10 years ago and at that time being acutely familiar and sympathetic to The need for and the desire for increased public participation and and uh voluntary standards organizations sdo's across the board And after leaving the agency In the private sector I eventually was a global business line leader and truly global business. I had staff reporting to me Or through my direct reports on six continents And what confounds me in terms of being able to get more public participation is How technology Hasn't provided or facilitated the better access I'm I'm aware of the same challenges from 10 years ago or today in terms of staffing and funding and recognize the fact that Uh that industry who need to participate in those will consider it part of part of their business process And therefore likely fund their experts to participate in the standards that will affect the products that they're producing or thinking about engineering and consumers generally don't have that Don't have that option unless part of an association that has funding towards that But you know here we are and I think about the technology that's available to facilitate public public participation And and I think about my own experience. I wasn't traveling to australia and south africa to meet with Staff to be able to conduct necessary meetings. We were able to deliberate collaborate And come up with global solutions Do you have a comment particularly on either the where you've seen advances in the use of technology or how that How that hasn't been successful in any way to be able to encourage and and get more public participation in sdo's As you said one of the great challenges of the of that participation is its cost prohibitive, you know people that are working, you know right now the nfba's meeting in chicago not necessarily in communities, but um I don't know why we haven't graduated with all this technology to be able to conduct these committee meetings in a More cost effective manner to encourage that participation And maybe it's something that we really need to strive toward to ensure that we can increase that participation Okay, thank you and perhaps Other panelists today might be able to comment on that Where they've seen a failure from sdo is to incorporate that to be able to provide greater access But thank you for your testimoniums chairman. I'm sorry if I slipped into my boston accent, but a Situate guy might have I might have on a few occasions Thanks commission morovic. So that's going to conclude the first panel. Thank you to miss keiser from parents of wind of blind safety to doctor and mrs. Thomas The deputy chief kelly from the massachusetts firefighters and of course from to mr. Dennis from the Co-founder of fathers for fire safety. We very much appreciate your testimony here today. Thank you We're going to take a two minute break while we try to move quickly into panel too. Thank you