 All righty, we're going to begin with panel two. We have joining us this morning for the second panel, Mr. Mark Fallon, former CPSC employee from the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association. Mr. Randy Hertzler, who we've seen many, many times, and it's always good to see you from your source. Can't imagine what you're going to talk about, but we're waiting to be surprised. Mr. Charles Samuels from Mint 11, also known as Chuck. That's OK. Mr. John Cuppins from Nelson Mullins and Ms. Kerry Campbell from Tadburn Park. So Mr. Fallon, if you'd like to get going, please. Thank you, Chairman Kay and commissioners, for the opportunity to provide JPMA suggestions for priorities in the upcoming fiscal year. JPMA is a proud history of ensuring that juvenile products are built with safety in mind. CPSC's engagement with stakeholders is key to fulfilling its safety mission. We remain supportive of the development of federal advisory committees to address ongoing issues that have significant contribution to CPSC's mission. My comments focus on four areas. Maintaining flexibility and openness relates to section 104 of the CPSIA and CPSC staff involvement throughout the ASTM process. Two, initiate rulemaking on JPMA's CRIB bumper petition. Three, properly allocating resources to measure and evaluate recall effectiveness. And four, continuing to look at ways to reduce third-party testing burdens and ensure resources are available to industry. Working together, JPMA, CPSC and advocates have embraced and enhanced safety through the ASTM consensus process. We appreciate all the time and energy that staff expend by attending meetings and providing constructive feedback. Over the years, members have taken CPSC input into account when developing and revising standards. We remain concerned that staff not arbitrarily change language placement or dynamic performance requirements within a standard without adequate justification. ASTM relies on individual participants' ability to comment on draft proposals, initiate revisions to a standard and review a final document before approval to ensure that all issues are vetted. Participants rely on CPSC staff to provide summaries of incident data and engineering analysis as part of the process of risk hazard analysis and development of performance requirements. We urge the commission to provide as much data as possible to make good rulemaking. Finally, JPMA urges the commission to work with Congress to address any potential shortfalls in the timing of 104 rules. Congress has repeatedly provided the agency with the opportunity to request changes to this process and to date, CPSC has not accepted that offer. Too often, it seems that a standard is rushed through the ballot process at ASTM only to be changed during the final rule. This dynamic leads to the perception that the CPSC is the only expert in the room. In order to fully evaluate all data and make necessary changes, we would encourage the agency to request flexibility if the current rulemaking rate is unattainable or compromising the process. JPMA appreciates the CPSC's recent FR request, agency information, collection activities, proposal submissions, and approvals, crib bumpers. We hope our submissions will be helpful in your efforts to make a scientific determination the use of this product in order to initiate rulemaking to make a determination. Recall effectiveness remains a top priority for JPMA. So much so that we made recall effectiveness our theme for baby safety month in September and have approached the agency to partner with us in this effort. We were encouraged by the chairman's remarks at IKFASEL regarding a workshop on this very topic. We encourage the CPSC to provide funds to conduct this workshop with stakeholders. Additionally, JPMA would encourage the commission to set forth its expectations of what is considered an effective recall. By properly measuring results with quantifiable metrics, such as consumer understanding of a recall and what it means to their product, customer choice and reacting to that recall and price point recalls, rather than based solely on return rates, we can more effectively understand consumer behavior and better target messaging to ensure that all parties are notified of a recall and feel empowered to take the appropriate steps based on personal choice. JPMA does not support funding resources to initiate rulemaking on the proposed changes to the current voluntary recalls rule. Testing is a critical component to product safety assurance. However, our industry still struggles with crippling testing costs. As mandated by public law 112-28, significant time has been spent identifying opportunities to reduce unnecessary testing burdens. However, to date with limited expectations, with limited exceptions, these funds have gone to efforts that have resulted in very little relief for the manufacturing community. We urge the CPSC to continue to look for meaningful ways to reduce costs while still ensuring compliance. The Office of Small Budsmen, the Office of Small Business Ombudsman had proved to be an invaluable resource for small businesses and we urge the CPSC to continue to invest resources to this position. JPMA will continue to support and advocate for regulation that is meaningful and beneficial to consumers. The CPSC leadership and staff continue to state that there is an open door policy at the stage just for all stakeholders and we appreciate that opportunity to engage the commission. As you look at your individual staff plans for the upcoming year, we'd like to invite you to JPMA's inaugural industry event in the spring of 2017 to be held in Anaheim, California. We believe this is a great opportunity for you to engage with the regulated community. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Bell and Mr. Hertzler. Thank you, Chairman Kaye. The fellow, your fellow commissioners, I have been sitting in front of you for many years since 2008 and I think Commissioner Adler who is not with us in person today is the only commissioner who was here when I first started as a member of the Handmade Toy Alliance Board of Directors. And through the Handmade Toy Alliance, we were successful in getting the small batch rule through Congress and there still is this hole that exists for businesses that are not helped by the small batch rule and the very large businesses who have the benefit of volume of products on their side when it comes to being able to amortize testing burdens. So I'm here today with the business I own, Ural Source, but also as speaking for small business in general who is still stuck in this hole and is looking for burden reduction, which I suspect is what you were referring to. The small businesses in this hole really bring sort of a diverse perspective when it comes to compliance with regulations because we have smaller budgets. We have low production volumes and we produce an immense assortment of products. That combination is just not a good mix when it comes to the economics of complying with the CPSIA. Congress passed Public Law 112-28 in August of 2011 which did provide that small batch exemption to third party testing for micro-businesses and a pathway for the CPSC to provide burden reduction from third party tests. But it wasn't until January of 2016 more than four years later that we began to see some results and an actual burden reduction ruling. That initial ruling covers solid trunk wood and is an expansion of the lead determination to include the additional heavy metals regulated by ASTM F963. Even though there's some debate over the usefulness of a determination that specifies where, on a tree, wood must come from, it is at least a step in the right direction, albeit the small one. Burden reduction plays a crucial role in the economic viability of small businesses producing children's products. Therefore, it is imperative to turn that first step into one of many. Meaningful burden reduction for the small business community truly centers around determinations used in combination with the component part rule. The opportunity is before the commission to set a course responsive to small business by ensuring that burden reduction receives a much higher priority and that the forward progress continues. To this end, it is necessary that burden reduction be included in the fiscal year 2017 operating plan and in the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget request. Our priorities for test burden reduction are as follows. One, continue to expand the lead determination for natural materials. The research that brought us the trunk wood determination was unable to find sufficient second party data on several common natural materials. I ask for the CPSC to allocate funds for first party research on these materials that are unlikely to include any heavy metals. This action should mirror the efforts used to create the original lead determination in 2009. It was researched and issued within one year of the CPSIA becoming law. Thus, the commission can be confident that staff have the ability to perform and complete this analysis in an efficient manner. Two, investigate creating a manufactured wood determination for heavy metals. Manufactured woods are a very common raw material for toys. Therefore, first party research to place manufactured wood on a heavy metal determination list has potential to significantly reduce testing burdens for small businesses. And three, examination of international toy safety standards to determine areas where commonality exists and which standard is most rigorous. Small toy makers in Europe, many who formerly sold to the US market continue to be excluded from entry because of the cost of meeting multiple and unaligned safety standards. Unfortunately, testing laboratories for various reasons are reluctant to perform a single combination test certification to multiple standards. A combination of requirement, a compilation of requirements that identifies a single test reduces costs for businesses that must meet requirements from more than one jurisdiction. Resolution of these three issues reduces the testing burden on children's product manufacturers while ensuring compliance with existing standards. Exactly what Congress directed in 2011, safety is not compromised. A productive journey down this path reopens the US market to a wide variety of safe toys and children's products, sustains small businesses that provide jobs and economic activity and begins to level the playing field for businesses with low product volumes but not helped by the small batch rule. In conclusion, small businesses are hindered by excessive costs in their efforts to comply with the CPSIA. There often is no economically viable route to compliance. Remedies were identified years ago, Congress provided the directive and a pathway, CPSC staff demonstrated efficient first party research but CPSC policy has emphasized burden reduction and there has been little progress towards accommodating small business. I asked the commission to allocate sufficient funds and resources to continue burden reduction progress by expanding the determinations for heavy metals and natural materials, creating a determination for manufactured woods and examining international standards for equivalents. Together, these actions help keep small businesses viable, keep consumers safe and provide alternatives to mass produced toys and children's products. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Herzler, Mr. Samuels. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. I'm speaking on my own behalf as a longtime practitioner before this agency and a strong supporter of the commission and its mission. I'm here today to propose to you a modest project, low cost, low resource to increase knowledge of and communications about reporting requirements and penalties, justifications and amounts for late reporting. Let me start off with two propositions about which I'm sure none of us disagree. First, timely self-initiated reporting is required not only by the law, but is essential basis for our successful federal safety regulatory regime. And we do have a successful regime. You understand that your job is not done and it never will be, but I do think we should pause from time to time to recognize how good our system is. But a corollary to that is, companies who improperly delay or don't timely report hazards to the commission should be punished. That should be done primarily to protect consumers, but also secondarily to protect companies and employees who do comply with the law, the so-called level playing field. However, we have a problem and it's a serious problem. And that is that there's a widespread perception among regulated industry, manufacturers and retailers, that the way the present penalty regime is administered is arbitrary and capricious, not based on proper consideration of relevant factors and an abuse of discretion. To unpack those terms, by arbitrary, we mean that random choices seem to be made based on personal whim, rather than on any known reason or system. And by capricious, we mean that the actions are given to sudden, impulsive and unaccountable changes. Now this perception is undoubtedly exacerbated by the lack of transparency in commission communications about the reasoning for both living penalties and their amounts. It also frankly is exacerbated by public statements by the commission and commissioners that are exhortatory and often condemnatory in nature that say, well, all companies need to do is just report. When in doubt, report. If there are any injuries associated with a product, report. Now frankly, quite often, this is very sound advice that I've given it many times myself, but it's actually not the law. The law requires a reasonable basis for a determination of a defect, a substantial product hazard, but a reasonably dangerous product. And it doesn't help, it only increases the gap between industry and the commission when we have wild rhetoric on either side. And my proposal is we take this out of the media and we bring it right back here to the commission, to the experts, yourself, your general counsel's office, your compliance office, regulated industry and consumer advocates, and we try and come up with a better system of understanding when penalties are levied, why, and what is the basis for the amounts. Now there's two detrimental and in my mind unnecessary effects of this present situation. The first is that regulated parties can't properly defend themselves. They feel that there's a lack of due process. Outsiders don't understand what's going on. They don't know how to evaluate it whether they be consumer advocates, the Congress, the press, or industry, and there's no way to evaluate the fairness of the situation. Overall, there's a sense of lack of justice and due process. Now, even companies that violate the law deserve justice and due process. Second, this has an impact on reporting. On the one hand, no doubt, the dramatic increase in penalty amounts in the last few years has significantly increased in some ways the amount of reporting, but frankly, it's also dampened reporting. I know this for a fact as there's every other practitioner before this commission because we now have a terrible situation where if companies don't report at the earliest possible time, and we're not yet in a factual scenario where it's just blatantly obvious that you need to report, and we're in that big wide gray ambiguous area, there's a huge hesitation to report because of the possibility, the probability of 2020 hindsight and penalties. And this undermines the advice that people like myself have given for 30 years. When in doubt report, you can work with the commission. Often reports don't turn into recalls. Let me make clear that we all own this problem. This problem was not solely caused by the commission. It was caused by regulated industry and equal measure. We have a vague law and we have vague guidance and industry supports that law and the way that it's written. We have very strong section 15 and section six confidentiality non-disclosure provisions and industry supports those provisions, but the net of that is that we are hamstrung in the amount of information that can be provided on individual penalty cases or the commission's thinking. But I don't think we've been creative enough to see how far we can push the envelope and still stay within the law. We also have the phenomena which is perfectly natural that the general counsel's office wants the maximum amount of discretion and the maximum amount of leverage on the parties that it's dealing with in penalty cases. Well, it's got it, but it's gone too far. And I think maybe we need to temper and balance the situation a little bit. If it wasn't for the existence of the Iqviso organization that we all are supportive of, we would have no exchanges on this issue with you other than in the context of individual penalty cases, which is the worst possible place for either you or we to attempt to set good public policy. Surely we can find methods of communication and transparency about your thinking on penalties and penalty amounts that are within the law and that don't undermine your critical strength of enforcement and enforcement discretion. I don't know what it's going to result in. Maybe it would be a change in the way you communicate about penalty cases. Maybe it will require some new guidance or policy that may require a more formal procedure. Maybe it'll just simply be exchanges of information by interested parties. But can't we either through an advisory committee or much more informal workshops or formal or informal exchanges perhaps use the administrative conference of the US to find out what other agencies are doing, what is best practices, get some neutral experts to assist us all, find a better way of communicating with each other on these important issues. And I would not limit it simply to the dollar amount on penalties by the way. We've never had an explanation of the rationale for and how the commission expects the new, relatively new requirements on compliance programs that are built into these settlements to work. And that would be worth understanding a little more deeply. Also, perhaps there are more creative use of the penalty amounts than simply sending it over to the Treasury. But at this point, consideration of that, although other agencies like NHTSA do it, is off the table as far as the general council is concerned. I urge you to consider taking some modest steps to increase transparency and understanding of penalties and penalty amounts. I don't think it's gonna limit your power. I'm not suggesting changing the statute, but put yourself in a position where regulated industry will have much less of a justification to complain about the way that they are handled in this situation. That's my proposal, thanks. Thank you, Mr. Samhills, Mr. Cuppins. Chairman Kaye, commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you about civil penalty issues. Since 1989, I've been a lawyer in private practice and my practice is focused on the defense of product liability litigation and counseling clients on product liability risk prevention and regulatory compliance issues. And I'd like to provide a few comments from the perspective of the regulated community based on my experience dealing with consumer product regulatory issues. My comments are my own. At the outset, I should clarify that my comments are not from the perspective of consumer product manufacturers who are ignorant of or indifferent to the CPSA and other applicable rules and regulations governing the regulated community. Rather, I want to share with you the perspective of that portion of the manufacturing community that fully desires to remain in compliance with these laws. I believe that the majority of the manufacturing community falls in this group. Many of them work for sophisticated companies. They have compliance programs and safety committees in place, and they have a sincere concern for product safety and for their customers. They are accustomed to working with government regulators to build trust and gain predictability about what is expected. This group is familiar with the CPSC and keeps abreast of developments and it is aware of the actions of the commission and the statements and issues. They attend ICFASO and other relevant industry association meetings and they listen attentively to what you all have to say. They're keenly aware of the continuing increase over the last several years in both the frequency and amount of civil penalties and that the CPSC has announced, that the CPSC has announced and they are aware of your public statements indicating desire to award higher, even seven figure civil penalties. Candidly, their goal is that better guidance would lead to greater compliance which will lead to fewer and lower penalties. But against this backdrop, more than anything, they want to understand how they can stay in compliance and avoid being the subject of a timeliness investigation or a civil penalty. This means that they crave more guidance about how decisions are made at several stages in that process. First, since the overwhelming majority of timeliness investigations stem from a determination of a late reporting, they would like more guidance about what facts have historically been deemed by the compliance staff to constitute late reporting under section 15B and what fact patterns have been deemed not to be violations. These companies actively monitor internal and external feedback about their products but it's not always possible to immediately identify whether one or two incident reports are evidence of a product defect or an issue that presents a substantial risk of injury. Some fit the pattern of user abuse or misuse while still others appear to be quality, not safety issues. Often more information is needed before a company can spot the possibility of something unusual and then it needs to investigate to understand whether there is a safety issue that it should report to the agency. These companies are aware of the when in doubt report admonition and they tend to err on the side of caution in giving the commission a heads up about an issue. But this is a subjective process that is dependent on judgment calls and they fear that staff reviewing the information with the benefit of hindsight may second guess what were reasonable judgments when the event were happening in real time. This fear is reinforced by their experience with compliant staff regarding its decisions about whether corrective action is needed which demonstrates that even competent regulators may reach seemingly inconsistent conclusions. This creates an air of unpredictability that underscores that subjective judgment cannot be removed from the process but the consequences of having this particular judgment called second guest are potentially so severe that more guidance is needed. Companies want a clearer understanding of the reasons they get flagged by the compliance staff for a timeliness review. Is this review done in every case? What about in a fast track recall where no preliminary determination of defect was made and often less information about certain issues is demanded by the staff? Are certain industries or types of products targeted for review? What examples can the CPSC provide about the most common issues that cause a case to be flagged and how long of an investigation before a report is made is too long? Are there useful examples such as facts showing when a report after even a month's long investigation was deemed timely from which we could learn? Will company engineers be allowed to talk to CPSC engineers before a case is flagged so they can explain what a product expert is considering when evaluating field information in real time? Is there an opportunity for fuller discussion of these issues before a case is flagged? Often a company comes away from a discussion about a corrective action plan with no idea that timeliness is even a concern only to later hear otherwise by way of a timeliness letter. If they had known it was an issue they would have provided more information and possibly avoided the expense of further proceedings. To many the process of determining which cases merit a timeliness review is too mysterious and it provides insufficient guidance to those seeking to remain in compliance. Better communication between the compliance staff and the companies with which they deal would lead to better compliance and improve safety. Second, companies need more guidance about how decisions are made once the Office of General Counsel decides to initiate a formal timeliness investigation. From their perspective they are directed to engage in a lengthy and expensive process without a clear understanding of what specifically has called their judgment as to reporting timing to be questioned. They do their best to explain their actions in their written submissions but they usually don't get to meet with the OGC staff or perhaps more importantly with CPSC engineers until the end of that process and by then there's no opportunity to meaningfully discuss the merits as the OGC has made up its mind. The OGC staff presents them with a number that it has determined is an appropriate penalty amount. When they ask how staff arrived at the number they don't get an explanation. If they do not understand the factors that the staff believes justify its penalty demand they are at a loss to explain why those facts might be viewed differently and thus why the number may be inappropriate. As a result no meaningful negotiation in the traditional sense can happen and unlike their experience in litigation for example there is no independent mediator that can look at the issues and make an objective assessment. For the company involved in this process it does not seem fair. Perhaps more importantly companies looking on who read the announcements of civil penalty settlements cannot determine the correlation between the reported facts and the amount of the penalty. They need guidance on which factors are given more weight not so they can avoid scrutiny but so they can ensure they are compliant and they deserve to understand the thought process that was used to determine the penalty amount. Absent that the process appears arbitrary whether or not it truly is. These companies who seek to cooperate with the agency to establish a reputation of good faith are not receiving the guidance they need to be certain that they are in compliance. Better guidance will result in improved compliance which will in turn benefit the agency and the public. Without these changes companies are going to be forced to litigate these matters and establish guidance through that process that will be costly for all involved and could be avoided. The request at this juncture is simply that the agency make it a strategic priority to study these issues to identify concrete ways to improve communication with the regulated community and provide better guidance. Several ideas have been proposed by my colleagues and I think the best path will be revealed once the commitment to study these issues is made. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cuppins, Ms. Campbell. Good afternoon, Chairman Kay and commissioners Berkel, Mohorovic and Robinson all in alphabetical order. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on CPSC's agenda and priorities. I'm very pleased to be here today to ask the commission to make a commitment in fiscal year 2017 to establish a framework for transparency, fairness and accountability regarding the commission's civil penalty determinations and terms of compromise agreements that are reached to resolve matters. For the record, my name is Carrie Campbell. I'm a Washington DC based attorney with a national primarily federal court practice. I've served as outside counsel in what we locally refer to as the CPSC bar for almost three decades and through many administrations. As most of you and many of the senior staff at the agency are aware, my practice is focused on consumer product safety, compliance and enforcement matters before the commission and also perhaps uniquely representing companies, brands and individuals whose reputations have been wrongly harmed by the publication of inaccurate or misleading information by the media, competitors or even the government. I advocate for plaintiffs and defendants and on the side of fairness and truth. Simply put, over 29 years, I have built a career focused on advocating for truth, advocacy, fairness and due process. It's hard to believe that the dialogue I've had with the commission has been going on now for almost 30 years. I'm as passionate today about my work as ever. To be clear, I am not speaking today on behalf of any company, industry or advocacy group. There is no partisan political agenda behind my comments. In fact, to eliminate any notion that my advocacy for the truth, fairness and even-handed justice is driven by party politics, I chose some time ago not to be affiliated with the political party. This doesn't always sit well with folks on both sides of the aisle in this town, but that's the way it is. From my perspective, as an officer of the court and as importantly as a tax-paying citizen, truth, fairness and due process are core values in our democracy that in my view do not change depending on the party affiliation of who occupies the White House or who is appointed to lead this or any other federal agency. There's been a lot of talk over the years about protecting our children from harm and rightly so. We can all agree that keeping kids and others out of harm's way from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death is a paramount objective. I can assure you that the health and wellbeing of children and young people is near and dear to my heart. That is because I'm a working mom who has raised a lot of kids into young adulthood as a single parent even, three kids of my own and several other teenage boys who needed a safe and loving environment while they worked some things out. They're part of my family too. I am happy and blessed to share with you that all of these kids have grown up into caring, compassionate, independent, confident, responsible and service-oriented young adults. They do not hesitate to stand up for and protect those who cannot stand up for themselves. While we talk a lot about keeping kids safe, which is important, there has been very little, if any, discussion about the hallmarks of democracy and principles underpinning good governance, which is equally important. This is a subject I believe that warrants fulsome discussion and debate. Truth, transparency, even-handed enforcement and accountability are all essential to good governance to ensure fairness to the regulated community, establish credibility and foster trust between the government and the governed. In the plain and succinct words of late Supreme Court Justice Stuart Potter, fairness is really what justice is. There are some very important principles underpinning the rule of law in our democracy. It's worth reminding ourselves, those who govern, the people who are governed, and of course, even our kids, that democracy is a system of rule by laws, not individuals. The rule of law protects the rights of all citizens, maintains order and limits the power of government. While the government is empowered to enforce the rule of law, it also serves the people and has a sacred duty to exercise its enforcement power fairly, impartially and consistently. It's worth reminding ourselves and even our children that in our democracy, no one may be punished with civil or criminal penalties arbitrarily or without due process. I hope we all can agree that enforcing the law fairly impartially and consistently rises above partisan politics, personal agendas and media attention. I hope we all share the belief that enforcing the law fairly, impartially and consistently serves the people, this agency's mission and sound public policy. I hope we all can lead by example. Transparency is essential to good regulatory governance. The commission has made clear that the agency has been empowered with great authority to levy severe civil penalties for non-compliance with the law. This is well understood. I submit that this enhanced discretion and power to demand more severe civil penalties calls for greater transparency regarding the commission's decision-making process. There is no shortage of authorities discussing the hallmarks of good regulatory governance. Based on my review of the literature, certain aspects of transparency are consistently emphasized across various government agencies in the United States and in other countries, including the following observations. Transparency fosters investment and competition by providing a regulatory framework that clearly and predictably defines the regulated community's rights, obligations and risks. Transparency reassures the regulated community and consumers that sensitive civil penalty decisions are fair, impartial and consistent. Transparency reduces arbitrariness by requiring regulators to publish and justify their decisions. Transparency fosters well-reasoned decisions. Transparency reduces suspicion of any improper governmental, political or individual motives. And perhaps most important, transparency fosters credibility and trust, which is essential. There are some well understood key elements for regulatory transparency that inform this issue. My review of the relevant literature discussing regulatory enforcement consistently reveals that there are certain key principles that are necessary to be adhered to, to establish good regulatory governance. The literature covers regulatory agencies here and abroad. As one example, four core principles are succinctly described in the regulatory enforcement policy of the petroleum and gas inspectorate of the Queensland Australia government. First, there's consistency. While each situation varies and local factors must be considered, wherever possible, a common approach should be sought when dealing with comparable circumstances. This provides greater certainty and fairness for stakeholders. Second, transparency. Regulatory staff shall demonstrate impartiality, balance, and integrity at all times and communicate clearly when compliance activities are undertaken. Third, accountability. Decision making is made at appropriate levels with adequate checks and balances, including explanation, review, and documentation. Fourth, proportionality. Compliance activities are commensurate with the level of risk, the seriousness of the non-compliance, and of course, the public interest. Other authorities identify and discuss additional elements of good regulatory compliance, including, for example, predictability, autonomy, participation, and open access to civil penalty related information. Now more than ever, it's important for us to engage in a collaborative process to establish a framework for transparency regarding the commission's civil penalty determinations. The commission has been empowered with a range of enforcement tools to ensure compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Act and other laws enforced by the CPSC. Civil penalties and ever more severe civil penalties appear to be one of the commission's top priorities. In order to advance the important principles and objectives discussed in my comments today, I respectfully ask and urge the commission to make transparency regarding the commission's determination of civil penalties a priority for fiscal year 2017. To this end, I ask the commission to consider taking the following affirmative steps in collaboration with the regulated community. First and foremost, make a public commitment to exercise the commission's power to pursue civil penalties transparently, fairly, impartially, and consistently. Study readily available informative data. I've learned a lot in preparing this testimony and there are plenty of authorities on the essential features of good regulatory enforcement policy. Identify a framework to evaluate the current level of transparency regarding the commission's determination of civil penalties. It may be useful to survey and openly discuss staffs and commissioners views regarding transparency in civil penalty determinations and the resolution of penalty matters. This may help everyone involved to identify existing barriers to improving regulatory transparency. I would also suggest that we ask ourselves the question, is there any legitimate argument against the need for transparency? Another productive step is to invite seasoned CPSC practitioners and thought leaders in the private sector to meet with and openly discuss with the commission and staff the need for a transparent framework regarding the determination of civil penalties. It can only strengthen relationships and enhance open communication to develop an institutional model of transparency regarding the commission's determination of civil penalties. Based on my experience and learning over three decades of working and communicating with professional colleagues, staff, and leadership at this agency, I believe it is imperative to good governance for the commission to engage in a conversation and collaborative process with the regulated community to establish a framework for transparency regarding the commission's determination of civil penalties. Most important, making a commitment to establish a framework for transparency will foster trust, credibility, consistency, and fairness that would surely advance the safety mission of the CPSC. I am committed to working collaboratively with the commission to establish a framework for transparency and welcome the opportunity to do so. I thank you again for the opportunity to present my comments today. Thank you, Ms. Campbell. Thank you to the panelists for your testimony. We'll turn to questions now. I'm gonna start with civil penalties and that might end up chewing up almost all my time. I wanna apologize to you two gentlemen. That does not mean that testing is not important and what you've testified to. I just wanna pick up where we've left off and we'll figure out another way if we don't cover it to cover it. I wanna start with the vigorous defense of our Office of General Counsel because I don't think today's proceeding is fair for them. I view what I've heard today, frankly, as an attack on them. An attack on their credibility. An attack on their professional competence. An attack on their motivations and I don't think that's right. First of all, anything that they're doing in terms of what they're pursuing is because of my direction and if you're intending to include them in your criticisms, you shouldn't. You should direct it all my way. Second of all, their hands are tied. They're tied both because again, they're not here to testify and their hands are tied by the most anti-transparency piece of federal statute that I'm aware of, section 6B of the Consumer Product Safety Act. It's not fair for them to have to be subjected to the type of abuse that I've heard in the last number of months because of my call for higher civil penalties because they can't release information they wanna release because of 6B and they can't release information they wanna release because companies won't agree to it in the settlement agreements. So the first thing that I'm gonna ask is Mr. Cuppins, are you willing to counsel your companies to release as much information on individual CPSC enforcement matters and civil penalty matters? Will you make that commitment right now that you will counsel them in the name of transparency to release as much of the critical detail of their conduct as possible? Mr. Chairman, respectfully, all I ask is that there be a discussion where options are considered. I think as Mr. Samuel said, there may be opportunities for better communication between the regulators and the regulated community that don't run afoul of those restrictions and I'm not in a position to prejudge how that discussion should go. But you appreciate that the companies control the information. They're the ones who object during the settlement negotiations. So if we have a company and we read, and I'm not gonna get into any specific company, but if we read that a company has exchanged emails that says, let's continue to sell through and profit from that and then we will report to CPSC and pay a tiny civil penalty, we can't release that information. I think that's important for the public to know. I would love to release that information, but it's companies, probably counseled by very sophisticated attorneys such as yourself, that don't agree to that despite the fact that the CPSC staff pushes for that. So I'm gonna ask again, you've made a big pronouncement about transparency. Are you willing to do your part and ask your clients to acquiesce to the release of that information in individual civil penalty cases? Mr. Chairman, I mean, it's kind of a trick question, but I'm gonna say that all I think that I can say is that there ought to be a meeting of the minds to discuss options. Certainly among the options that should be considered are the issues that you've outlined, but it should also include whether there are ways to provide more guidance while maintaining anonymity. I appreciate that non-answer. Ms. Campbell, so let's put things in perspective here because we're talking about priorities hearing and I want to credit Commissioner Robinson and her staff for coming up with these details or at least collating them and collecting them. In the last few years or on average, we're talking about 500 or 600 section 15B reports to the commission per year. And then we end up with, I think it's, your numbers turned out to be for you maybe 19, 18 civil penalties in the three years that you've been in your position 14 that I've had to consider in my position. Don't you think that fairness and due process, all the big terms that you threw out there, don't you think that had something to do with the fact that of the 500 to 600 reports a year, we're only talking about on average seven cases that end up with the commission voting. Don't you think that those numbers speak to the fact that the staff is following all of the very high pronouncements that you make? I think it's important to put that into perspective that how few cases end up in a civil penalty relative to what we see. And that the system is working when companies do report they are being treated fairly because I think if they weren't, you would see numbers that would be way off the charts. What do you make of those numbers? 500 to 600 a year that end up with only seven in a civil penalty? Well, first of all, to that very specific, first of all, to that very specific question, everyone involved in the process would ask the fair question, well, how was it those seven? Why was it those seven? And how did we get at the number or whatever the determination was without getting into specifics? But why don't we get into specifics? We don't get into specifics, like I said to Mr. Cupins, because your clients are not your particular clients, but defense counsel's clients are not allowing us to release that information. Is there an objection to that as a general proposition as an attorney? Well, what I want to say is I wanna address that question very directly. I wanna step back for a moment first to say that my comments today, from my perspective, are in no way intended as a criticism to any staff member or person who's serving the public by their service at the mission. But don't you think the implication of throwing out fairness, transparency, all of the things that you listed, that underlie democracy, you don't think the implication of throwing that out there is that there's an absence of those right now. No, I think in fact that we should robustly embrace those very important principles of governance. The implication is we're not embracing them. Every agency. Excuse me one second, but what you're saying is that we're not embracing them then, right? Because you're saying we should embrace them. That's what I'm hearing is that the CPSC staff at my direction is not embracing those principles. That's what I'm hearing you saying. What I am suggesting today is that when one looks at the literature and the learning and the research by folks smarter than myself on what makes good regulatory governance work, there are known factors and that there are actually some established frameworks for how various regulatory bodies enforce the law and assess civil penalties. And I don't believe that establishing that kind of framework in any way casts any kind of criticism or aspersion on a staff, nor does it require that there be a accusation or aspersion somehow that the regulated community has impeded the ability of there to be some objective matrix or criteria or framework by which folks can see and understand how the commission goes about assessing any regulatory body. I'm not talking specifically or only about this commission. Got it, thank you. And so let me just be clear. If we were to do that, if you were to counsel your clients, the defense bar to release more information and we were able to release more information to be more transparent about the factors that went into it in individual cases. And let's say that this entire, everything that you're talking about, all these better, I'm gonna call it better because you're calling it good, which makes it sound like it's bad. I'm gonna call it better, enhanced. Let's say we do all that and the penalties skyrocket higher. Time well spent, worth it. You feel like that was the mission accomplished if we end up doing all that and the penalties go much higher? Will you feel like you will have succeeded in your efforts? I, as I sit here today, I don't understand the logic of why establishing a framework for determining penalties would lead to that result. I also don't understand as we begin this dialogue and I think we are at the beginning of a dialogue and there's a lot we can talk about so that we can alleviate any notion that this is something that's unique to this agency or that there's some criticism of staff because there is not. I don't think anyone has to compromise due process protections that are in place to achieve the development of a framework that everyone can be aware of and understand in the context of civil penalty determinations and civil penalty matters and I'm happy to discuss actual examples that are in the literature of how that is accomplished. And I'm sorry, I just have limited time. I do appreciate the thoughts and I hope you will submit all the information that sounds like the research that you've done could be very valuable to us. I do think that I find the timing curious for all the years that the CPSC was enforcing piddly little civil penalties. There wasn't this hand wringing over transparency. Nobody was jumping up and down and saying, oh my God, how did you go from 30 to 50? What's going on? I have been. I will just say that my mantra for 30 years has been. Nobody else has heard it. We would just like to have. God, I'm sorry, Ms. Campbell. I just have a limited time left. I do want to turn to testing. Ms. Hertzler, I want to ask you very, Mr. Hertzler very quickly. So my office studied, and actually Commissioner Mohorovic's office as well, the idea of just having one single toy standard, sort of a super standard of toy that would take the best of everything, the core of F9-63, it would still comply with our law. There would just be one test. It would be more robust because it would have a bit of EN-71, a bit of the ISO standard, but it would just be one test. Would that work? Yes, because laboratories are really reluctant to, without that framework, do one test. I mean, it's not rocket science to look through a list and say, well, one meter is more than three feet, so we can do this, or 40 parts per million is less than 50 parts per million, so that's okay, but without that guidance or that framework, a lab is gonna say, I'm gonna do the test twice to this, to this. Great, and my time has expired, I hope you'll work with Dr. Majid in my office to help move that along because we have a super standard in mind that we think could be very effective in that regard. Commissioner Robinson. Okay. The critical word that's missing from all three of your presentations is settlement. These are not levied fines. They cannot be arbitrary and capricious, as you say, Mr. Samuels. These are negotiated civil monetary penalty settlements, negotiated with the most sophisticated lawyers in this town, if not the country, negotiating those settlements and advising their clients to enter into them. And I respectfully disagree with the chairman with respect to his description of his role in these. Every one of these commissioners up here must approve or disapprove a civil monetary penalty settlement. And when we do so, we are given all of the information that went to and came from the regulated party who has decided on advice of counsel to enter the settlement and we are asked to approve or not approve that. And every week I meet with compliance and general counsel staff and I very carefully monitor exactly what's going on in this process. Every one of us up here brings a unique background to this job and my unique background is that I was a litigator representing plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of litigation for over 30 years before I became a commissioner. This is an area that I know. I don't know engineering, I have to learn that. I don't know chemistry, I have to learn that. I do know law and I do know settlement. I have entered into hundreds of them on behalf of, well, my clients have on my advice. And I am proud of our compliance staff and with our general counsel's office with the way that they approach these settlements. Now let's talk for a minute about this complaint of transparency. From your comments, I'm assuming that none of you read my statement that I published on our website last week about these much repeated sound bites concerning lack of transparency which I find puzzling and amusing and I'm only left to speculate on where it's really coming from. Those complaints never come from the companies who've negotiated the settlement because they have no question about what they did wrong and what their attorneys have found they did wrong in deciding to enter into these settlements. These complaints never come from companies not knowing whether to report. The reporting obligation is exactly the same as it's always been. Potentially hazardous products have to be reported immediately. The complaints come from lawyers for non-parties about not knowing precisely what a settling company did that was illegal. Now let me just tell you a bit more. The chairman has mentioned how rare these are but let me talk to you about the process which anybody who's a negotiating party knows the compliance staff reviews 15B reports. Close to half of them don't end up being a cap. If it ends up being a cap then they look at whether the company complied with its 15B obligation to report to us immediately. If they find that there's a question they can ask for documents, they get the documents then they decide whether this is something to refer to OGC. OGC looks at this and many, many times they decide it's a case not to pursue. And as anybody in the general counsel's office could tell you I have applauded them on numerous occasions for cases they've decided to drop because they didn't think the behavior arose to a level that we should be assessing penalties. But if they decide that they should assess a penalty then they write a very thorough letter which is based on, as you all know, statutory regulatory guidelines and exactly what factors are taken into consideration. And we have a guideline book. I never operated in an environment as a lawyer where I had so much guidance as to what was gonna be taken into consideration and every single one of those letters of advice that go to the company that we think didn't report immediately. Spells out precisely what our analysis is. No, we don't publish that. We can't and we wouldn't. It wouldn't be in anyone's best interest. Then the company comes back with their defense. Again, OGC has come to me and said we've decided to drop the case because we think they have a legitimate defense. I applaud that. On the very rare occasions, on the 18 occasions in three years when we have entered into civil monetary penalty settlements, they've been occasions where the behavior has been absolutely egregious. And any of you who have entered into settlements know that there are so many factors that go into a settlement. You look at the facts. You look at the law. You look at the risks of litigating. You look at the credibility of the witnesses. You look at the documents. Some of which we may not even know about. Maybe they weren't turned over but they may come up in litigation. You look at the company reputation. You look at what the effect is going to be if you decide to take it to DOJ because that's the next step that all of you left out. And you decide whether your client should settle. Now no one requires these companies to settle. These are not assessments of fines. They are absolutely free to decide and they have. That they wanna take the risk of having the Department of Justice do its own independent review and decide whether their behavior is egregious enough that a complaint should be filed. And if you want details on any specific case, look at those situations where they've decided not to settle and it's gone to DOJ and DOJ has decided to pursue the case. But that's a completely separate assessment on whether you settle or you don't settle. So to describe our process as one that one would think that we're just willy nilly coming up with demands and making people pay is just nonsense. It's not even close. We negotiate those settlements. We negotiate that in good faith there is absolutely nothing that is hidden from the parties. The only people it's hidden from is from the non-parties. And I would suggest to you that not a single one of you, I don't know you personally, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're all excellent attorneys. Not a single one of you would turn to your client no matter what, set six, be aside. I don't care about that. In a settlement, not a single one of you would say, gee, I think you should put it out there in the public that you continued to sell products for three years after you knew that there had been 74 fires and that people had been injured. You're not going to tell them to do that. The other risk that we're very cognizant of, and I particularly am given my background, is the litigation risk that the civil litigation risk that people settling with us have. And we aren't going out of our way to expose them to civil litigation by private parties. We respect the fact that they don't want to make some of their conduct public. But I can assure you that in every single one of these cases that we have settled, all 18 of them, the facts have been egregious. I guess I would like to ask each of you whether our civil penalty, monetary penalty settlements have in any way affected your advice to your clients as to whether they should report under 15B. I'll be glad to take that on. First of all, let me say that I appreciate the comments that you and the chairman made about the responsibility of the general counsel's office versus your own. And I believe that my criticisms are properly levied on your doorsteps. So we're in total agreement on that. Second, I find your argument that since these cases were settled, the companies must be in agreement about it to be totally specious. It has been known throughout the history of government. Excuse me, could you, Mr. Samuels, please just respond to my question because I do have limited time. In fact, I only have a few seconds left. Have you changed your advice to clients to report? So you've advised them not to report? Can I answer your question? But please quickly, because I'd like to hear from all three and I have 20 seconds left. Yes, I have changed my advice. I now believe, oh, you don't wanna understand how I've changed my advice? I have 15 seconds. Mr. Cuppins, have you advised clients not to report to us based on our civil monetary penalty settlement? Ms. Campbell? Okay, I'm out of time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Berkel? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Samuels, if you'd like to finish your answer, feel free. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. The argument that- No, I didn't make 10 minutes too much. Yeah, I'm gonna go real fast. The argument that because companies settle these cases that it must be okay and voluntary is unreasonable. The reality is we've all understand that people accept certain coercive police actions by the government even in circumstances they think are unfair. If you can't understand that, then please go with me to my favorite Delaware beach speed traps, get a speeding ticket with me, and then decide whether you wanna spend the day in a rural Delaware court or you're just gonna pay the bloody fine. It's also untrue that companies that have settled these cases feel fine about it and don't complain. They don't complain about it publicly because they've just signed a settlement document and they don't complain about it publicly because what they wanna do is get the heck out of town and have nothing more to do with the commission. It actually takes practitioners like us who can look across clients, not representing today any particular clients, to try and give you the lay of the land. And I'm sorry that Commissioner Robinson is unreceptive to it. Thank you. So let me go back to where I was gonna begin my comments. First of all, the chair referred to throwing out big terms like truth, accuracy, fairness, and due process. I do consider those big terms and we are the government and we have a higher bar than most and I would expect that that's what the American people, whether you are the regulated community, whether you are a consumer group or whether you are individual with no interest in any of this. That's what you could expect from your government and the tone of this country is such that people don't believe that they can trust their government and that is a very, very sad state of affairs. The other point I wanna make is that when we have people who come in to testify for the priorities hearing, it is an opportunity for them to come in with their priorities and ask the commission to consider them. And it appears to me from what I've just witnessed is when someone comes to the table and offers what they believe should be a priority, if the commissioners agree with it, my two colleagues who went ahead of me, then there is a love fest. If they don't, then there is an attack on a person who is coming in here not to criticize the process, but I heard from all three of you that you are looking for an opportunity to sit down with the commission before a hair is on fire, before there is a crisis, before there is a problem with a reporting and sit down and try to figure this out. And it's always better to build relationships before the fact. And that is what I heard. And the response that I heard from this side of the dais and the request I heard from that side of the dais indicates to me that this is a big problem. This is something that is out there festering and that we better address it as a commission as people who are representative and work for the American people, just as we sit, we need to sit down and address the issues with window coverings or an INE campaign. We have an obligation equally on the side of addressing this issue. And we have been asked here today to consider it as a priority that we as a government agency would be transparent and we would listen to this request. I think that's extremely reasonable. We may agree with it, we may disagree with it, but all that was asked here today was to consider our concerns regarding this process. I wanna talk about the sparseness of these settlement agreements. One of the reasons is, and I was going to say this and I was gonna say, well, because we don't have any little ones, there's a lot of probably reporting violations that could merit a much smaller civil penalty, but that's not in any discussion. Should we have a tiered? Should we, for the first violation, have it be $500? Should then, and then it goes up based on the number of violations and the severity of the violation. But when I heard the chairman say, piddly little penalties, that became very clear to me what this is about. This is about making an impact on industry and sending them a message to them that this is not gonna be the cost of doing business. This is gonna be much worse than that. And that concerns me. Our interest should be safety on both sides of this discussion. Our interest should be getting unsafe products out of the marketplace. Our interest should be helping industry understand these vague, and I say vague because they are vague, reporting requirement, and then beyond that, helping them to understand what drives this agency. And sit down with OGC and sit down and try to understand what the heck. And not creating, treating all of these reports as the same when we say we're gonna use recall in every press release and in every headline. That is wrong because it puts all recalls and all violating of any reporting on an equal plane. And they are not, and we all know that. And we've gotta prioritize. We've gotta prioritize reporting violations. We've gotta be more transparent. I don't find it objectionable that parties come in here and ask for us to do that. We owe both sides, whether it's a consumer group or it is the regulated community, an explanation for our action. And so I'm troubled, extremely troubled by the tone I heard today that we became very defensive. And I will say that to me indicates we do have a problem. And as an agency, we should address that problem. I do wanna say one other thing, and that is I give you each credit, all five of you to come in and to say that. And I know you're not representing your law firms or your agencies, or excuse me, or your clients, but that you're looking for some transparency in this whole effort. And I think as a government agency accountable to the American people, that's the least we can do. I've not been, I don't think it's any mystery, I have voted against most civil penalties. And it is for a number of reasons. I just put out a statement recently. I think our responsibility as a government agency to make sure companies understand our vague reporting requirements. That's our responsibility. Because in the long run, that is what's going to get safe products, keep safe products in the market and get unsafe products out of the market. That should be our priority. So I think we've got work to do, and I appreciate you coming in. I appreciate you giving us your viewpoint and identifying a problem that we know has been out there and that we know needs to be addressed. Thank you. Pardon me. May I respond briefly to Commissioner Berkel and Commissioner Robinson's comment? What permission? Yes, we can. I still have time left for two and a half minutes. My sense is that there's some confusion about at least what I'm proposing here today. And that's because I'm not looking at this from an adversarial, us, them. We have to fix disastrous problems and people have fallen short kind of perspective. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. And probably because I'm informed by the research I've done about how do you get that transparent regulatory governance, which is different than private litigation and private disputes, which are, they're one-off private disputes that people can go battle their private people. In this scenario, and it's not limited to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is why I don't want it to feel like some personal thing, because from my perspective it's not. It's how does any regulatory body in the United States, in Australia, in the UK, I've looked at all this data, how does that regulatory body assess or resolve civil penalty issues? Because they either have to do it through compromise or it's litigation, which really is a terrible way to go for everybody. And I don't think in the public interest in most cases and certainly a drain on the resources of the commission, it's how do any of them go about deciding where an appropriate penalty is and what are some of the essential elements to how they've decided to do that in a way that is good governance, because it's the government, it's not private people. And there are some concrete examples. There are matrices, there are approaches where you look at certain things that anybody can read. It's not a specific personal piece of information where a company has to, in any way, compromise due process rights about confidential information. It's what is the, what's the formula? It's essentially what's the formula? It could have tiers, it could have criteria, but everybody can look at them. Everybody can see you're in this category, this category, or this category. And to respond to Commissioner Robinson's concerns, I'm a trial lawyer too. And as an analytic person, which we are, if we're good trial lawyers, we follow the facts, we marshal the facts, we know the facts, we have to apply reason, we have to apply analysis. I've been doing the penalty matrix for 30 years. Since any level of penalty, at every level of penalty authorized by the commission. And I approach- I apologize, my time is up. I'm sorry. And I'm sure- I can go on, but I just want to emphasize the fact that I don't think this is in any way, at least I want to be clear, that I am not in any way suggesting that this is some, these principles apply just to this agency. They apply to every government agency. And people at different agencies have figured out some ways to achieve these important things. And all I'm suggesting is, let's start a dialogue and figure out how to do that, not compromising anyone's rights or criticizing anyone's commitment to their responsibilities. And my impression from the three of you is that let's sit down and have discussion when there's not a crisis. Let's try to figure this out and work a way forward so that there is transparency and there is understanding. So I think- It's not new for me. I've been grappling with it for 30 years to just get at how do we assess where something should land under the present model or the present range of penalties. Thank you, Commissioner Buerkle. Commissioner Malerovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This panel has decided to bring up some issues of due process, equality, equal application of the laws and our regulations. And I think one would need to look no further than how the commission has treated these two panels today to find a stark contrast in terms of the tone and the respect that we have provided you for taking time out of your day to help advise the commission what should be our priorities. Both panels have been critical. Both panels have made suggestions, moved faster. These are things are pressing. And if you look at the treatment, Mr. Chairman, of this first panel, it wasn't how dare you suggest that our technical staff hasn't moved fast enough to provide us an evaluation of the furniture standard or this defense, you've been harangued, you've been brow beaten, you've been bullied. This agency has been a poster child in scholastic material for bullying tactics. And we talk a lot about tone, about mutual respect, professionalism, civility. And I don't think we have exercised the kind of norms of behavior that we proudly talk about in public settings and private settings. So I would like to, I hope we just are reminded by that, but that applies also to how we treat panels as well. I'll get away from the heavy rhetoric and I did wanna bring up one point. Mr. Samuels, I noticed in your article that was published today in Law 360, you have since found your tie from this handsome bust shot that was absent the tie. A rare occasion. Thank you, Mr. Samuels. Mr. Samuels, in this article, you referenced a statement by Commissioner Adler, who's not here today, unfortunately. So I went back and I read that statement. This was on an HP case from 2012. And what I found so fascinating in looking at this case and then we later pulled the public facing settlement. You look at the amount of details that were provided in this case in 2012. And if you compare that to cases that the settlements that are provided today, now the chairman has laid that all on the regulated party's feet. That in fact, it's only because the other party, not the agency, refuses to provide this information in our settlement agreements. That that's why we've seen the change. So we used to provide a lot more detail in terms of our settlements. We don't do that any longer. Either we don't insist upon it or we're not able to get an agreement as Commissioner Robinson pointed out. So clearly that these are settlements. In terms of your experience and the other panel's experience, what has fostered this sea change and was it abrupt? Do you think it's a matter of administrations, personnel, direction, in terms of the kind of way these cases are represented? Do you have any understanding why we've had this real sea change? I don't know what the rationale is. Obviously that's internal, but I do think that we haven't been thinking outside of individual cases, how far we can go to disclose information, both about specific cases and about general principles. And that's actually the process that I suggest. And Commissioner Robinson is right. The complaints about this are due to the higher penalties. I mean, that's obvious. It doesn't matter hardly as much if it's a few thousand dollars than if it's millions of dollars, but fair enough. So now we have millions of dollars at stake. We have imposed compliance programs. We have these much heavier obligations and penalties and we should have better explanations so that regulated persons can understand what the thinking of the commission is and how these various factors are weighed. I find it hard to believe that we can't do better than we're doing now. Likewise, I don't know what the motivation is and the change is, but I think that good corporate citizens who wanna do the right thing are confused and find the process mysterious. By saying that, I'm not at all attacking the credibility, competence or motives of the staff. What I'm saying is a communication, a conversation, a non-threatening environment where questions can be asked and answered would benefit all. You don't think you're in a non-threatening environment right now? We're all friends here. No, continue, please. That's all. I just think the point is that, as you said, our opportunity to bring these issues forward and not on behalf of specific clients, hopefully put some issues out there that clients secretly would like to have addressed, but don't feel comfortable being the target for. Let me first just say that I don't feel bullied. I got pretty thick skin. I've been around for a long time. Well, I'm not done yet. I wanna say, though, that I also yearn for collegial rough and tumble. There's nothing wrong with the rigor of vigorous debate, but it can be done with great respect. And I will say that in my personal practice, in the First Amendment Bar, I have found that the level of professionalism and civility in that particular area is very unique and it is just phenomenally wonderful. You don't have a stomach ache. You don't get all worked up. It's somebody that you can respect that they have a different view or they have different takes on the law. They bring different ideas to the table, but we are not enemies. We have to be the leaders and I want us to lead by example. I want to lead by example. I want to embrace and discuss even if we disagree. I want to vigorously debate and discuss to get to a good place that's good for the public interest. And I'm willing to do that. It pains me when I'm dealing with matters where it does feel so nasty. We don't need to be nasty. I'm not going to be nasty. Thank you, Ms. Campbell. I might be nasty and ask you to cut you off right now. I beg your pardon. But I do want to get to something with regards to testing. If you don't mind, I beg your pardon. Mr. Hertzler, you brought up, it's common knowledge that I came from the testing industry prior to joining the commission. And one of the things I do want to point out and this isn't defensive, the TIC industry testing inspection certification, but you would have to understand that for a test laboratory to provide a test report that demonstrates compliance to a standard, they have to test the standard. They can't just think, well, because it passed a different standard than it assuredly must necessarily pass this other particular standard. They have to do the test. From my experience, when the tests are the exact same test method and one wants results from multiple standards, they do not redundantly run the same test. I think what is quite often the case is that these standards have slight differences in terms of the way they test to a maybe similar performance element, whether it's chemistry or something, they might test it through total content versus migration, and those require two different sets of tests. So that's been my experience generally in the past, but I very much appreciate your desire in urging the commission to continue looking at ways that we can provide mutual recognition. I was very pleased. I know we haven't seen Ms. Iverson yet today, but I think we're going to hear from the American Apparel and Footwear Association in New York last week. I had the benefit of being able to witness some work that was being done with the European representatives and American representatives in terms of looking to our trade agreements as areas of opportunity for regulatory harmonization. The president has been very vocal about this and his executive orders urging all agencies, not just his executive, but independent regulatory commissions like ours to also be looking at international standards to do our best to mitigate technical barriers to trade that really don't have any difference in safety, but just require redundant compliance costs. So I didn't really give you an opportunity to answer to that, but if you did, now would be an appropriate time. Yeah, I think there's certainly some difference in testing laboratories in the USA and testing laboratories in Europe. As far as what you say, I do understand what you're speaking about. I think there's a more general reluctance in Europe where the EN-71 standard has been in place for a much longer period of time. To do some sort of combination of tests in Europe seems to be highly unlikely, more likely in the United States. Thank you, and I wanna thank the panel. I also wanna thank you for your courage. I said that to the other panel too. There has been some very specific actions in terms of choosing to seek responsible corporate officer sanctions against individuals and your willingness to testify here today and subject yourself to the kind of treatment that you just experienced is not missed on me. So I offer you both my thank yous as well as my apologies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Morović. And I do wanna thank the panel. I can tell you on behalf of the commission we're not going in after any responsible corporate officers for coming in here to testify just to make that clear after what the commissioner just said. This is a priorities hearing and I think some of the frustration, I'm not gonna speak for Commissioner Robinson, but some of my frustration has to do with the fact that I don't view these issues as equal. I'm sorry, a child getting strangled to death by a product is not the same based on considering whether Consumer Product Safety Commission as a civil penalty transparency issue. That's not to say that has no merit, it's just a matter of balance and a matter of where it is in the priorities and what I see understandably in our system is an attempt to try to push that and make it equal or give it a weight that I think it doesn't deserve, but that being said, I'm happy to sit down with you individually, your clients as a group and carve out the time necessary, particularly Ms. Campbell to hear about your research and all that you've been looking at. I just wanna make clear that I hope it's a good faith exercise and it's not an attempt to get lower civil penalties, that it really is about good governance and not about agency capture because those are not the same things. And so I appreciate you all coming here to talk to us. I do wanna say that I apologize for violating my own norms as Commissioner Mohorovic rightly pointed out in terms of how I question witnesses, but that is born out of a frustration of seeing CPSC staff attacked and not having a chance to defend itself. You can attack me all you want. You can leave this room, you can find any reporter and you can have at it when it comes to me, but please, anything that could just think about anything that you're gonna talk about and whether that could be interpreted as attacking CPSC staff, they just don't have the chance to defend themselves. Will the chairman yield? Absolutely. I just wanna say, I did not hear anyone here on this panel say that they are putting the health or the welfare of a child above this. They're just asking for an opportunity to sit down this agency and discuss it in a non-threatening environment where we can hopefully reach some common ground. Thank you for that. And I do promise the non-threatening environment as well as the openness to have this discussion. Thank you, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Cuppins, Mr. Samuels, Mr. Hertzler and Mr. Fellen. We will take a break and resume at two o'clock with panel three. Thank you very much.