 Okay. Welcome back. This is the third and final panel for our 2016-2017 priorities hearing. I want to welcome for this third panel, Ms. Christine Hines from Public Citizen, Mr. Ralph Asami from the Window Covering Safety Council, and Ms. Kathleen McGuigan from the Retail Industry Leaders Association. Thank you for joining us, and Ms. Hines, if you can please proceed. Thank you to the Chairman and the commissioners for inviting public comment on the commission's agenda and priorities for fiscal year 2016. My name is Christine Hines, Consumer and Civil Justice Council at Public Citizen, a national nonprofit consumer advocacy organization with over 400,000 members and supporters nationwide. Public Citizen advocates for consumer rights and protection in the marketplace, as well as corporate and government accountability through advocacy research litigation and public education. I last presented at the 2010 priorities hearing when the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 was at its peak. The bulk of my statement concerned the testing and certification requirements and the building of the online accessible searchable database, which ultimately became SaferProducts.gov. Since then, the commission has finalized over 40 CPSIA related rules. We appreciate the agency's work over the last several years. I'm pleased to be here to discuss a few activities that we support and that we urge the agency to consider. Before I start it, I wanted to comment on the testimony of the previous panelists and to thank them for sharing their experiences and to say I'm sorry for their losses, and to thank them for their various astute comments about voluntary standards and about safety. The commission's FY 2016 budget request indicates that it plans to undertake data analysis and technical review following its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on window coverings. Public Citizen was pleased to join colleague organizations on the 2013 petition that ultimately led to the ANPR. The petition requested CPSC rulemaking to eliminate the strangulation and asphyxiation hazards to children caused by cords and window coverings. Public Citizen recently submitted comments to the ANPR echoing the petition's appeal. That is, the commission should promptly prohibit any window covering cords where a feasible cordless alternative exists. Where no alternative exists, it should require that all cords be made inaccessible through other covering devices. After the proven failure of voluntary standards for window coverings as well as apparent manufacturer disregard for the voluntary standards, it is long past time for a mandatory rule. It's in the commission's hands to prevent the census, child deaths and injuries caused by window covering cords. We are encouraged by the commission's senior safety initiative launched in 2014 to enhance protections for a vulnerable population, the elderly. Public Citizen petitioned the commission in 2013 about a serious safety issue, portable adult bedrails that impact seniors. The petition authored by our Health Research Group Division called for a CPSC determination that all currently marketed adult portable bedrails, pose an unreasonable risk of injury, and a rule declaring that the adult belt rails are a banned hazardous product. Portable bedrails are especially risky because many believe that bedrails keep the elderly consumers safe when in fact the products endanger seniors. As the commission is aware through its own research and data, bedrails can be deadly. They cost at least 155 fatalities in a nine-year period. Older adults get trapped in the gap between a bedrail and mattress and maybe too weak or frail or confused to change position. They suffocate or endure cuts, abrasions and bruises from the rails. We understand that the issue of bedrails is currently in the voluntary standard setting phase. We are not active participants in this process. We maintain our position set forth in the petition. These are dangerous products and should be removed from the marketplace. In acknowledgment of the ongoing deliberations, we urge the agency to help spread public awareness of the products dangers. The CPSIA substantially increased the amount of civil penalties that the commission is authorized to issue against companies that break the law, specifically for violations of the consumer product safety act, Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and the Flammable Fabrics Act. The commission has begun to use this expanded authority but could potentially do more. Companies have the most information about their products. They have a responsibility under law to timely report potential product hazards and safety information about their products to the agency. Further, companies failure to report incidents and defects not only puts consumers at risk, this safety shortcut also hurts competitors that play by the rules. When an entity becomes aware that its lawnmowers won't shut off or that its chairs will unexpectedly break if sat on, and the entity fails to alert the CPSC and the public of the hazards, stiff civil penalties are warranted. Significant fines are necessary in these and other circumstances. The commission's civil penalty rule says its purpose is to deter violations, provide just punishment, promote full compliance and respect for the law, reflect the seriousness of violations and protect the public. These objectives can only be accomplished with the CPSC's vigorous enforcement of the federal laws and robust application of its civil penalty authority. Finally, an important component of the commission's rule is to quickly share critical product safety information with the public. Public communication and disclosure of safety issues are important while others at the agency work on solutions to eliminate unreasonable product safety risks. For example, we've observed the recent anchorage campaign, the effort to widely circulate useful tips for consumers to ensure that their furniture is properly stabilized to prevent tip-overs that cause serious injuries to children. We support expansion of such efforts, although we note that public education cannot replace proper enforcement of the CPSA and other laws. Active recalls, rulemaking, and the agency's enforcement authority to penalize non-compliant entities are all crucial for the CPSC to protect consumers from unreasonable product risk. I will also reiterate our strong support of SaferProducts.gov, the online searchable database that allows consumers to report harms associated with products and to research potential risks. Its success has been used as a model for other federal agencies. Public citizen is a vigorous advocate of the principles that the database represents. Transparency, consumer empowerment, timely notification of safety risks, and accountability in product safety and other sectors. We were recently involved in litigation, which the commission was also involved in, involved in the database that ultimately led to the public release of product information hidden in sealed court documents. The case involved an incident report submitted for publication on the database. While the merits of our arguments ultimately centered on the use of secrecy in the court system, it was important for public citizen and partner organizations to challenge the attempt to keep buried potentially important safety information. Ultimately, we were pleased that the federal appeals court ruled in our favor and ordered the unsealing of the court records. The case signifies our strong backing of the database and its purpose. There is room for the agency to improve on how information is released. We supported last year's modest rulemaking proposal to modernize and streamline the regulation for Section 6B of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The provision that addresses the public disclosure of information. As we shared in our comments then, Section 6B has long been an unnecessary and costly drain on the agency. The rulemaking proposal would not have solved the overall problem of secrecy, that Section 6B enables, but the changes would have made the process simpler and relieve the agency from some unnecessary administrative burdens. Overall, we support the agency's good work to try to keep dangerous products off the market, to empower consumers with information and to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. Thank you again for the opportunity to present public citizen's views at this hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hines, Mr. Vassami. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Ralph Vassami, and I am the Executive Director of the Window Covering Manufacturers Association. I thank you for allowing me to speak here today. I know that I am familiar to many of you with my role with WCMA, but today I'm testifying on behalf of the Window Covering Safety Council. Safety Council is a coalition of manufacturers, importers, and retailers of window coverings, who are dedicated to educating consumers about window cord safety. Since 1994, the council has worked to educate Americans about the potential hazards of window cords to young children. The council has also provided consumers with free retrofit kits and child-proofing information. The council works diligently to increase cord safety awareness, in many cases through partnerships with various public and private organizations. While there continue to be differences between some at CPSC and the industry on a variety of issues, including the Window Covering Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, I'm testifying today to urge CPSC to invest time and resources on an issue we can all agree on. CPSC, along with consumer groups and industry, should work to promote only cordless and inaccessible corded products for homes with young children. Not as a total solution, but as a component of a total program. Safety Council sponsors safety initiatives all year. Through both traditional media, including television, radio, newspapers, consumer and trade publications, as well as new or digital media, our educational messaging reached families across the country and achieved approximately 1.5 billion impressions last year. Social media gives the council the ability to specifically target 18 to 35-year-olds, a population that especially needs to be aware of the potential hazards of corded window coverings. One example is the council's use of Twitter parties with targeted audiences on Window Covering Safety. This past October, it reached tens of thousands of Twitter users with their extended networks that resulted in millions and millions of impressions to target audiences. Through the council's website and 800 hotline number, the council also continues to disseminate safety information as well as fulfill orders for retrofit kits. To date, the council has provided hundreds of thousands of retrofit kits free of charge to consumers who, for a variety of reasons, cannot purchase newer products but want to improve the safety of their older products. Since the beginning of the Public Education and Information Program, CPSC and the council have cooperated on a variety of education programs during the month of October, which is National Window Covering Safety Month. In 2012, then CPSC Chairman Inez Tannenbaum was featured in a safety video produced by the council about window cord safety. The video was released during National Window Covering Safety Month that year and to continues to be very popular. Through this partnership with CPSC, we have been able to heighten awareness and reach millions of parents with young children. Unfortunately, over the past few years, CPSC has declined the council's request to actively participate in Window Covering Safety Month. In fact, in 2014, with the exception of a few tweets that referred users back to CPSC's courted Window Covering Safety page, CPSC decided to sit out Window Covering Safety Month altogether. CPSC refused to be included in the Window Covering Safety Month press release that is usually jointly issued by CPSC and the council. We hope for a reversal this coming year. The safety council encourages CPSC to join in enhancing the ongoing national educational effort. The council commends CPSC for the agency's Just Anchor It campaign to educate consumers about the dangers of furniture and television tip overs. The investment that the commission has dedicated to materials including videos, posters, tips and blog posts is impressive. Dedicating similar resources and effort to a Window Covering Safety campaign that closely mirrors Just Anchor It could be incredibly effective. We urge CPSC to use the $350,000 dedicated to courted Window Covering Safety this coming fiscal year to enhance its public education activity on such a campaign. We know that these types of educational programs produce measurable results. In fact, the safety council's most recent consumer survey showed that 86% of people surveyed were aware that the pull cords on certain drapes and window blinds can pose a strangulation hazard to infants and young children. CPSC should work with the council to ensure that consumers with young children understand their options for modifying or purchasing the appropriate window covering products. To provide further clarity for consumers and retailers, the WCMA recently announced the Best for Kids program. The industry's first third party certification program designed to help consumers and retailers easily identify the window covering products that are best suited for use in homes with young children. The new Best for Kids program requires that manufacturers meet stringent criteria and submit products to a third party testing laboratory. The program has three basic criteria. Number one, the product shall have no cords. Number two, the product shall have no operating cord and no accessible inner cord. And third, the product shall have no operating cord and if it has an accessible inner cord, that inner cord cannot form a hazardous loop. Products, if it meets those three criteria, it's allowed to use the Best for Kids designation. All products, all corded products today carry a label on the box or on merchandising materials that warn against strangulation hazards and they will continue to carry that label if they don't qualify for the Best for Kids program. It will be, this program will provide more clarity to consumers and retailers about which products are best suited for homes with young children. The laboratories are currently finalizing the protocols and products. We'll start being tested very shortly. A recent survey conducted by GLS Research for WCMA found that more than two thirds of respondents with children said it would be important that window covering products come with a certification label on the package, certifying that it contained no exposed cords that could pose a strangulation hazard to young children. And over one half, 58% stated they would only purchase window coverings that came with this certification label. Public education campaigns are a powerful safety tool as recognized by CPSC through its Just Anchored campaign. We know that public education works best and is most effective when there is a strong public-private partnership. We all agree on the importance of educating parents about window court safety. I ask CPSC to reactivate its partnership with the Safety Council for National Window Covering Safety Month and other activities throughout the year and encourage the commission to make public education a priority by investing more resources into a strong safety campaign. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Visami and Ms. McGuigan. Good morning, Chairman, commissioners and staff. I'm Kathleen McGuigan, Senior Vice President of Legal and Regulatory Affairs for the Retail Industry Leaders Association. By way of background, realist members include the largest and fastest growing companies all across the retail sector. Together, our members have $1.5 trillion in sales and operate over 100,000 stores or distribution centers in the United States. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the commission's fiscal years 2016 and 2017 agenda and priorities. As requested in the hearing notice, realist testimony primarily focuses on the level of resources it believes the commission should allocate for various agency activities in 2016 and 2017. My testimony today will focus on the CPSC's import-related activities, three ongoing rule makings, and four additional CPSC-related issues of concerns for retailers. On e-filing requirements and import surveillance expansion, our members fully support the CPSC's mission of product safety and consumer protection and its efforts to advance its import surveillance activities through enhancement of the risk assessment methodology or RAM for targeting non-compliant products prior to importation in the United States. Rila also greatly appreciates the CPSC's engagement, including the personal outreach of the chairman and on the alpha pilot for certificate e-filing, and we have welcomed the opportunity to actively engage with the CPSC on this issue. However, Rila members remain deeply concerned about the proposed e-filing alpha pilot because despite having received significant shareholder feedback on these issues through comments, public workshop testimony, co-act working group meetings, and personal meetings with the chairman, the agency has refused to deviate from the original e-filing requirements as contained in the proposed 1110 rule. Despite continual requests for the staff to demonstrate both how the e-filing proposal itself and the required data fields would improve product safety, the agency has not clearly articulated how its import surveillance targeting efforts would directly and cost-effectively be improved. Additionally, as the agency has recently acknowledged, the technological impediments of implementing e-filing certificates to match individual line entries at import are incredibly challenging for all importers. Further, as Rila has stressed previously, the cost of implementing, maintaining, and operating such an e-filing capability would be staggering and mostly borne by companies who are following the rules and importing compliant products. Rila believes collection of many of the data fields in the proposed rules would add little value to the CPSC's import risk assessment methodology and therefore are not an effective use of resources for the agency and companies who may participate in the pilot program. Consistent with the CPSC's agenda-setting priorities, the agency should be able to articulate the link to improved import surveillance targeting for each data field it will require as part of the alpha pilot program. Rila's hopeful that some of the changes that it has recommended, especially the limitation of required data fields to only those necessary for enhanced targeting will be reflected in the federal register notice announcing and outlining the alpha pilot program. It would be a disappointing result if all the effort and extensive dialogue between the CPSC and stakeholders yielded an alpha pilot that looks exactly the same as the proposal that the CPSC outlined at the outset of this process. Additionally, Rila members strongly support the development of a trusted trader program as a part of the CPSC's overall import surveillance process and programs. We thank the commission for allocating staff resources at the CPSC's mid-year to develop a trusted trader pilot program and recommend that any new trusted trader program should include those companies that are currently participating in the joint CPSC, CBP, importer self-assessment product safety pilot program. Trusted traders should be exempt from any future e-filing requirements in recognition of having past CPSC scrutiny of their import and product safety processes, monitoring and oversight, and supply chains. In order to continue building on the progress that has already been made from the commission's funding of the pilot trusted trader program this year, the agency should devote an adequate amount of resources for the full development of a pilot trusted trader program in its 2016 operating plan. On the issue of funding, CPSC's expanded import surveillance program, the CPSC in its fiscal year 2015, and most recently in its fiscal year 2016, budget request has requested statutory authority to promulgate user fees to fund the nationalization of its import RAM program. RILA members strongly support the CPSC's efforts to strengthen and expand its import surveillance program and have actively engaged with and support the CPSC to accomplish this goal. However, there are significant legal and operational issues related to the implementation of the user fee proposal, and therefore, as we recommended in our joint trade association letter submitted to the CPSC previously on this issue, we recommend that the CPSC seek funding of nationalization of the RAM program from Congress through the normal appropriations process rather than seeking statutory authority to collect user fees. RILA also believes that more stakeholder engagement and transparency regarding the detailed plans for this program must be outlined by the CPSC prior to receiving such funding. Let me turn now to three ongoing rule makings. First, the 1110 rule. In addition to concerns raised by the proposed e-filing requirements associated with the 1110 rulemaking, this rulemaking also contains many other controversial components that warrant similar stakeholder engagement. Some of the pending issues that would greatly benefit from public discussion include the shift of certification obligations from domestic manufacturers to private labelers, the elimination of password protection for certificates, imposition of new and burdensome record-keeping requirements, and the balancing of cost and benefits of the proposal. The CPSC's fiscal year 2016 budget request forecast that the agency will complete this rulemaking in 2016, and RILA believes that there is much work and engagement yet to be accomplished. RILA recommends that the agency allocate resources to re-engage stakeholders through reproposing the rule or at least engaging directly with stakeholders on these issues in the same manner that it has regarding the proposed e-filing requirements. On the proposed voluntary recall and 6B rules, although RILA has very substantive objections to these rules as detailed in our comments, in these rule makings, I will not repeat these here because the rules do not appear to be moving forward. A majority of the commission appears to believe that these process-focused rules do not warrant expenditure of resources among the commission's other priorities. RILA agrees with this ordering of priorities and requests that the agency accurately reflect whether it plans to allocate resources to the finalization of these rules as it develops this fiscal year 2016 operating plan and fiscal year 2017 budget request. As it stands now, the agency's planning documents conflict with verbally stated priorities of the commission. There are four additional concerns for retailers. First, CPSC's engagement with retailers in product-specific issues. Recently, CPSC staff held a meeting with UL where it was reported that there was a discussion of leveraging retailer requirements to speed desired safety requirements where the CPSC may have difficulties getting provisions into voluntary safety standards. While RILA members are always open to enhancing their internal requirements for the consumer products that they sell, it is important, it's critically important that the CPSC understand that retailers are not product manufacturers. As such, retailers do not possess the same product-specific design and manufacturing expertise as product manufacturers and voluntary standard committing banners. Accordingly, the changes to technical product design and performance specifications are more appropriately left to the CPSC staff and manufacturing and safety experts who participate in the voluntary standard setting process. The second issue is the retailer reporting program. RILA plans to discuss the retailer reporting program pilot in more detail this afternoon in our hearing on data sources and consumer product-related incident information, but we also wish to note that it should be among the commission's priorities for purposes of this hearing. RILA believes that before the usefulness of the overall program is judged, the commission should allocate resources to refine and evaluate the program in a manner similar to how the agency is approaching its e-filing alpha pilot. The third issue is the need for increased transparency into civil penalties process. RILA and its members have taken notice of recent civil penalties that have resulted in ongoing litigation with the Department of Justice and opposing statements from commissioners regarding the appropriateness and justification of penalty amounts. RILA believes that the current system in which companies find themselves facing a penalty demand from the CPSC that explains why the agency believes a penalty is warranted but provides no insight into how the agency calculated the amount of penalty demanded is not an ideal system, especially in light of the chairman's recent announcement regarding future increased penalty amounts, RILA believes the agency should dedicate resources in its fiscal year 2016 to efforts that would provide more clarity, guidance, and predictability to the regulated community on how civil penalties amounts are assessed. The fourth and final issue that I will talk about today is recall effectiveness. The CPSC, consumer advocates, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers all share the common goals of timely and effectively informing consumers about product recalls and quickly removing unsafe products from the marketplace and consumers' homes. All stakeholders in the consumer products arena would like to see recall effectiveness improved. To that end, RILA believes that the CPSC should dedicate resources in fiscal year 2016 and 2017 to take a scientific approach and conduct studies and or consumer surveys on recall awareness trends to determine the most effective methods of communicating recall information to consumers. RILA and our members would look forward to working with the CPSC on this important issue. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak this morning. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. McGligan. We'll now turn to our round of questions and I'm gonna probably spend most of my time with you, but before I do that, I do wanna note on the subject of window coverings that the commission did actively participate in Window Covering Safety Month. We just didn't do it in conjunction with the organization and for my recollection, one of the drivers of that was the fact that your organization was not comfortable with my, in my quote or my proposed quote for the press release, my honest characterization from my opinion of the hazard. And to me, that was a bizarre area for there to be a potential intrusion into my own view of the hazard. And so hopefully that won't be an issue and if we can get together in this upcoming October and I can be free to speak my mind about how I view the hazard and we can work together, then I think we can do that in conjunction. Ms. McGligan on the issue of retailers and there's again a lot of subjects that I'd like to cover with you, but I don't think we're gonna be able to do it. You're probably happy about that. Do I have it right that retailers, many individual retailers have their own green chemistry requirements that they require their suppliers to test to? Some of their retail, some retailers do. And so do they have an expertise in toxicology? How is it that you mentioned that they don't have an expertise in certain mechanical issues and that really is best left to the manufacturers, yet they do seem to have some comfort your members do, some of your members do, creating testing requirements around toxicological chronic health issues? Well, I believe that you're the retailers that you are targeting or are referencing are two of the major largest national retailers who have a large staff that they're able to dedicate time, effort and resources to that particular project. That would not be the case with all retailers across the board. Got it. And is there something unique about those two organizations, though, where they are only able to hire toxicologists or do they have the ability as well to hire mechanical engineers and others to have similar abilities to weigh in on those type of acute hazards? Well, the green chemistry that you're talking about deals with chemicals that apply across product categories, not for one specific product category. And it also includes outreach by both of those efforts. And I would certainly, as you are aware, those retailers have been on panels at Iqviso and you've had conversations with those retailers regarding those specific efforts that they do, but they do are engaging directly in outreach and in conjunction with their manufacturers to move forward in that area. Okay, thank you. And just generally, if you could help me understand how it is that really gathers information to present, for instance, at this type of forum, there's a disconnect often. And I spend a lot of time talking to manufacturers directly, not just the larger ones, but other manufacturers. And I spent a lot of time on the road visiting them. There's often, in my mind, a disconnect between what their issues of concern are and what I feel like is presented when we're here in Bethesda or what I hear is presented through your organizations when I'm on the Hill. And I'm trying to figure out why might that be the case. Is it that when I visit folks, they're not comfortable telling me things and they feel more comfortable having it pass through you? I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it because I often go there expecting to hear topics A, B, and C as it's been expressed to me and often does never come up. And I actually raise them and they say either they don't know what I'm talking about or those are not concerns or theirs and they actually want to focus on other issues. If you could help me understand that, please. Well, I just want to make sure that the information that I present and who I speak on behalf of are real and members and don't speak on behalf of manufacturers. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. And I understand that. And again, I'm talking about real and members in particular, thank you. Sure, so there are a couple of reasons why you may not be getting honest feedback. One, frankly, when the chairman of the CPSC comes to a retailer, it is a big deal. And... I would quibble with that, but sure. It is an event that is prepared for significant staff resources internally are advocated, are devoted to that process. And staff, the staff that you meet that retailers try to provide to you are targeting, may be targeting their product safety programs, their QA programs, what they may do as part of their recalls. You may be meeting with, and I'm not sure who specifically you have met with, but you may be meeting with different merchandise people who may not be aware of the whole wide array of issues that their company has or potentially and how they're regulated across the board by the CPSC. There is some comfort, and there's a whole reason why trade associations exist. There is some comfort at times for members to have really be the face for certain positions. But I would say probably in most instances, the issue is really more, they are very proud when you go to visit a company. They're very proud of the processes that they have. They really are looking for it as an opportunity to engage with you in a very positive way rather than to address potential issues that where there may be differences between the company and the CPSC. Thank you for that. And I do value the role that you've played and the interactions that you've had with me in my office. It's actually made a big difference. And as I close, I'll just ask one more request on the issue of the e-filing pilot, which is the constant struggle that we have to understand better the costs associated with that, particularly you mentioned the data elements, and we're not quite there yet. And so my request of you is if you can please go back to your members and ask them, and they can obviously can come through you to provide to me and to my office just more detailed information as to why it is that 10 data elements, whatever 10 they might be, why that pose such a challenge. We really do need that information. We need something to help break this logjam. And to me, at least that's critical information. And you have in me and I'm sure and all four of my colleagues a very open and willing audience to understand better. But I can say speaking for myself, I still don't have a good grasp of that. And even the little bit that I've heard when we've had those meetings, some of the comments made from the software developers, for instance, that it was not per data element charge, it was just a project. And so the more that you can provide, I really do need that. That is a huge piece of my decision-making. So if you can please provide that, that'd be great. Thank you, commissioner Adler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Hines. I'm not sure this is a question, but it is a chance for me publicly to express, I think not just on behalf of the commission, but at the public at large, our incredible appreciation for the litigation that you pursued in what I call the company dough, the database case. This was one where a company had sued us and obtained what I would call suffocating injunction against the commission releasing any information whatsoever about the company, the company's name. And at the end of the litigation for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons, and I think I even joined in that, DOJ and CPSC decided not to pursue the appeal, but the public interest community did, and they made brilliant arguments in front of, I think it was the Fourth Circuit, and prevailed in a way that has maintained the integrity of the database and promoted public awareness and public access to incredible safety information. So we can't thank you enough. At least I can't thank you enough. And Ms. McGuigan, I also just wanted to say something about an observation I made about RILA because when I came back to the commission after 25 years of being away, but following it closely, one of the big changes I noticed was the growth in the power and scope and influence of retailers. And retailers always have to balance between their suppliers and their customers. And it's least a personal observation that you've done a great job in doing that balancing, but to the extent that you have to choose to break a tie, you've almost always broken it in favor of your customers, which means that you've been a great partner for us, and I can't thank you enough for that. We still do have some disagreements on various issues, and I look forward to your testimony about the retailer reporting program. And Mr. Vasami, I just wanted to ask you the question that I asked the folks this morning about window coverings, and that is, when it comes to the issue of addressing the hazards of window coverings, to what extent do you think the issue can be solved through education campaigns, and to what extent do you think that it still requires some sort of redesign of the basic product? We believe that there's a three-pronged approach to addressing this issue in the short term. Obviously, as I've mentioned here, education and awareness is a key component of that. And we have also believed that a robust standard development process is required, and we will continue to do that. And I know that WCMA is committed to reopening the voluntary standard process, and is in the process of filing the paperwork to get that started now, because we think that's an integral component as well. And I noticed in your testimony, I think it was on page two, you suggested that we dedicate roughly $350,000 to a window cord safety campaign, and that's a number that corresponds to a $350,000 figure I've seen that CPSC was gonna dedicate to doing contracting for window cord safety, but it wasn't for education. Are you saying that you're urging us to stop doing the research that we're doing on window cords and take all that money and spend it on education, or where did your number come from? I'm urging you to take some of that money and start to enhance the public education and information program. Okay, well, I appreciate that. And I guess you did talk about the Best for Kids program and maybe you can't pin it down more explicitly, but can you give me an idea a year from now where you think that program will be? Well, I believe that we've gotten universal acceptance and enthusiasm. Major retailers, smaller retailers, manufacturers have all felt that the program was a major step forward. It allows for the retailers to actually promote on the positive side of things and allow them to promote products that are best suited for homes with young children. It allows for manufacturers to display their innovations in a way that is not posed with a negative in terms of labeling. But it also keeps the requirement that for products that have cords that don't meet the Best for Kids criteria, they will continue to have to have the warning labels on the outside of the package and on merchandising materials and on the product itself while we are moving forward in the standard development process. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, thank you, Commissioner Adler. You surprised me that you're done. I appreciate it. Trying to be succinct. I appreciate that. Commissioner Robinson. Thank you all for coming here. I've got five minutes, I've got so much material, so I'm gonna move as quickly as I can. Ms. Hines, thank you so much for all that you do. I have a quick question for you. You brought up our long-stalled rulemaking on 6B, and as everyone knows, I'm very much in favor of this rule moving forward. Do you believe this rule is directly related to consumer safety, and if so, why? You need to turn on your microphone. I do that all the time. It is connected to consumer safety because it will just be, 6B gets in the way of transparency. While we have the database that's helped that issue a lot, 6B can get rid, well, and it also wastes the agency resources. So there's that too. And so, which means that there are resources that the agency can use to directly affect consumer safety issues versus having these long exchanges with the regulated community over what should and should not be publicly available. So it is directly available. Thank you very much. Mr. Vassami, I am so disheartened at so many levels at the efforts that have been made on window cords. I start with the testimony we had this morning from Dr. and Mrs. Thomas with respect to the educational efforts, and we all know that the efforts, I'm obviously we don't stop making them, but they have been very, very limited effectiveness. The Thomas has said they've talked to hundreds of people who have had children who've died who are highly educated that have been, we're talking about a couple today who tried to childproof in every possible way, and kids just keep dying. And I'm very discouraged about the standards process. I've only been a commissioner for two years, but I've never heard of another voluntary standards process where the consumer groups have walked out. We talked to ANSI about that, why in the world they would still let you call it a voluntary standards with the requirements that they have when the consumer groups walked out. They did not have a good answer. The best for kids program, I'm glad you're doing it, but all it does is change marketing, and it doesn't do anything with respect to the product. And you look at, I mean just an example, you come back to the standard is just a huge problem. First of all, I've seen the products that are still acceptable under the standard, and they're incredibly dangerous with all sorts of cords that kids can hang themselves on. And a micro of this is that the voluntary standard require that all window coverings have a warning label even if it's cordless. It's very confusing to the consumer. I've looked at these boxes and they're, I am not a stupid person and I am focused on this issue and I wouldn't have a clue as a parent how to make a choice. And so I just want to, I'm delighted. The one thing I'm delighted about is that you're reopening the standard, but I implore you to please in this process, follow the ANSI process, let the consumer groups have their say, and I hope that what we're going to end up with is a voluntary standard that eliminates or makes cords inaccessible whenever possible. And Ms. McGuigan, I turn to you on recall effectiveness and I really like to believe that we do have the common goal of making these recalls effective. We've worked very hard on trying to do this, but I am always puzzled when we're looking at a cap and I see retailers and manufacturers, I know you're just retailers who don't want to put recall in a recall. I mean, it's just mind boggling to me. I mean, would we have a sale without putting sale in it? I mean, if indeed we want to get unsafe products out of the hands of consumers, why would we be fought on that? And why are, I mean, we've had a study done and the kids in danger of done a study on recall effectiveness and it's abysmal. It's embarrassing for all of us and if that's our common goal, it should be embarrassing for RILA as well as the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So we're trying to figure out how we can make that different and one start is with social media and we just had a recall that I won't mention the company, but one of the most sophisticated companies out there when it comes to social media and they didn't do anything on their social media. So I'm just puzzled by all of this and I am so hoping that you as an organization when it comes to recall effectiveness will do something, whether it surveys, I mean, we have limited resources. You guys are the gazillionaires. I mean, if indeed, and I have to think it's in a manufacturers and retailers, best interest to get dangerous products off the market. It enhances their credibility and if you can do something with your membership to try to figure out more effective ways of doing that, getting recalled products off the market, that would be a huge help primarily to consumers but certainly to your group and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Commissioner Robinson, absolutely I agree. We share the same goal. The concern that we have is that retailers alone can't do it by ourselves. So what I have recommended in my testimony today is really just the start of a process, the start of a dialogue. What I would envision, what I would recommend is that there be essentially a coalition of the CPSC, manufacturers, retailers, consumer advocacy groups, consumer stakeholders themselves that we can really try to focus on this because I do believe that it's in the best interest of all of the stakeholders to improve communication to consumers, to make sure, I mean, it's not necessarily an issue regarding communication to the retailers and manufacturers and trying to get those items off of our shelves. What we're really trying to target is the consumers. Precisely. And for that, I think there is a need to understand how best consumers want to receive recall information and receive it in a format that will actually cause them to take action and what format that could be. And so that requires some scientific empirical study and we're happy to engage in discussions with you and any of the other commission. Maybe even undergo the study since we have limited resources. I wish I had another several hours with all three of you, but on my time has expired. Thank you, Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Birkel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is our third panel and thank you very much for being here and for all of your compelling testimony and it's very informative for the commissioners. Ms. Hines, I just wanted to use the phrase empower consumers. And I'm trying to, I guess it may be very basic, but when we say consumers, when you say empower consumers, who are you talking about? Just regular ordinary people. Okay. Americans, not Americans, yes, everybody. Thank you. I often say when I'm out speaking that we're all consumers. If you're, whether you're working for a business or a trade organization, we are all consumers. And so I think it's important that we all recognize we are all consumers, we all have different perspectives, but, and I think rather than divide it, I like to put us all together as consumers. Thank you. Mr. Visami, I am not so disheartened and discouraged as my colleague. I am hopeful that the industry recognizes and you sat through the testimony this morning. And I thank you for being here. The testimony this morning was heartbreaking and heart-wrenching and I think you understand that. And thank you to the industry for putting together this program. I am hopeful that it will move forward, that there is a way that the agency can work with you because CPSC has when we are behind something, I think the American people listen and it's so if we can work together on this, I'm very hopeful and really do hope to work with the chairman on this issue to advance this, the education campaign that you're proposing. And I understand and I think you understand you've made it clear it isn't just one thing that's gonna correct this problem. It is a multi-pronged approach and I think we all recognize that. So thank you for being here. And Ms. McGuigan, as it's no surprise I have concerns about the 11-10 pilot as well. And I am grateful to the chairman for his engagement and for what he has done to this point. And I'm hopeful that the dialogue with the commissioners as well as with the stakeholders will continue and we can get to a pilot that's manageable, that's effective and really gives the commission the information they need without overtaxing them. And I look forward to that as well. Thank you, we appreciate it. Thank you all very much. And again, thank you to the chair for today's meeting. Thank you, Commissioner Buerkle, Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I was moved by your remarks in questioning Ms. McGuigan about the reality and the juxtaposition between what you hear from the association as opposed to what you hear when you go and meet and have these visits and you expect to hear pushback, et cetera. And I've experienced the same thing. I've had those kind of meetings where I've reached out, I've had a speaking engagement and identified some major stakeholders in the area and reached out. And I think the reason comes down to what I've found, we have put the absolute fear of God into the regulated community. I know you're chuckling and I'm trying to say this with a little bit of humor because I understand that you are, and I believe, and you are, a very reasonable leader and a very effective chairman of this agency and you're a heck of a nice guy. And I understand why you wonder, why is it that when I go to X manufacturer or Y retailer, I'm not getting the straight dope. And I think because we've created a culture of hostility and aggression against regulated community that they are scared to death, even as much as you try to allay any of their fears. Anybody watching this hearing today can see and feel the venom that is often comes forth from members of the commission too. So I have that same surprise when I reach out, I think my goodness, I've got a career, I've got reputation, I've got relationships with many of these people that have lasted past decades. Why would they be scared to death when I wanna visit with them on a subject? And that's because of the culture that we've created. I think we need to be careful of that because we get that question quite often. I've been in, I've been into congressional hearings, observed a third of almost one year in the commission and we get that quite often from Congress and we don't understand it because of the way we think but I think we have to understand that the policies, the rule makings and create that kind of a culture and you've created such a positive culture among your colleagues and I'm one of them and we often talk about it and I think in terms of promoting a positive culture it's important to reinforce it so I'm doing that here but I think we also have to be cognizant of what the rule makings and some of the efforts that we've done as an agency, how that creates an entirely different culture with our regulated industry and I've found that they are feeling incredibly put upon and I think in some situations it's interesting. Ms. Hines brought up the, and we'll call it the Company Doe case and Commissioner Adler referenced it as well. In many cases I think regulated industry feel, God help you if you exercise your rights to push back. God help you if you push back against the agency. Many feel that with recent events and circumstances that the CPSC will go after you, they'll go after you personally, they'll try to bankrupt you, they'll try to bankrupt your business and I think the Company Doe situation is a great one because I often say I'm the only non-lawyer on the agency. I read the testimony and it was very clear that in the core of the case was about whether or not this particular incident should be on the database related to the product and the product manufacturer didn't want their name tarnished because as it says in the act the reports of harm have to be related to the use of the consumer product and two different courts looked at that and felt that in no way should that report have been included in the database. But yet think of what that tells the agency, we're plotting the fact that that company's name got exposed but when in fact the courts decided that in no way that should have been included in the database because that incredibly unfortunate fatality related to the product with regards to the fatality had nothing to do with that product in question and two courts found the same thing. So we've publicized the name of it and maybe we should publicize the unfortunate apparel maker that made the clothing that that child was wearing or the sneakers that a child is wearing when they pedal a bicycle into traffic and become an unfortunate terrible tragedy and incident and a statistic but that's the core of that case. So I think in terms of why we have developed the culture and developed the reputation that we have today look no further than our rule makings. I think our six B rule and our voluntary recall rule are two obvious examples of that but also the way that we exercise some of our compliance discretion. I think that there has been a time at the agency where regulated industry felt that they had a great shot of getting a fair shake, getting an honest look and in many situations I think we're losing that fine reputation while you've done so much personally to develop a great reputation among the commissioners. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Mohorovic and I appreciate those thoughtful comments and thank you to the panel as well as the two prior panels. This concludes this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. We will resume at two o'clock with an additional meeting of the CPSC focusing on data. Thank you very much.