 Good morning, I'm pleased to open this hearing to hear from stakeholders about what they think the priority should be for the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the coming years. Before we start, let me take a moment to confirm that all four commissioners are present. Commissioner Biacco. Present. Commissioner Feldman. Present, although my camera is not working, I'm still here on audio. And thank you Commissioner Trumka. I'm here. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Each year the commission is required to conduct a public hearing on our agenda and priorities in order to better inform our priority setting. This is an important part of the process in crafting the commission's agenda and I'm grateful to all stakeholders who submitted written testimony into those who are here to speak to us today. I arrived at the commission about six months ago and came in with my own vision for the commission and how it could be strengthened. And it's been informed by listening to my colleagues, to the staff, and just to stakeholders who interact with the commission on a daily basis. Before I've seen there's a great amount of work that the commission has been doing and more that needs to get done. We need to be more aggressive in tackling hazardous imports and the risks consumers face when buying products on e-commerce platforms. We need to keep working to make sure that recalled products get off the shelves and out of people's homes. We need to finish mandatory standard work that is underway, keep pushing for strong voluntary standards, and to set additional mandatory standards where appropriate. We need to continually improve and expand our efforts to educate consumers about protecting themselves from product related hazards, including through better engagement with vulnerable populations. And we need to make sure the CPSC actively enforces the law when firms fail to meet their obligations to the public. Unfortunately, we need to do all of this and more with limited resources. And I've said many times before the CPSC is perennially underfunded agency, particularly given our broad mandate. The funding levels mean that we truly need to prioritize and to focus in order to effectively advance our mission. My views on how the agency can best protect consumers remain open and will continue to evolve. To that end, I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today regarding their thoughts on how the commission can best allocate the limited resources we have to reduce unreasonable risk injuries and deaths associated with consumer products. Today's hearing will provide valuable guidance as we plan for the future. We'll hear from two panels of witnesses. Each panelist will have 10 minutes for their presentation, and then I'll call upon my colleagues to ask questions they have for the panel. Again, for 10 minutes per round, multiple rounds if necessary. I'd like to remain all the panels to mute themselves when they're not speaking. At this time, I'd like to introduce our first panel. We have Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, who is here on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Nancy Coles is the Executive Director of Kids in Danger. Owen Kane is the Vice President of the Toy Association. Karen Athanas, the Executive Director of the Tick Council of Americans. Rachel Wontraub is the Legislative Director and General Counsel of Consumer Federation of America. Welcome all today, and Dr. Hoffman, recognizing you for 10 minutes. Good morning Chair Honesaric and Commissioners Bianco, Feldman, and Trunca. I'm coming to you today from Portland, Oregon, the other side of the country, and my dogs are here, and I apologize if they're a little bit rambunctious. I'm here today on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, where I serve as the Chair of the Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention. The CPSC has a critical role to play in protecting children from unreasonable risks associated with consumer products, and the AAP deeply appreciates the opportunity to make recommendations to the Commission on its agenda and priorities for the next fiscal year. I'd like to begin with safe sleep. The AAP appreciates the CPSC's work to propose two crucial safety standards that will create safer sleep environments for children throughout the country. Finalizing and implementing these standards expeditiously should continue to be a top priority. The safest in sleep environments for infants are cribs, bassinets, portable cribs, or play yards that conform to CPSC mandatory safety standards. Infants should always sleep in their own space, on their back, on a flat and firm sleep surface without any crib bumpers, soft bedding, or other products. And I want to be clear, flat in this context means horizontal in a manner that does not cause the infant to bend or flex the neck, the trunk, or the legs. The AAP strongly supports the CPSC's final infant sleep products rule, and we look forward to its implementation this year to protect infants from unsafe sleep products. We urge the Commission to comprehensively monitor their marketplace, including online marketplaces, to effectively enforce this very important safety standard. We hope that pediatricians will be partners to identify non-compliant products and work with the Commission to ensure that dangerous products are not marketed for infant sleep. The AAP also appreciates the agency's progress on crib bumpers. Crib bumper products have no place in a safe sleep environment and pose a significant suffocation hazard. The continued presence of dangerous, unnecessary crib bumpers in the marketplace puts infants at unnecessary risk and jeopardizes the clarity of the AAP and CPSC's public health messaging. The AAP has also strongly supported congressional action to ban crib bumpers and welcomes recent progress by the U.S. Senate in advancing bipartisan legislation to ban these dangerous products. Comprehensive regulatory education and enforcement action is needed to address preventable and tragic infant sleep-related deaths. We welcome the Commission's attention to products that are leading to infant sleep deaths, even if not explicitly intended for sleep, including nursing pillows and other pillow-like infant loungers. The Commission should remain committed to reducing sleep-related deaths and specifically addressing disparities in sleep-related deaths with the goal of ensuring infants are in safe sleep environments each and every time they go to sleep. We encourage the Commission to improve data collection and surveillance on infant sleep-related deaths associated with consumer products to inform this very critical work. In regard to tip-overs, the Academy supports a strong mandatory standard to prevent furniture tip-overs. The best solution for this preventable and tragic problem is simply to require safer dressers that won't tip over. I personally care for a number of families who live in rental properties whose landlords prohibit them from installing anti-tip furniture anchors into walls, and I know that educational efforts can only go so far. The AAP supports the CPSC's proposed rule to establish a safety standard for clothing storage units, and we look forward to additional progress from the CPSC towards a robust mandatory safety standard to prevent this hazard. With regard to high-powered magnet sets, the AAP strongly supports the CPSC's notice of proposed rulemaking to create a safety standard that addresses the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with ingestion of loose and separable high-powered magnets. The AAP has long called for a safety standard to protect children from unsafe magnets that lead to critical injuries or death. These products represent a constant danger to children who have access to them, and warning labor and other voluntary efforts are woefully insufficient to prevent the significant and completely preventable suffering that I and my colleagues see in our daily work. We appreciate the Commission's work to propose this important safety standard, and we urge you to finalize it expeditiously. With regard to liquid nicotine, this is a highly toxic product that poses a serious and fundamental risk of negative health effects and death for children. The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that they have managed over 5,000 exposure cases of e-cigarette devices at liquid nicotine in 2021, which is an increase over the previous year. It is all the more important for the CPSC to fully enforce the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 to prevent liquid nicotine poisoning and place a significant emphasis on taking public action to enforce this law. CPSC enforcement on this issue was slow to proceed to implementation, and our data indicate a continued need for vigorous CPSC enforcement to ensure that the marketplace complies with the sensible and simple policy that can save the lives of young children. Liquid laundry detergent packets remain a uniquely hazardous product for children, and child exposures to them continue to continue at an alarming rate. The AAP has participated in the ASTM process to improve the safety of these products, and while we appreciate the progress on a voluntary standard, our concerns remain that it does not include a number of key elements urged by pediatricians and other child health providers. We urge CPSC to stay engaged in the ASTM process and to ensure that the follow-up of the implementation of the standard occurs using appropriate metrics to assess its effectiveness. Finally, the AAP would welcome opportunities to continue to partner with the CPSC to address hazards from window falls, window coverings, drownings, button batteries, long-term exposure hazards, and other persistent and emerging child injury hazards. We know that addressing these hazards and protecting children requires a fully staffed, well-resourced commission. The AAP supports efforts to improve recall effectiveness, increase the ease of reporting through saferproducts.gov, and to collect quality data on injuries through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System and other sources. We support the commission's efforts through the Equity Action Plan to identify and prioritize actions to address racial and ethnic disparities in the risk of injury and death posed by particular hazards. The AAP has stated that racism is a fundamental social determinant of health that has a profound impact on the health status of children, adolescents, emerging adults, and their families. We encourage the commission to continue to prioritize equity and proactively address injury risks that contribute to health inequities. Thank you again for the chance to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Dr. Hoffman. Next we have Ms. Townsend. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you again for this opportunity to present our thoughts this morning on the Consumer Product Safety Commission's agenda priorities for the fiscal years 2023 and 2024. As you know, KID is dedicated to protecting children by fighting for product safety. Our mission is to save lives by enhancing transparency and accountability through safer product development, better education, and stronger advocacy for children. Through implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in Danny's law or section 104, the CPSC has successfully developed strong mandatory standards for dozens of types of durable infant and toddler products. We appreciate the amount of time, energy, research, and knowledge that CPSC staff dedicate to this task. And we join AAP in applauding CPSC for finalizing the infant sleep products rule, which will expand protections for infants by covering all products intended for infant sleep that are not covered by an existing rule. Parents already believe that all infant products are tested to a strong standard, and yet new sleep products enter the market continuously without any standard. Having a standard in place that eliminates hazards such as inclines over 10 degrees is a great step forward for safety. And with the effective date just a few months away, we hope that CPSC will vigorously enforce the rule and also recall any inclined sleep products that remain on the market and make a push to increase recall participation for the infant inclined sleep products that have already been recalled. Consumer Reports recently highlighted the deaths that continue since the recalls. We urge the CPSC to finalize the rulemaking that will effectively ban pat and crib bumper pads that are responsible for dozens of deaths and still being sold despite that history. We also ask CPSC to consider a review of pacifier standards and safety. Currently pacifiers must comply with the section addressing pacifiers in the toy standard and 16 CFR part 1511. Reports of pacifiers breaking becoming lodged in an infant's mouth and other potential hazards are found throughout saferproducts.gov, as well as reported to us by parents. Given the use in an infant's mouth, as well as the recommendation to use pacifiers during sleep time for the American Academy of Pediatrics, we believe that a review of the current requirement should be undertaken to ensure that those requirements are adequate for safety. The CPSC should also continue to monitor the market for possible new section 104 rulemaking. This will require evaluation of new products as they enter the marketplace or preferably developing standards that would apply before new untested products could be sold. HIT also plots the CPSC for moving forward with the clothing storage unit proposed rule to prevent furniture tip overs. You're hearing today from families who have lost children to this hazard. We urge CPSC to finalize the standard as soon as possible to prevent more tragedies. Parents are usually aware of choking hazards. Ingestion hazards are less understood but present clear dangers. These include coin cell batteries, laundry packets, small powerful magnets, liquid nicotine, and certain polymer balls that expand with fluid. Serious internal injuries, poisoning, and death can be the result. The CPSC's report on injuries during COVID-19 showed that ingestion injuries from button cell and coin batteries rose 93% for young children from the same period a year earlier. The CPSC should encourage manufacturers to use technologies that eliminate or further ameliorate the ingestion risk of these hazards. Since 2001, KID has been reporting on children's product recalls. We released this year's report on 2021 recalls in March. This report found 14 deaths prior to recall, an alarmingly high number compared to the zero deaths prior to recall in 2020. This was the second highest number of reported deaths in the past 10 years. In 2021, 12 of the 14 deaths prior to recall were associated with two nursery products. CPSC had recalled both products due to suffocation hazard. Babies continue to die in products that appear to assist getting babies to fall asleep, but can be deadly if babies do remain asleep in them. We appreciate the strong position CPSC is taking on sleep safety and public communications, recalls, and at the ASTM International Juvenile Products Meetings, but more must be done to remove unsafe products from the market and set strict standards for non-sleep products so they won't be used for sleep. Simply putting a warning label that a product is not safe for sleep is not enough if it is marketed and intuitively used for sleep. In addition to deaths, injuries and incidents reported prior to recall also rose tremendously since last year. In 2021, there were 136 injuries and over 6,000 incidents prior to recall compared to 2020 where there were only nine injuries and 704 incidents. In our report, we found that children's clothing had the most recalls 16 followed by nursery products, which had 14 recalls. It's important to note that these segments represent violations, both violations of existing standards and design flaws. I know I talk every year, 2009, I just checked, we've been doing this priority hearings, about recall effectiveness. CPSC and manufacturers need to do much more to get recall products out of homes. The CPSC should use all the tools available to remove dangerous products from the market through recalls and require companies to use stronger efforts to reach consumers with news of the recall and adequate incentives to participate and remove the dangerous products from homes. CPSC should set participation goals for companies and act if they are not met. KID uses the freedom of information, the FOIA process for this report and other purposes frequently. We request monthly progress reports on all children's product recalls about a year after they've been recalled. KID filed 63 FOIA requests for children's products recalled in 2020 and out of those 63, only six reports were complete and available to the public. And even that data was unreliable due to math errors and filling an out wrong in some cases. Most reports are heavily redacted, even of publicly available information. Our ability to protect families is being compromised by CPSC's inability to fill a request for information efficiently and effectively. Please prioritize the FOIA office for some innovative updates. SaferProducts.gov. It has enormous potential to educate consumers on hazards and recalls as well as provide vital information to the CPSC and manufacturers about product hazards. But CPSC's recent staff memo on SaferProducts.gov shows that the database has never had as many reports each year as they did in the first full year, 2015. And except for last year when 39% of the reports filed were published, fewer than a third of all the reports have made it into the public data set. Many of those missing reports come from medical examiners. This would be a rich source of data to identify emerging hazards that is lost because of missing information. The CPSC should prioritize this database, meet the obligation of underlying legislation and continue to increase the use of reporting and especially consider ways to increase information collected from medical examiners. The agency should then use the data more often to provide reports and postings for consumers to increase awareness and educate the public on the hazards posed by particular products. Also important for safety education and action is the NICE database, which should continue to be fully funded to provide the useful information it collects and strengthen demographic information that is collected to better identify how product hazards impact specific populations. We would also ask that CPSC prioritize funding and staff time to improve the weak search function on the main CPSC site and build a strong API for the recalled database that can be used for others to spread information on recalls. Currently with either of those functions, it is hard to find search for items on the website and separate programming not using CPSC's API is needed to create an effective way to search and find recall information. The biggest barrier to transparency of all this information is section 6B of the Consumer Product Safety Act. I know we've talked about a lot that it restricts the public access to information about hazards and it keeps consumers in the dark about products they are using in their homes with their children every day. The message used to cover CPSC is told already public information and for information act was never intended to cover. We urge CPSC while we wait for Congress to repeal the provision to look closely at the way CPSC is implemented the agency. Finally, he had wishes to congratulate CPSC on the 50th anniversary this year. The CPSC is vital to the safety of children and all consumers, and we thank you all for your commitment to protecting consumers from harm. And again, thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. We look forward to working with you in addressing these concerns and others that may arise. Thank you. Now turn to Mr. Cain. Thank you very much. I want to thank the chairman and the other commissioners for the chance to speak with you today on the agenda and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Again, my name is Owen Cain. I'm the vice president of government affairs for the Toy Association. The Toy Association represents more than 1100 businesses, toy manufacturers and porters and retailers as well as toy inventors, designers and testing labs. All involved in bringing safe, fun and educational toys and games to children the market. Our members account for approximately 90% of this market and over 80% of toy manufacturers, wholesales, distributors in the United States are small businesses. Given the products our members manufacture, toy safety is a number one priority. As such, we have a long history of working closely with the CPSC to ensure that every toy that a child receives is held to the highest safety standards. And that parents can trust that we are providing their children with toys that are both safe and intellectually stimulating. In all, there are over 100 different safety standards and tests for toy safety required for all toys sold in the country. And these standards have been used as models for other jurisdictions and in other product categories. I would first like to thank the CPSC for his continued efforts to work with all interested parties on numerous issues that come before the commission. Truly great work can be done when organizations can work together to use the best information and science to ensure that products are regulated in the safest way. I would also like to reiterate the toy association's perspective, the needs and deserves all the financial backing from Congress to effectively do the job. A mission that is ever broadening and even more complex and limited to products. In planning for future priorities, there are several areas we hope you'll be willing and able to seek additional funding to pursue more aggressively and which we are eager to help you attain. We encourage you to engage in dedicated oversight on counterfeit products coming into this country. These products mislead consumers do not follow the requisite laws and standards. They pose a potential danger to children and families. They come to the United States primarily through third party sellers and marketplaces on e-commerce or online platforms. All toys are required to comply with safety standards, counterfeits, while also curating intellectual property law may not comply with a wide range of standards to which toys are subject and putting unsuspecting consumers or in our case children at risk. Any business selling toys in the U.S. must be held to the same high safety standards. We highly encourage the CPS to prioritize the enforcement of the points of entry of such volatile projects, including point interaction, as well as working with U.S.P.S., FedEx, UPS, and other shipping organizations on ways to crack down a potentially dangerous and largely unregulated practice. In conjunction with that, we support additional funding that is needed to overall improve and expedite port inspections. The flow of goods through our ports is the light flood of our nation's economy. We urge the CPSC to take measures to ensure the legitimate and compliant product is not held up unnecessarily and is of course processed efficiently. We also encourage the CPSC to engage in additional lab resources to handle testing and reduce delays. We are eager to work with the CPSC on increasing current practices and explore new ideas for the CPSC on how to better streamline international shipping and port systems. Once again, and in finality, the toy association, our members consider ourselves partners for the CPSC. And all the work that you do is always a privilege to work side by side with an organization whose mission is aligned with ours to keep children and families safe. It remains our highest priority. We support the fully funded agency and we offer continued collaboration to ensure the products given to every child are safe and. I'm happy to take any questions that I have and of course my contact information is included at the end of my written testimony. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kane. Turn now to Miss Athanas. Good morning, everyone. Thank you commissioners and chair and Sarah's for having me today. The tick council is truly thankful for the collaborative and welcoming nature of the CPSC and its staff. And we and our members look forward to working with you and answering any questions that you have. On behalf of the organization and its members, I encourage your continued engagement and outreach to stakeholders to further the mission of the organization and continue to seek out potential risks and solutions to protect the safety of consumers. The safety of consumers is paramount and drives the work of the tech industry. And through that shared understanding, we as a community can work collaboratively to seek solutions. To council members have a global footprint with facility. Leave the miss Athanas is. Amaro's reaching out to her now to. By tapping into the technical expertise, we feel strongly that solutions, even the most challenging of problems can be found and we encourage the CPSC to take advantage of and to work with the tick industry to support consumer safety. To further support the CPSC's work, the tick council recommends that CPSC consider for recommendations from the tick council, America's and its members. In the area of counterfeits. First, let me thank the commission for its thoughtful feedback and comments to date on addressing the counterfeiting crisis. Each day, counterfeit products are sold online and shipped in the United States directly to consumers. These products pretend to be from reputable companies, but the branding and the very marks on them meant to convey that those products are safe have been fraudulently duplicated. The products present a real risk to consumers because they may not have been tested, inspected and certified as meeting US safety requirements. And when those same consumers seek remedies for injuries they sustain, they find it difficult to identify and bring bad actors to justice. We asked the CPSC to work with the tick council and other industry partners to promote data transparency to help the industry better identify track and report bad actors. We should not allow bad actors to hide in the shadows but work together to identify which countries they reside in, which companies are the big offenders and which shipping methods they prefer to use and any other data points that will help us collaboratively combat this issue and reduce the number of unsafe products reaching consumers. In the area of battery safety, lithium-ion battery use is increasing, driven by their ability to store more energy than other batteries, they're an ideal choice for manufacturers. They are available in a wide range of sizes and designs and while this is supporting the innovation and growth of a booming industry of consumer tech including wearables and smart devices, lithium-ion batteries present real risk to safety that must be mitigated, removed or clearly communicated to consumers so that they have the knowledge necessary to keep themselves safe. Not only do these batteries need to be designed to prevent overheating, which would cause fires and burns, electrical shocks and explosions, but product manufacturers must also consider the batteries proximity to other components in a product which may cause the battery to overheat or have a structural failure. While there are standards to address battery safety, these are not consistently applied and there are no mandatory requirements to ensure their use. And when the batteries reach their end of life, guidelines for their safe disposal and recycling are unavailable or unclear and consumers tend to recycle them in the wrong way. You mix them with other types of batteries and they really need to be recycled in their own way. To address this growing issue, we asked the CPSC to work collaboratively with the TIC Council and its members and with industry to seek solutions and a path forward to protect the safety of consumers. As an example, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the CPSC to hold workshops or other information sharing meetings to help stakeholders collaborate and seek solutions together. In regards to sustainability, we would also ask the CPSC to work with our TIC Council members and stakeholders to engage the community in exploration of the life of products, to incorporate steps to make them eco-friendly and green, to ensure products can reenter the market as new products, and when they reach their end of life, can be safely discarded in ways that do not present new and unexpected risks to consumers. Today, many products that would now be considered toxic or unsafe enter the secondary market. How do we identify and remove or recycle these products? How do we encourage industry to use eco-friendly materials in the packaging of those products or in the products themselves? And how can we do this while ensuring the products continue to be safe for use? As countries around the world pursue low-carbon, green and circular approaches to products, we encourage the CPSC to be a leader in these discussions and collaborate with stakeholders to identify common-sense solutions. And finally, in the area of digitalization, IoT, IoT and cybersecurity are more and more being incorporated into consumer products. As reported in the TIC Council value of TIC study, the size of the global IoT consumer market is expected to grow from $53 billion in 2019 to an estimated $188 billion in 2027. These products are going to revolutionize the lives of consumers, providing them with solutions to many of life's challenges, including cooking, cleaning, scheduling, security, and more. But they come with risks that must be explored and were possible eliminated or mitigated. In May of 2018, the CPSC held a hearing to engage with stakeholders and explore the potential safety hazards and injuries that may be caused by connected devices. This hearing ultimately led to the publication of an ASTM standard for IoT safety in consumer products. That research by the TIC Council estimates would result in a cost savings of $27 million in injury-related costs prevented. So you can see the great collaboration that happened that led to a safety benefit for consumers. And in 2021, the TIC Council was honored to be a speaker at the CPSC workshop on artificial intelligence. And we are thankful that the CPSC again held a workshop this year on AI. And we would encourage the CPSC to continue to explore the digitalization of products and the potential risks to consumer safety that they present. And to work with the TIC industry to identify solutions for these unique challenges. In closing, the TIC Council thanks the CPSC for being a force for good and protecting the safety of consumers, for engaging with all stakeholders on these critical issues, and for working collaboratively with the TIC Council and its members to identify solutions to protect the safety of consumers. We look forward to exploring these issues and seeking solutions with the CPSC and its staff and our consumer partners. And thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Ms. Athanas. Last, we have Ms. Weintraub. Thank you, Chair Honsaric, Commissioners Bioko, Feldman and Trumka. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony about the CPSC's agenda and priorities for fiscal year 2023 and 24. I'm Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and General Counsel at Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit association of approximately 250 pro consumer groups that was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy and education. The CPSC's mission and work impacts every American every day to protect the public from injury or death associated with the use of consumer products. The CPSC's mission relies upon agency action using all of its tools to issue mandatory standards, assess civil and criminal penalties, develop voluntary standards, conduct effective and timely recalls and educate consumers. To do this effectively, we believe that the CPSC's budget should be vastly larger and have been urging that the CPSC's budget reached $350 million. We are glad to see the recent focus on so many critical safety issues, window coverings, magnets, furniture stability, adult bedrails, residential elevators and final rules for infant sleep products and infant mattresses. All of these products have posed significant harm to consumers for far too long, and we appreciate that the CPSC is taking necessary action. In addition to addressing specific product hazards, we urge the CPSC to use the tools it has to protect consumers, to issue meaningful and effective recalls, to share critical safety information, and to hold entities who do not comply with CPSC's laws and regulations accountable. Please accept my written testimony into the record. Today I will briefly summarize that submission. Window coverings. An effective mandatory standard that addresses the strangulation hazard posed by all window coverings is necessary because the current voluntary standard has failed to address the key hazard pattern associated with quarter when courted window coverings available on the market. You have heard all about this in the hearing you held earlier this year. For almost 30 years, the voluntary standard has repeatedly failed to address the issue in an effective way. And until 2018, the standard had minimally changed, but then it didn't cover all of the products in the market. The CPSC's proposed rule builds upon the incomplete 2018 voluntary standard that addressed operating cords on stock products and inner cords of stock and custom window coverings. This would require that the operating cords on custom products must be cordless inaccessible, or eight inches or shorter in length in any use position. We urge the commission to quickly finalize this critical rule in the next fiscal year. We applaud the CPSC for promulgating a mandatory standard for infant sleep products on June 2, 2021. The rule will regulate products marketed or intended to be sleep products for infants up to five months old. Before this rule passed these products were unregulated and led to at least 94 infant deaths. The CPSC estimates that one in three families own one or more of the items that would have been regulated, that would be regulated by this rule. We strongly support the CPSC's final rule for crib mattresses by including aftermarket mattresses in the rule. It will eliminate supplemental mattresses that are intended to be added to mesh play yards in addition to full size rigid cribs. We urge the CPSC to finalize the crib bumper rule as soon as possible and support the recent activity in the Senate. Portable generators in or near homes pose a hidden hazard to consumers who do not realize the serious risk of carbon monoxide poisoning that these products pose. In just last February the CPSC issued the briefing package on assessment of portable generator voluntary standards, effectiveness in addressing CO hazard and information on availability of compliant portable generators. We applaud the CPSC for issuing the findings of its evaluation of the efficacy of each standard. We urge the commission to take enforcement actions to protect consumers from products that do not comply with an adequate standard. We also support the staff's recommendation to propose that fiscal year 2023 operating plan include the issuance of rulemaking on portable generators to the commission. On senior safety we applaud the CPSC for issuing a new report on consumer product related injuries and deaths among adults 65 years of age and older. Americans over age 65 comprise 71% of consumer product related deaths annually, annually despite making up only 16% of the population. The CPSC staff study is an important in-depth analysis of the interaction between consumer products and older adults. In 2023 and 2024 the CPSC should lead efforts based on your own data collection efforts to ensure that voluntary standard efforts, mandatory standard efforts, enforcement, and other actions contemplate senior use and injury and death patterns and revive, update, and prioritize a new senior safety initiative. On furniture tip overs you held a critically important hearing earlier this year, heard from parents then and you will today who have suffered the unimaginable as a result of unstable furniture. A voluntary standard that was first published in 2000 and has been revised seven times is not yet doing what the American public needs it to do. The voluntary standard is insufficient and a mandatory standard such as the one proposed by the CPSC in the NPR is needed. We strongly support this NPR because it will significantly reduce the risk to children posed by unstable clothing storage units and urge the CPSC to finalize the rule in the next fiscal year. We appreciate that the CPSC has voted to move forward on our petition along with others urging the CPSC to adopt mandatory standards to protect consumers from health hazards caused by the use of some organic halogen flame retardants. We urge the commission to take significant steps in then this year and future years to reduce the risks posed by these chemicals. On recreational off highway vehicles we are concerned about the increasing number of ROV related fatalities, as well as the number of recalls, and that more effective action is not being taken for known fire hazard and debris penetration. We appreciate that the CPSC is moving forward on a rule to address these issues and also appreciate that ROV data is now included in the annual report on death and injuries, but we urge the CPSC to continue to prioritize this issue in 2023 and 2024. On civil and criminal penalties we urge the commission to effectively take action to protect consumers and deter bad actors in enforcing its laws. We are concerned that in FY 2021 and in FY 2020 CPSC collected one civil penalty in each year. And there was one criminal penalty assessed on October 29, 2021. To effectively deter non-compliance with CPSC rules, the CPSC must hold companies responsible. In 2013 CFA released a report demonstrating that children from low income families are at greater risk for unintended injuries than children from higher income families. We respect and support what the AAP has determined in terms of equity and racial disparities using being a huge obstacle to public health. We urge the CPSC to more robustly collect socioeconomic and race data to better identify the correlations between unintentional injury and race and how to reduce deaths and injuries associated with consumer products that disproportionately impact certain communities. On saferproducts.gov, we appreciate the work that the CPSC has conducted this year, analyzing trends and patterns of published reports. We urge the commission to take additional action to improve the database, make it more robust, make it more usable and actually more used, and urge the CPSC to develop a plan to increase the use and add additional data sources. In conclusion, we urge the commission to use all of the tools that Congress gave it to protect consumers from potentially hazardous consumer products and prioritize and address the issues we outlined today. We look forward to working with the commission to address these issues. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks to all of the panelists on the first panel. At this point in time, we're going to turn to questions from the commissioners. Each commissioner will get 10 minutes per round with multiple rounds if necessary. We'll start with myself and I would say, I don't have specific questions for this panel, but I do want to thank you for your detailed and valuable statements. The issues that you raise, many of which the agency is working on now will continue to be, in my mind, priority going forward. And there are other things that you've raised that are new and interesting that I'd like to explore further. Dr. Hoffman, I always appreciate the pediatricians who have been incredible resource data and information as we're trying to understand the safety and scope of hazards that may be emerging. As others have pointed out, there are other physicians that have been important, whether it's the emergency rooms or from medical examiners that we want to continue figuring out how to get that data through. Nice or through other means as well. And as people have raised comments on import surveillance, I agree, making sure that we are targeting the imports that are the most dangerous, trying to figure out how to do that quickly and efficiently. It's going to be important. I think that getting input from stakeholders as to how to do that best is a critical element so that we can make sure good products are getting through and the bad products are getting stopped, especially as we're convolving to an e-commerce world where import shipments are coming in different ways than they used to in the past. So look forward to working with you all on the issues that you've raised. And with that, I'm going to turn to my colleague, Commissioner Biacco. Thank you, Chair Hunceric. And thank all of you for your testimony today, written and orally and for your time. I do agree with Chairman Hunceric's comments on the import related issues. I think they are very significant. And I do also look forward to working with all of you as well as the agency and addressing some of those issues. They're complex. They're complicated, but they do have a direct impact on the safety, the types of products that are getting into consumers homes and the related safety issues. On that note, several of you have raised the issue of counterfeit goods, something that I personally am interested in. But for our listeners, I just want to make this distinction. You keep in mind that the CPSC as an agency does not have jurisdiction over counterfeit goods. In other words, we do not have jurisdiction, nor do we have the staff trained in areas that which would allow us to say these are counterfeit and therefore they need to be stopped. But what we do have with regard to counterfeit products is jurisdiction and an obligation to stop products that are non compliant with safety standards, whether federal or regulatory. And that is, I always say counterfeit goods are a deep pool of products that are likely non compliant. And so in that regard, I do think that the CPSC has a few statutory powers that could assist on the counterfeit issue. So from that perspective, I do look forward to working with you on those issues because I think they are important. I do have a couple questions. One is anybody on the panel ever actually conducted a recall. No, okay. Those questions won't apply. Mr. Weintraub, the data that you referred to with regard to products that cause a disparity in public health, is that data in your written testimony? I referenced a report that we published in 2013 that's in dire need of updating, but I can definitely share that report, which is most based mostly on a literature review from doctors and academics across the country. I'm happy to share that. Okay, that would be great. Can you give us some examples of those products to which you reference? Sure. There were incidents of fires in particular communities that disproportionately impacted children. For example, which is something that we've thought about drownings also, which CPSC data further supports this issue have a disproportionate impact on black children, for example. Those are two I think of the most critical findings that we identified. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. That's all I have for now. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to everybody on the panel for being here today. I did ask some questions and wanted to ask the consumer advocates on this first panel about CPSC and our civil penalty authority. I've long been concerned about the size of CPSC's civil penalty authority, and I'm encouraged to hear several of our witnesses today bring this up in their testimony. Last November, we voted to adjust the maximum civil penalty at CPSC to account for inflation. Even still, I expressed my concern at the time that the adjusted penalties may leave the CPSC with insufficient tools to enforce against large companies, including e-commerce platforms, for example, some of whom measure their annual revenue and the hundreds of billions of dollars. So I've been exploring what, if any, additional relief we might consider, including our statutory authority to seek injunctive remedies that was recently affirmed by the 7th Circuit. One area I'd like to see expanded is CPSC's use of third-party monitors in addition to the monetary civil penalties that we seek. So the commission has sought to require enhanced compliance programs, for example, in certain matters. But I believe that third-party monitors would provide some additional needed assurances that these programs are implemented properly while also deterring future potential misconduct. I'll start with you, Ms. Weintraub, as the general counsel for CFA and a close follower of the commission. I want to ask about the 7th Circuit's decision in Spectrum Brands, which affirmed the use of forward-looking injunctive relief under our CPSA authorities, and specifically on the use of a third-party monitor. Given our authority to seek this kind of injunctive relief, does it make sense to you for the commission to pursue this sort of monitoring remedy in other cases? I definitely need to look at the case more carefully before I would give an opinion. But I think the agency should look broadly and creatively in terms of how to assess more and more meaningful penalties that deter noncompliance with CPSC action. So I will look at that case and get back to you. I would appreciate that. Is there other specific injunctive relief we should consider in addition to the monetary penalties that you believe would be an effective deterrent to future violations? You know, one of the things that I'm focused on is the fact that the CPSC issues so few civil penalties to begin with. I mean, there was one civil penalty assessed in 2020, fiscal year 2021, and fiscal year 2021. So I think assessing more, being an active cop on the beat, if you will, is something that I've been focusing on even more than injunctive relief. Because there's so few examples where the all stakeholders can even look at in recent times to see how CPSC is enforcing its laws. Okay, I appreciate that. Miss Coles, do you have thoughts? Do you agree? Are there things that CPSC should consider in terms of additional behavioral remedies that we can pursue in addition to the civil penalties to deter future violations and protect consumers? Yes, thanks for the question. I'll just say to start off, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have any specific opinion on it. But I do think the idea of monitoring these civil penalties and the action that is listed in the civil penalty is only common sense. I mean, we know from our own work on recall and trying to get data on have they done a good job with a recall. And we don't know exactly what was asked of them because those corrective action plans are secret. But we do know that for, for instance, when we asked for monthly progress reports, 27% of them, there were no records. That meant the company had never filed a monthly corrective action plan report. So it indicates to me that monitoring of these, whether it's civil penalties or recalls or any action, the CPSC requests of companies is a good thing. And in the range of penalties, I want to go back to your point on the amount. You know, I'm not sure there's a need for a upper limit on penalties because it varies so much by the company that you're dealing with. We've all seen the past few days how quickly someone can pull together billions of dollars. And if you're going after a company like that, your limit is, you know, really not even margin of error on a amount. I appreciate that answer. I also wanted to ask you, Ms. Coles, in your testimony, you discuss ingestion and choking hazards, which remain a leading cause of injury and death for young children, and which unfortunately we've seen increase over the pandemic. I know you share my concern with respect to CPSC's enforcement of the small parts rule, and in particular its application to stuffed flush and flocked toys. Are you aware of the U.S. District Court in case in New Mexico involving a flocked toy death? Yes, I am aware of that case. Thank you. So everyone else knows this case addressed whether certain toys are per se intended for children under three years of age for the purpose of enforcement of the agency's small parts rule. And here the court ruled that undersized flocked toys are, as a matter of law, banned hazardous substance. Ms. Coles, am I characterizing this accurately? And if so, do you agree with the court? Yes, I think that's a correct characterization. And I think that CPSC's guidance right now includes flocked toys as an example given to businesses of what is prohibited to be a small part. You know, so I think that it's pretty clear if CPSC intends something else. I probably need to make their business guidance clear, but I would also just say that those stuffed or flocked toys, they do increase the likelihood that a young child is going to find it a very attractive toy to play with. So I would hope that before they change their guidance, they might consider, you know, continuing to enforce it because of that risk of ingestion. I think that's right. And I think that's probably why our regulation is written as it is. So I thank you for that answer. I agree. And I'll just say that I'm concerned that despite the clear finding in the New Mexico case and the letter of the regulation and our guidance right now, CPSC is still failing to fully enforce the small parts rule. And this is something that I continue to push at the agency. My last question I want to be cognizant of the time is to take counsel in the toy association. Mr. Fennes, I want to thank you for your testimony today discussing counterfeit products. As you know, and this is something that we've discussed, there is an overlap of the concentric circles encompassing consumer safety and counterfeit products. I think this is exactly to the point that Commissioner Biakko was making earlier. Mr. Fennes, I think you correctly point out that these products present a real risk to consumers both financially and in terms of safety, which is our focus here. So throughout my tenure as commissioner, I've traveled extensively across the country to meet with industry and advocacy groups alike. And the issue that you're raising today is top of mind for so many of these stakeholders. And I agree that the counterfeit products present a real problem for consumers and for legitimate businesses and also for law enforcement agencies like CPSC. So I'm curious, you know, to the tick count, so what specific recommendations do you have for CPSC to tackle the issue? How could we be better partners with industry and other stakeholders to prevent products like these from entering domestic commerce? Yeah, thank you for the question, Commissioner, and thanks for having to counsel here today. In regards to counterfeits, you know, we understand that there's a lot of agencies that participate with each other to identify products coming into the United States and grab them before they reach consumers. And what we've heard from those different agencies is the CPSC might identify it as potentially unsafe and then take it to get testing, but they might also identify as counterfeit and notify customs and border protection. They may never be told whether that product was confirmed as counterfeit or not. And vice versa, CBP might not be told that that product was also unsafe. So how do we create a channel of information where we can confirm that both of those things are true and be able to report to the industry to what extent are we seeing this problem? So one suggestion that came out of a recent stakeholder meeting that I had when I was in Utah was that CPSC and our sister agencies could create a portal for companies that are monitoring for counterfeits to share that market surveillance intelligence with CPSC and other law enforcement agencies so that we could pursue safety testing and enforcement and ultimately removal from commerce if necessary. From the TIC Council's perspective, is this something that makes sense? Yes, absolutely. And we certainly would support that. Okay. Mr. Cain, I don't want to be quick because I know that I'm running out of time. There's also a concern for the toy association. Do you agree that a CPSC counterfeit portal could be a helpful exercise? Absolutely. And I can say not just our industry, but countless industries are trying their best to gather that information. It would be more than willing to share it when we are able to find it. But I think to the previous panelist point, this is an issue that needs a lot of coordination between many federal agencies in order to, I think, effectively do it. But we would absolutely support such a measure. Understood. I appreciate that. I see that I'm at my 10 minutes and I'll yield to my colleagues. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump. Thank you. And thank you to our panelists for participating today. It's much appreciated. You know, we asked you to submit written testimony weeks ago. So there's something that I saw that came up since then that I wanted to address. On Monday, the European Union published a restrictions roadmap that's being described as the largest ever banned on toxic chemicals. Thousands of chemicals could soon become banned in Europe. The plan focuses on large classes of chemicals, including flame retardants, PVCs, PFAS, and others. And the goal is to avoid regrettable substitution where in dangerous substances, dangerous substitutes are offered for each chemical that's regulated. The EU's chemical policy manager summed up the action like this. She said EU chemical controls are usually achingly slow. But the EU is planning the boldest detox we've ever seen. Petrochemical industry lobbyists are shocked at what is now on the table. It promises to improve the safety of almost all manufactured products and rapidly lower the chemical intensity of our schools, homes, and workplaces. Given how recently this action took place, I'd understand if panelists aren't ready to offer reactions here today, but maybe you could follow up for the record. But I did want to give Ms. Weintraub, Ms. Coles, and Dr. Hoffman the opportunity to address that here if they wanted to. Are there any elements of that EU plan that CPSC should consider following? Sure. I'll respond first. So appreciate the question. Also appreciate the work that the agency has done on addressing toxic chemicals. And we think vastly more is needed. I support the work at the EU. They embrace the precautionary principle, which is vastly more protective of the public health than the various methods used in the United States. The organohalogen petition also uses the class approach, as we believed it is an important way to look at chemical regulation. But, you know, I think if the EU thinks that their work has been painfully slow, I think looking at the United States broad regulatory effort is even slower. So I think their acknowledgement of the seriousness of the sort of lifetime of exposure of people to various chemicals and the dire health impacts that can cause is profound. And we support that effort and hope that CPSC and other agencies with jurisdiction over the use of chemicals and products will take heed and will act more robustly and more protectively of public health. So I can say that on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, we haven't had the opportunity to review the full details of the EU plan, but we do know that in general kids are going to be more vulnerable to chemical exposures that can have lifelong consequences. And we support in general the regulation of chronic chemical hazards as a class to prevent regrettable substitution. I think one thing that we need to be mindful of we've seen in the space around child passenger safety car seats. There are flammability standards and there have been in the last several years an increasing number of seats that utilize natural materials, i.e. wool in lieu of chemical flame retardants. And those are great. The challenge has been they tend to be more expensive and when we need to be mindful as we go forward with this around the issues of equity, ensuring that every child has access to safe, non-toxic materials in a way that's affordable and accessible to their families. And I would just add that I agree with both of my colleagues. I think this is an issue that needs more attention than it's getting. And when we have young babies already born with toxins in their bloodstream, I think it's time to take it seriously and perhaps follow Europe's lead here. Great. And like this is obviously it's a fresh issue, but as we can all digest this, I would really welcome a lot of feedback to see how we can incorporate any useful practices from this going forward. So let's continue an open dialogue on that. Miss Weintraub, you asked us to provide clear information to consumers about which specific ROV models pose fire risks. Can you elaborate for us on the need for that? Sure. This goes back to 2017 and an important statement that the CPSC issued with Polaris about RZR 900 and 100 recreational off highway vehicles and fire safety risks. And it said actually that, you know, there are risks to consumers and some of the vehicles that were recalled and then remedied still posed fire risks. We were very appreciative of the statement at the time, but also followed up with the CPSC and did not receive a response. Our concern is that there are gaps. We are concerned that consumers are still unwittingly using vehicles that may pose risks that the recalls have not successfully remedied. And that's really what we hope the agency will do is look at that statement, look at and there were subsequent recalls even after this statement of vehicles not mentioned, but to make sure that consumers are not unwittingly using vehicles that they may think they addressed a fire risk, but that actually that remedy was not sufficient. So you said there was a follow up letter you sent to the agency that hasn't been responded to. Can you send that back to us again so we can make sure that we get a proper response there? Sure. You advocate for more civil and criminal penalty used to improve deterrence. Can you explain why it's important to bring civil and criminal penalty actions for that deterrent effect? Sure. As I said, in response to the question posed by Commissioner Feldman, I think it's incredibly important for the regulated industry and all stakeholders to know that CPSC is actively holding entities accountable for non-compliance with rules and regulations. And the more active CPSC is in this space, the more it will deter entities from not complying, knowing there are consequences, knowing that there will be a consequence that is meaningful as we discuss. Hopefully. I think that's part of an enforcement program that I think will lead to fewer non-compliant entities and products on the market. Thank you, Ms. Coles. You believe that we need a section 104 rulemaking for pacifiers? What would you like to see us do there? I'm not sure what the extent of the standard would be. I'm just concerned that this is a product intended for use in the mouth of very vulnerable infants and while they're asleep. And so when we see reports either that the whole pacifier fit into a baby's mouth or that the nipple tore and broke off in their mouth, it's very concerning. We'll probably, you know, if we continue to see these, could discourage the pacifier use that we know aids in preventing sudden unexpected infant death. And so I think that it's CPSC should look carefully at this issue, determine if more can be done to make the pacifier safer. If it's an issue simply of companies that aren't complying with the current standards and they need to crack down on enforcement or if we do need to strengthen the standard that is already in place, which I think we could do through section 104. You also mentioned technologies that could protect against button and coin cell battery injection risks. Can you explain those technologies? Sure, I think that there's many things that can be done both with the battery itself. There is a company in Connecticut already making a coin cell battery, which has a coding on it, which means that the battery is only conductive of energy when it is compressed into a compartment. So when it's loose in your hand, it's inert. It won't hurt the child if they swallow it. I think there's probably more innovation we can do in that area. We could also have more innovation on the way they are stored both when they're new and used and disposed of. We worked with a team of University of Michigan students who are working on a project of a case that they can be sold in and then contained in. You can't take a new one out until you put the old one in and then the whole case can be recycled. So I think that there is a lot that can be done. But with so many safety innovations, it takes pressure from regulators and from the public to get industry to take the steps to make changes. For recalls, you stressed the importance of shifting the burden from consumers to companies. How can we best do that? Well, I think the first thing is not to kind of throw up our hands when we put out a recall notice and no one sends in their product the next day for the repair or the refund. It takes a lot to sell these products. The companies know this. They have whole marketing teams, social media influencers. They use every available effort to reach consumers when they're trying to sell products. We believe all those same methods should be used to announce a recall. We think if there are incentives needed more than being made whole, but actually getting something for purchase pitting the recall, companies should be required to do that. The company made the dangerous product. The company went ahead with the recall because, frankly, most of them are voluntary. And so it shouldn't just end when that press release goes out. As we said, we have not seen the CPSC closely monitors recall actions to see if companies are doing a good job. They kind of wait to see perhaps if there's another death or injury. And we know, at least with the inclined sleepers that were recalled that the deaths are continuing. Consumer reports, who I know you're going to hear from, you know, show that fewer than 8% of one brand of those has been accounted for, leaving millions still in homes. So I think we need to take recall seriously, not just to announce them, but to actually make them effective. Dr. Hoffman, you stress the importance and you highlighted flat sleep and define what that was for infants. Can you expound on why flat sleep itself is so important? Yeah, I referenced that specifically because there has been, I think there's some confusion about what flat means, although to me it seems fairly intuitive. As you're probably familiar in regards to inclined sleep products or products that place infants at an incline for sleep, it's been demonstrated through biomechanical research that there is no safe way to have an infant sleep at an angle of greater than 10 degrees from horizontal. And there have been arguments that I have heard that flat means that it keeps the baby in a position where they're not bent or there keeps their back flat, as opposed to thinking about flat relative to the horizon. And what we know about safe infant sleep and what puts babies at risk, it has to do with flat relative to the horizon. And so I wanted to make a very, I wanted to specifically include that in my comments. I think that distinction is an important one. So thank you for highlighting it. Dr. Hoffman, many commenters have talked about the need to improve CPSC's injury data and making that a priority, and that part of that could involve outreach to doctors to improve awareness for proper use. You know, maybe proper use of saferproducts.gov. How can we most effectively work together to accomplish that? I think through actively engaging in relationships and specific programs and campaigns to raise that level of awareness, I am on record multiple times saying that the issue of injury receives nowhere near the amount of attention that it needs to in relation to the impact that it has on kids and families. Unintentional injuries remain the leading cause of death. I can tell you in my pediatric residency training in the 36 months, I spent six months learning how to take care of kids with cancer and I want to be very clear that that is really important cancer is awful. I don't even remember ever having a lecture on injury prevention. So it's just not part of the, I think most pediatricians and child health providers acknowledge the importance, but they don't have training and they don't have the basic understanding that's necessary. So I would welcome opportunity to partner with industry with consumer product safety commission with advocacy groups to specifically target both the education of pediatricians and training, as well as opportunities to engage pediatricians in a more robust and effective way. Great. Yeah, I'm going to ask you pause for a minute. I'm happy to go to a second round, but for the first round 10 minutes or up, I would ask Commissioner Bianco or Feldman have questions for a second round. I don't, I don't have any questions chairman, but I just wanted to follow up on Dr. Hoffman's comment about the biochemical bio mechanical research that you reference. Can you give me some direction on that or point me in the direction I would really like to read that. Yeah, absolutely. So, so the study that was commissioned actually by the consumer product safety commission from Dr. Aaron Manon. Okay. And she's had two publications in the Journal of Biomechanics, one on just inclined sleep in general and one and the other about the impact of positioning specifically within inclined sleepers. Okay. Yeah, I'm familiar with that. Is there anything else that you can point me to? No, that's that. But I also, I interpret that as being fairly definitive that is it is exquisitely done. Very good science. Thank you. My pleasure. Anything else, Commissioner Bianco. No, thank you. Did you have a do another round? Thank you. I did have one additional question that I wanted to ask the toy association. So, Mr. Kane in your testimony today, you stated that the flow of goods through our ports is the lifeblood of our nation's economy. And I couldn't agree more, which is why Commissioner Bianco and I pushed successfully to increase resources for port inspectors as part of the FY 22 operating plan. That plan added 27 new port inspectors at both traditional ports to assist and also new and emerging ports to assist with e-commerce screenings. And it represents, as I understand it, to be the largest increase in resources to our port inspection team in the history of the agency. And I'm proud of that. And I'm committed to working with my colleagues, my new colleagues that continue to increase resources here. I believe that all of my colleagues on the agency see the need and value for these frontline workers. And I look forward to working with them on this important issue as we contemplate the FY 23 operating plan and beyond. So that being said, can you discuss why CPSC's presence at the port is so critical? Absolutely. And thank you very much. And we appreciate the increased resources to our nation's ports for inspections. So critical because it's an important part in one of the very large discussion. You know, there obviously been over the past couple of months, a lot of delays at our ports for any number of reasons in international shipping. But it also plays into the expedited review of products, getting products through, especially products that aren't a problem. And I identify products that are, that represent a serious threat to, in our case, children, but to be threatening any number of people depending on the products that are being let in. And I think CPSC's commitment to work on the issue only encourages other agencies and unions and municipalities that are in charge of our nation's ports to continue to be more active as well. And the continued effort from the CPSC is really vital to pushing all these other entities in moving in a positive direction too. And the honest answer is, you know, the more, the more safe goods can move quickly through the ports helps everyone in the end. And the more bad products we can get out from getting in the country, more helps everyone in the end as well. And I think that's true with consumer health organizations as well as industry, as well as the workers who are actually doing the work. And so I applaud CPSC for doing it, but I encourage to keep pushing on it because I think there's still work that can be done and there's still pushing that can be done to other government agencies and entities. I agree and frankly, that's the reason I was quite concerned when CPSC was not at post during the COVID pandemic. In my view, this was a complete application from CPSC staff of our mission to enforce regulations and protect American consumers. It's something that we've worked hard to rectify. I think we're doing a good job at it now. I think there's more that can be done and it's something that I assure you we're going to continue to press on. I appreciate that answer. I have no further questions and would yield a balance of my time. Thank you, Commissioner. Now back to you, Commissioner Trump. Thank you. Miss Coles, how can we make safer products that go more user friendly? That's a great question and I appreciate that in this past year it appears that CPSC has been doing some work on that they redesigned it. I think the real barrier is the, you know, a miss of some of the information that's required will keep the information from going up onto the site. And I am not sure how much is done to try and get the information from the consumer if they didn't get it. Or as I said, you know, a problem with medical examiners making their reports as they often may not have the model of the product or enough details on what the product was. And I think that's why it will require follow up from CPSC to get that additional information that's needed to make the report go public. Or can it be used in a different way, you know, for instance, both in standards work and just in looking at injury patterns, we look at say strollers in general, how many reports of injury and death are there. That kind of information even without the brand is vital both to the public and to CPSC. So I think, you know, just continue to tension. The other thing I think is just to promote it as much as possible. It's not a useful database if consumers don't know about it to turn to provide the data. And so the more that can be done to make sure the public's aware of it. As you mentioned, working with doctors, working with organization, parent groups, you know, any groups of public who are concerned about public health I think could get more reports in, which will make it a more useful data source. Great. And you suggest that we issue guidance or regulations rethinking the way that six B is implemented. What, what should that look like. Well, I think what it would first take is a critical look and you might I'd be happy to, or you can look up all the points kid has provided and the things that we are not given because of six B include things like how many posts they made about the recall of six B, how that is possibly protected by six B, I don't know. But there are many instances of that the directions that they give questions that you ask maybe to, you know, Rachel has a good example about a court case asking about a court case there's nothing about six B that would protect information within a court case a public court case so I think that CPSC and they'll get a lot of pushback I'm sure from industry because they have come to rely on the hiding behind the fact that so much could be released to consumers, but to continue to narrow the focus of it to what is strictly required by the law, and not kind of what the, the broader impact of, or concern about it has kind of its shadow. Did you want to add anything to that. Sure. Yeah, so the example that Nancy was referencing that once at a conference. CPSC staff was asked about a publicly decided court case about a CPSC matter, and the CPSC staff or said they couldn't discuss it, because of section 60 limitations. It was not within the scope of six B that's publicly available information so you know how I think about it is that the shadow of six B and how it impacts the culture of what members of the commission and what staff at the CPSC can disclose is actually vastly broader than what six B itself prescribes. So, in addition to six B I think being problematic and keeping consumers in the dark. I think the way that CPSC implements it and has. And how it impacts the culture of the agency is profound and I think there's a lot of room there for assessment and making sure that it's not unnecessarily overbroad. I definitely agree with you on that point. I have an example like yours I think when my first question to you was about ROV fire risks. Your testimony written testimony mentioned a specific company that that pertain to and you mentioned them again here today. In my initial draft of my questions I mentioned that company to and somebody said maybe I shouldn't because of six B, quoting back your own testimony in a public hearing. Might have walked up too close to line as we're currently interpreting and that's concerning that that strains credulary so. Moving on from that miss. You raised end of life disposal and recycling of lithium ion batteries. What would you like to see us do to address that problem? Yeah, the CPSC. At least what I've heard from my members a few years ago issued a report on on safety related circumstances with lithium ion batteries and what we've heard from the council members is that additional studies additional research and data as to the number of injuries caused by these batteries is something that they need to help them to feed into the standards development process to stand to develop test methods to evaluate these types of batteries. And so we're looking for an open dialogue both with the CPSC for what you're hearing as to injuries as well as an open dialogue with standards developers and industry groups as to what is in the process. And what are they developing and what hurdles are they encountering so that we can help everyone develop safety mechanisms within these products that will ensure that a battery meets a set standard that it's not going to overheat that it can be around other components within the electronics without overheating or expanding because when they reach the consumer, they have no control and if they do end up with a battery that catches fire lithium ion batteries cannot be put out you essentially wait for them to die on their own. And they burn very hot. So we're talking about significant flammability hazards. So really what can we put in the front end and it might just be education so that consumers and industry know what they're working with and they can start to develop safety mechanisms within their products. Great. I definitely like to keep exploring that issue. You said that also today many products that would be considered toxic are entering the secondary market. Can you expand that and give us any examples that you can think of there. Yeah, I mean I think you brought up a great issue with the new EU directive that they're now looking into where there's a lot of different chemicals like flammables like PFAS that are in products and when we start to develop rules related to those products we need to consider that a huge number of them either are sold second hand by consumers without them knowing that those products contain those dangerous chemicals or they're being imported in from secondary markets where in other countries that might not be a safety concern. So when we develop common sense rules let's incorporate those other sources of the products to ensure that they're captured as well. And my last point is Mr. Kane. You know I share your concern and the concern of the other commissioners about how frequently counterfeit products overlap with dangerous products and I definitely appreciate your willingness to share information on that point I think that's a good use of our time going forward for sure. I don't have a question for you but a comment. I took a look at the recent advocacy by the toy association and there was only one that stood out a little bit to me and it was it was about restrictions on your members ability to keep marketing to children. And my comment is this. I would just ask that you read the American Academy of Pediatrics 2020 guidance on advertising to children and maybe Dr. Hoffman can see that you get a copy. But the AAP guidance recommends quote banning all commercial advertising to children younger than seven years and limiting advertising to older children and teenagers. Advertising to children takes advantage of the fact that quote children are uniquely vulnerable to the persuasive effects of advertising because of immature critical thinking skills and impulse inhibition and it can lead to unhealthy behavior. So just a suggestion that you take a look at that. And with that I yield back. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. This point I just ask my fellow commissioners whether anybody else has further questions. Bellman see no shaking has no that I would thank our first panel for your time and for your input and would move on to the second panel. So introducing the second panel is first to witness our parents who lost their children terrible tragedies have since advocated in the past safety to protect others. I want to thank them for being back again honor their bravery for continuing to share their stories and keep others safe. They are miss Lisa Seifert founder of Shane's Foundation. Megan Dilan speaking on behalf of parents against tip overs. We also have on this panel or a shin is policy council with consumer reports. Jay howl is the executive director of the American fire work standards laboratory and Dr. Ian Paul who's professor of pediatrics and public health science chief at Penn State College of Medicine. It's testifying on behalf of the breastfeeding and infant development support alliance. Thank you all for being here. That miss Seifert you are recognized for 10 minutes. Thank you for allowing me to submit comments today. I'm Lisa Seifert founder of Shane's Foundation a nonprofit child safety organization focusing on tip over awareness and prevention also co founder of parents against tip overs. Sadly this is not my first time here speaking or coming before the CPSC since 2011 which indicates we're not moving fast enough to prevent tip overs. Love you. I said to my baby boy. Love you. He said back from his bed as I closed the door to his bedroom for his afternoon nap. Later I went to wake my baby from his nap as my husband came in from yard work. My husband heard a sound that was unrecognizable my screams. I found Shane under his dresser. I'm a wife and a mother of a daughter who is 15 years old and my son Shane who would be 13 but is tragically to forever. I founded Shane's Foundation shortly after Shane passed away. I felt the urgent need to warn parents of this hidden danger in their homes. No family should go through the death of their child especially one that is so easily preventable. No child should pass away in such a horrific way as Shane did. That brings me to anchor it. I am a proud mom proud to be an anchor at mom. I believe anchor it is crucial to the public's awareness of the Satan hazard. Much effort and funding has gone into this program and I urge you to continue this campaign campaign and distribution of the materials. You already have a good foundation of partnerships dedicated to building the momentum of this program. I freely firmly believe anchor it should be a priority to continue to use these resources. This message is especially important because families need to anchor furniture already in their homes as well as using straps that come with their new furniture. I strongly strongly urge you to continue to fund the anchor it campaign. I also offer my continued support and partnership with the anchor it campaign. I also applaud your recent work in researching tip overs and further fully support the NPR. It's long overdue and we need to press forward with urgency. This is not my first time mentioning testing in real life use additional weight of 60 pounds carpet surface. Loaded drawers and including all furniture even those shorter than 30 inches such as kid and Shane's Foundation tested in our report of which you're all familiar. I urge the CPSC to continue to prioritize this work and move swiftly forward. I further urge you to recall furniture that does not meet the current standard. Your leadership will show a commitment to safer furniture with these recalls recalls need to accelerate to take dangerous products off the market. The public needs to be made aware of the steps needed to take to be taken and how to get that product fixed or out of their homes. It's been too long. Let's get this done. Thank you a lot for allowing me the opportunity to speak today and I look forward to continued work with the CPSC. Thank you, Miss C for appreciate you coming today. Next will be missed along strong. If you have your turn your camera on and mute. If she is having problems, we can go to miss Shin and then come back to miss the law. Thank you. Happy to step in as Megan. Fixes her technical difficulties. Yes, so thank you on behalf of consumer reports the independent nonprofit nonpartisan organization. I welcome the opportunity to present comments on the agenda and priorities of the CPSC for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. For more than 85 years improving product safety has been central to see our mission. We assess safety risks, investigate their impact on consumers and inform the public and the CPSC when we identify product hazards all on a data driven basis. We push for strong for strong action from the CPSC to keep the public safe from unreasonable risks posed by consumer products and defend the agency's authority to carry out its duty. As the agency enters its 50th year of operation. The CPSC must be proactive in addressing both long standing product safety hazards and new or emerging issues. We welcome Tara Hohn Sark and look forward to working together in this new chapter at the agency. We also welcome future opportunities to work with commissioners Bianco Feldman and Trump as well as a fifth commissioner who to improve the vast and evolving product safety landscape. We applaud the commission's recent actions that put consumers first including filing administrative complaints when companies refuse to recall product. Companies refuse to recall the hazards products as well as advancing strong mandatory standards for persistent product hazards. Going forward we urge the commission to lay out a bold vision for the agency and execute on robust initiatives that serve the agency's mission to protect the public. As the CPSC carries out its vital work we encourage the agency's leaders to keep the following principles and activities in mind. First we urge the commission and agency staff to continue to be vocal and relentless advocates for consumer safety in every arena. To meet the demands of today's complex interconnected and ever-changing marketplace it is critical for the CPSC to challenge themselves to think creatively and communicate forcefully in the service of safety. The commission should also keep promoting a strong culture that empowers CPSC staff to play a leading role in improving safety practices and standards throughout the marketplace including in the voluntary standards development process. Staff should continue championing agency positions and casting more ballots on the basis of their expertise and their independent assessment. Second we urge the CPSC to implement strong and lasting internal mechanisms that can help protect the agency's independence and better insulate itself from outside pressures. On occasion abrupt shifts and priorities and focus areas may have contributed to unreasonable delays in completing the agency's critical work. We also urge the commission to empower the agency staff once again with the discretion to evaluate and implement recommendations from the office of the inspector general as appropriate. The CPSC should build on its equity action plan and continue to integrate equity considerations into its everyday work. The agency's decisions and communications with the public should be driven by this pursuit of equity with an unwavering focus on serving consumers who may have been overlooked or underrepresented in the past. An increasingly diverse country requires as public health and safety agencies to be equipped to serve a wider rate of needs. The CPSC's actions should reflect this reality that product safety hazards often affect communities disproportionately or differently and remedies likely do not reach everyone equally. Third the CPSC should maximize the use of its compliance and enforcement tools to improve consumer safety and hold companies accountable. We applaud the agency's efforts to engage resistant companies to take action in support of safety and to require strong mandatory actions when firms do not act voluntarily. It is critically important for companies to follow through on their commitments to issue a recall and carry out related actions. The CPSC should continue to push companies to carry out recalls as quickly and as completely as possible in a manner that in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for consumers to participate. The CPSC should remain aggressive in its response to violations of laws and regulations under the agency's jurisdiction. The agency should coordinate with the department's justice as needed to make full use of this enforcement authority. As warranted, this commission should not hesitate to deter future violations by levying the maximum civil penalties and make use of its criminal penalties authority when criminal conduct has occurred. Fourth, the CPSC should continue to promote transparency and ensure that it informs the public about legitimate safety hazards in a timely manner, even as it is sharply limited by the statutory language of section 6B of the CPSA. As we have said before and will repeat today again, the impact of section 6B is anti-consumer and anti-safety and we support current efforts in Congress to repeal this provision. Nevertheless, we urge the CPSC to take steps to increase the availability of information and agency accountability to the public. These steps include reducing freedom of information backlogs and keeping the public updated on the status of all recalls and whether companies are meeting their obligation under a recall agreement. Fifth, the CPSC should continue to push for strong standards, voluntary and mandatory, that yield significant protections for consumers. In the voluntary standards setting process, this should include the agency using CPSC testing and other research to provide timely data and direction, encouraging direction, encouraging vocal and evidence-based CPSC staff participation, pushing for open and balanced voluntary standards subcommittees and processes, while retaining the credible full use of its mandatory standards authority. On that note, the CPSC should not hesitate to pursue and advance mandatory standards where voluntary standards have not adequately addressed the hazard. Specifically, CR encourages the commission to propose a new rule addressing button cell or coin battery ingestion, issue final rules for magnets, table saws and window coverings, and recommit to advancing mandatory standards for portable generators and gas appliances to reduce the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. CR especially urges the CPSC to move forward with the promulgation of a strong mandatory standard for dressers and other clothing storage units. This would result in more stable furniture and would protect children from injury or death due to tip-over incident. A mandatory standard would allow the agency to more readily take action to protect the public when relatively unstable furniture puts people at risk and this should be finalized expeditiously. We also urge the agency to remain vigilant and to address any potential safety hazards found in new or old infant or toddler products, including those with weak voluntary standards as well as products with voluntary standards currently under development. However, we are concerned with the commission's decision as part of the FY 2022 operating plan to pull back on the agency's planned work on certain infant products, including pillow-like infant products. It is paramount that only those infant and toddler products that meet strong safety standards and align with expert medical recommendations are for sale in the marketplace. Finally, I urge the CPSC to provide consumers, including the powerful parent advocates who sit with me on this panel today, more opportunities for informal engagement, including with the agency's technical experts who can provide key insights into the agency's work. This kind of information exchange must be an essential component of the CPSC strategy to protect consumers from preventable incidents, injuries, and death. In conclusion, CR looks forward to CPSC continuing to take a strong pro-consumer action to address hazards associated with consumer products. We are eager to keep working with the agency to fulfill its mission in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Chen. I believe that Mr. Long is available. Sorry for my technical difficulties. Thank you for bearing with me. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Megan DeLong, and I lost my two-year-old son Connor to address her tip over nearly five years ago. On Mother's Day of 2017, I found my beautiful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed son lifeless inside of a drawer of his dresser that had tipped over on him. He died the next day. His dresser is compliant with the ASTM voluntary standard for CSUs, and the fact that it has not been recalled and is still sold today is infuriating and frankly quite mind-boggling to me. My testimony today is on behalf of Parents Against Tip-Overs, otherwise known as PAT. We are a group of parents who, like me, have lost their children to dresser tip-overs, and we want to see an end to tip-over injuries and deaths. Members of PAT are also actively involved with the CPSC Anchor campaign, as well as the ASTM Voluntary Standard Committee for CSU Safety. And while we are grateful for the progress that has been made, we are frustrated that meaningful and effective progress has taken so long. We are not there yet, and there is much more that needs to be done by the agency with regard to tip-overs, and it needs to be done with urgency. Far too much time has already passed, and far too many children have been injured or killed while CPSC and the ASTM Committee dragged their feet on meaningful and effective measures to reduce those injuries and deaths from tip-overs. The CPSC new furniture tip-overs were a substantial product hazard in the 1990s, as evidenced by safety alerts issued by the agency. The ASTM Voluntary Standard Committee to address clothing storage units safety and stability was formed in 1998. With the first version of the standard, F2057-00, it issued in 2000. It has been 24 years, and yet the voluntary standard process has failed to produce a standard that adequately addresses the reasons tip-overs happen. While tens of thousands of children have already been seriously injured every year and more than 100 have lost their lives to dresser and CSU tip-overs alone. One death is too many. Hundreds are completely inexcusable, and that's just CSU tip-overs. More than 550 children have died when you include other types of furniture, TVs, and appliances. Children are still being injured by CSU tip-overs every single day, and several more are dying every year, and those are only the ones that the CPSC is aware of. Countless other tip-overs happen that are never reported because those children were simply lucky and not seriously injured, or those who knew of the incident did not know how or why to even report it. Pat would like to thank the Commission for the attention and dedication to tip-overs and for making it a priority for the agency for the past several years. But we would be remiss if for not pointing out that the agency has been very slow to act on this issue, especially given how long the agency has been aware of the hazard. And the fact that despite issuing annual tip-over reports since the year 2010, it took until 2017 before the ANPR was issued. It was nearly another four years before the NPR was released and voted by the Commission just a few months ago. We would like for the agency to continue to make furniture tip-over awareness and prevention a top priority of the agency, and take the following significant steps to adequately and comprehensively address tip-overs and reduce injury and death. First, quickly and decisively move toward a final rule on the NPR for CSU safety that adequately and comprehensively addresses all of the factors that contribute to tip-overs. Historically, final rules have taken the agency years and often decades and if they're issued at all. We challenge the agency to fast-check this final rule that is far too long coming already. If it existed 17 years ago, none of the Pat parents would have lost their children, nor would the more than 100 other families who lost their children. We remind the Commission that every tip-over is a potential death, even the ones that did not cause injury or were not reported. We'd like you to continue to promote and involve the Anchorage campaign, increasing both its scope and its reach. While the consumers should never have to take any action to finish making a product safe, anchoring, including furniture, TVs, and appliances that are already in homes, hotels, schools, childcare facilities, or even senior living communities need to be anchored to prevent injuries and death due to tip-overs. Anchorage should include and expand partnerships and collaboration with advocacy groups, retailers, social service providers, childcare providers, organizations to educate and work with parents, preschools, DCF providers, hotel chains, Airbnb, and other rental organizations just to name a few. Informational webinars and websites and social media content that talks about the dangers of all types of tip-overs and not just CSUs, TVs, and appliances will help consumers understand that any and all of these products, no matter the age, height, size, shape, cost, manufacturer, retailer, or weight, all have the potential to tip and can cause injury or death and how they can prevent tip-overs from happening. The Anchorage campaign also needs to address the misconceptions by many parents and consumers that all anchors are created equal, as we know they are not. This is becoming even more of an issue with the knockoff products becoming more widely available and with misleading advertising online, potentially creating a false sense of security with an inferior product sold to unsuspecting consumers. Continue to expand the scope, reach, and awareness of the safer products.gov. The recent changes to the website have increased the ease of use in reporting, but there remains a lack of awareness to the general public as to its existence. Consumers don't know what a wealth of information that site holds nor do they know or understand what to report or how to report and why to do it. Even more importantly, those in a position to report product related injuries or deaths are not aware of its existence and purpose either. The agency needs to develop an educational webinar programs aimed at healthcare providers like pediatricians, ER providers, urgent care providers, childcare providers, preschools, social service providers, and the Department of Children and Family, medical examiners, retailers just to name a few. Addressing what is done with the information that is reported will also be helpful, especially since consumers and especially parents are often fearful of reporting to a government agency. Knowledge is power and eases fears and concerns. The commission needs to use its full scope and power to issue timely warning, timely warning safety alerts and recalls to get unsafe furniture TVs and appliances off the market and alert the American people to the dangers that may lurk in their home. It is completely unacceptable that the dresser that killed my son was compliant with voluntary standard, which clearly exemplifies why this standard is inadequate and yet has not been recalled and is still sold today. It's known to have tipped over on other children as well and yet nothing has been done to prevent it from happening to others. It's irresponsible and action should be taken immediately by the manufacturers and the agency. Parents cannot protect their families if they don't know about the danger. Lastly, on behalf of all the Pat parents, I was asked to share an update on some of the other avenues for a tip over solution. As you know, there have been three verticals which have been working on establishing mandatory rule, the NPR, the Sturdy Act and the ASTM subcommittee. As we sit here today, we know that we know only two paths, we now only have two paths as a Sturdy Act and the voluntary standard are tied together to the point that one will likely not advance without the other. This leaves us with either the NPR path or the Sturdy Act path. It has been a very difficult and emotional task for the parents to work directly with the very manufacturers who killed our children, but paths facilitate good faith agreements on both the Sturdy Act and the new ASTM standard. However, in recent weeks, we have began to lose faith in our compromises, lose faith in the legislative process and lose faith that the mandatory rule via the Sturdy Act will eventually become a rule. With 11th hour changes to previous agreements, it is evident that far too many stakeholders on all sides of the issue are more worried about their own interests than actually finalizing a rule which will prevent tip overs. While we are not throwing at the table just yet on these efforts, we are closed. Therefore, Pat urges the CPSC to continue your diligence and prioritize tip overs as one of the biggest threats to U.S. children. You must finish the job as we know we don't know if any other avenue will ever cross the finish line. In closing, we want to remind the commission that safety programs don't save lives that people don't know about them. Tip overs and in particular clothing storage unit tip overs remain a hazard in every American home and put the most vulnerable population are children and elders at risk of injury and death. Injuries and deaths that would be prevented by a multi-pronged approach of strong, comprehensive, robust and timely final rule on CSU safety, expansion of the anchor program and saferproducts.gov, and a robust communication and recall program to educate consumers in a timely manner and alert the public to known product hazards quickly. It will save lives. If the agency embraced and implemented these strategies 24 years ago, our children and hundreds more would be here today. Thank you for this opportunity to share our perspective with you. Thank you, Mr. Lawn. Appreciate you attending today. Next we'll move to Mr. Howell. Good morning. The American Fireworks Standards Laboratory, AFSL, thanks to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for holding this annual agenda and priorities hearing and for offering all stakeholders the opportunity to submit both written and oral comments. As an organization committed to the safe design, production, sale and use of consumer fireworks, AFSL's comments will focus on the following areas where it believes CPSC can have the greatest impact in protecting consumers from preventable injuries and deaths associated with consumer fireworks. First, enhancing enforcement against the importation and sale of illegal aerial explosives, partnering with industry to broaden education efforts related to the safe use of consumer fireworks, and re-engaging in rulemaking to update and improve the current mandatory standards for consumer fireworks. AFSL was established in 1989 as an independent, non-profit, voluntary standards development and product testing and certification organization. AFSL is not an industry association. Let me repeat that. AFSL is not an industry association. Through its Consumer Fireworks Standards Committee, with representation from government, consumers and industry, AFSL establishes and maintains comprehensive performance, content and labeling standards for consumer fireworks. These regularly updated standards quickly adjust to changes in consumer fireworks product trends and hazard issues, and include all current mandatory CPSC and APA DOT consumer fireworks standards relative to the consumer use of fireworks. Because AFSL standards go well beyond those established and enforced by either the CPSC or DOT, AFSL believes its standards greatly contribute to the overall safe use and enjoyment of consumer fireworks. AFSL appreciates the value contributions that CPSC staff have made to this process as non-voting members of its standards committee over the years. AFSL ensures that all fireworks imported into the U.S. bias members are thoroughly tested and certified by an independent CPSC accepted laboratory, as meeting all applicable AFSL standards prior to their shipment to or selling to the United States. Fireworks that fail to comply with AFSL standards may not be imported or sold in the U.S. by the AFSL member under the terms of their agreement with AFSL. AFSL tested 12.6 million cases of fireworks in 2021. We estimate that it tests approximately 80% of the consumer fireworks imported into the U.S. each year. Slightly over 95% of the cases tested by AFSL in 2021 complied with all requirements, and only cases that successfully test all requirements may be imported with AFSL's label. In addition to testing, AFSL works with its members, especially new ones, to educate them regarding the requirements under the mandatory and voluntary standards as well as other compliance matters. AFSL is deeply committed to reducing the number of injuries and deaths associated with consumer fireworks. As part of its efforts in this regard, AFSL conducts its own investigations into reported deaths and injuries. These investigations help identify areas of potential risk that AFSL can address with its members. Patterns of consumer misuse that AFSL and other stakeholders can target through consumer education and outreach, and potential areas where AFSL standards can be updated or improved. Finally, AFSL actively works with government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels, including many state local fire marshals, by supporting and promoting their safety messaging on the safe use of fireworks and by providing training to these agencies on how to identify potentially unsafe and non-compliant fireworks and explosives to increase enforcement against such products. Consumer fireworks that do not meet CPSC safety standards and display fireworks illegally sold to consumers are not merely non-compliant products. They are extremely dangerous illegal explosives. The most common violation found by CPSC, as shown in CPSC's Notice of Violations from 2017 through 2019, is pyrotechnic material overload. In lay terms, this means that the device has more explosive materials and thus more stored explosive energy than allowed by the law. The use of overloaded fireworks or other fireworks with substantive safety violations can lead to catastrophic injury or even death. Consumers' use of display fireworks, which are more powerful, have shorter fused burn times and require specialized knowledge and equipment to shoot safely, can be similarly tragic. We must concern ourselves not only with consumers who intend to use these products safely and responsibly, but also those who choose not to. Otherwise, these products are essentially explosive devices that can be used to cause immeasurable harm. Therefore, we urge CPSC to take more aggressive action to stop the importation, shipment, and illegal sell of such illegal explosives. CPSC can more effectively target these products' important inspections by focusing on imported fireworks that do not bear the AFSL logo, which is highly correlated with compliant and safe products. CPSC should also take advantage of its exceptional group of field officers by enhancing inspections of retailers of consumer fireworks, especially in the run-up to the 4th of July. Additionally, CPSC should enhance its efforts to educate consumers about how to make sure they're buying and using compliant and safe consumer fireworks. CPSC's annual fireworks safety event on the National Mall is always an important and popular way to advance fireworks safety-related messaging. The fireworks industry also has ongoing messaging programs, such as the materials found on the APA's Fireworks Safety Foundation website, the NFA Fireworks Safety Videos, safety materials distributed in the tents and stores of many of the AFSL members, and with AFSL's retail consumer product safety and compliance partners, including Target and Walmart. However, we need more sustained and strategic efforts if we're going to move the needle in addressing these types of irresponsible behavior that lead to preventable fireworks-related deaths and injuries each year. As we noted earlier, AFSL tests approximately 80% of the consumer fireworks imported into the U.S. Our compliance rate is average 95% over the last 10 years and is trending upwards. However, we need something more than a higher level of compliance to the standard if we're going to continue to reduce the risk of injuries from fireworks. We need to bend the curve downwards. We need more effective safety messaging targeting the very different user groups. We have those responsible users who need good information on how to celebrate safely with fireworks. But we also have those who use fireworks in an irresponsible manner who need to better understand the risk they take and the severe consequences they face that could result from their behavior. To address this need, AFSL has partnered with the public relations firm to design and disseminate an effective safety campaign aimed directly at fireworks users who are at most risk of fireworks-related deaths and injuries. Those who engage in irresponsible and unsafe use of fireworks. There's little time, only a few months until the 4th of July, to drive home a message that will help reduce the number of injuries and deaths that may occur around this holiday. As an organization dedicated to enhancing fireworks safety, we would welcome the opportunity to work with CPSC to get the safety message out to a broad audience between now and Independence Day. And if you folks would put up the brief poster and this is a little bit of a tease, this is our campaign this year. Save the fingers. That will be introduced as we approach the 4th of July along with not only media kits for all of our members, but there are some videos that will be out there. We are targeting this group of folks that tend to, you see them on YouTube, they tend to use fireworks in a somewhat irresponsible manner, and we're trying to get a message through to them to make them aware of the risks that they face. In 2019, AFSL was disappointed that the commission failed to pass the rigorous and protective final rule proposed by CPSC staff. AFSL had expressed a strong support for the proposed rulemaking with some suggested modifications and clarifications. The proposed rule was essential for bringing CPSC's mandatory requirements, which have not been updated in many years, in line with other mandatory federal regulations, current voluntary standards, and advances in technology. The proposed rule included an important safety updates that would have made consumer fireworks safer, while also removing some unnecessary burdens on industry. For example, an important and much discussed update in the proposed final rule was a replacement of the extremely subjective ear test. With a quantifiable method of identifying devices intended to produce audible effects under section 1500.1783. Any test required to determine compliance with a federal regulation should be objective, repeatable, and reproducible. The current CPSC method fails to meet any of these criteria. At the time of the vote, some commissioners expressed concern over the data supporting staff's recommendations. While we are confident that staff's proposed final rule was fully supported by available data, I appreciate it. Sorry, you're now beyond your 10 minutes. If you could just wrap up and summarize. Let me sum it up. We thank you for providing us an opportunity to testify at the annual priorities hearing. And we are committed to working cooperatively with CPSC to advance our joint mention, which is protecting Americans consumers. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you wrapping up. Finally, I believe that Dr. Paul is here and recognized for 10 minutes. Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. If I could have my slides put up, that would be great. So I'm here. I'm Ian Palm, the chief of general pediatrics at Penn State College of Medicine Hershey, Pennsylvania, and I'm here in support of the breastfeeding and infant development support alliance. I do want to disclose that I've been a paid consultant since October of 2021 for the BAPI company via the law firm Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP. And they asked me to do work to look at the evidence to support infant support pillars. Next slide, please. So I'm going to take you through briefly the professional support for infant pillars as shown by several policy statements or guidelines from professional societies, including the Academy for breastfeeding medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as numerous peer review publications describe the benefit of infant support pillars. Next slide, please. I should mention that the context for this presentation is the proposed expansion of the infant pillow band that I've read about from CPSC. So with that in mind, I want to discuss first the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine clinical protocol number 14, which describes the breastfeeding friendly physician's office. And in this policy statement, they describe the optimal optimal circumstance for a health care provider to evaluate the mother baby diet and say, and they say that it requires a nursing pillow. So I'll read the quote. The goal would be to provide a comfortable seating and a nursing pillow for the breastfeeding diet to facilitate adequate evaluation. So a health care provider in order to properly evaluate a mother baby diet, who are breastfeeding requires a nursing pillow. And of course, doing this in a physician office models what mothers should be doing with their infants outside the office. This policy statement was written first in 2006, and then it was republished in 2013 with some modifications. Next slide, please. The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine's clinical protocol number 16 describes breastfeeding of a hypotonic infant, and of course, a hypotonic infant has unique challenges due to their low tone. And this policy statement says that use of a sling or pillows to support the infant in a flex position allows the mother to use her hands to support both the breast and the infant's jaw simultaneously. So again, supporting the use of an infant support pillow to support breastfeeding. Next slide, please. The American Accounting Pediatrics in several places also supports the use of pillows. So their AAP's consumer website, how they promote guidance to parents on their healthychildren.org website describes positions for breastfeeding. And in a single paragraph, pillows are mentioned four times. I'll read it to you. Most new mothers first try breastfeeding sitting up in a hospital bed with the baby supported by a pillow in their lap and cradle and arms. If you choose this position, elevate the bed as much as possible and place pillows behind you until your back is comfortable. Place your baby on a pillow on your lap. This is especially a good idea if you've given birth by cesarean section. So his head is level with your breast. Put pillows at your side, rest your arms on so they won't tire in midfeeding. Next slide, please. The American Accounting Pediatrics Committee on Genetics has a policy statement for the health supervision for people with achondroplasia. Of course, just like the hypotonic infant, these mothers and babies have unique challenges. Quote from their policy statement that was written in 2020. Position the infant for feeding with a straight back and head and neck and alignment supported by firm pillows. Next slide, please. Lauletchi League is another organization that describes using pillows to support breastfeeding. They write regarding breastfeeding positioning on their website. Position yourself comfortably with back support. Pillows supporting your arms and your baby and your feet supported by a foot rest or a tells a book. Next slide, please. The next professional organization that supports pillows would be our United States government's USDA via the Women, Infant and Children WIC program. And they write on their website, pillows can help make breastfeeding more comfortable and relaxing for you and your baby. You can use pillows under your arms, elbows, neck, or back to give you added comfort and support. Keep trying different positions till you're comfortable. What works for one feeding may not work for the next feeding. Next slide, please. So those are the professional organizations summaries regarding pillows. But there's also evidence in the peer reviewed literature. So the first study I'll describe to you was published in pediatric reports since 2020. It was a randomized controlled trial of 70 women in Indonesia assigned to using breastfeeding pillow or control. And the outcome that they were describing was discomfort while nursing. And the results of the studies showed a significant reduction in maternal discomfort among the participants using breastfeeding pillows. Next slide, please. The next trial I'm going to show you about, talk to you about is a cluster trial tailored for breastfeeding support for women with gestational diabetes. And this study was led by former president of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. It was a cluster randomized trial with 100 women with gestational diabetes. The intervention group in the trial received a breastfeeding pillow as part of the intervention. And those in the intervention group were less likely to stop breastfeeding in order to introduce formula. Next slide, please. I mentioned to you earlier the Academy of Medicine protocol, the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine protocol for a breastfeeding friendly office. This trial reported in pediatrics in 2017 actually tested that protocol with 757 women and they followed them through each six months. Just to remind you, the Academy of Breastfeeding Policy statement says that women should be seen in a special equipped room that includes a precision scale to measure milk transfer, a comfortable chair, breastfeeding pillow, and supplies that may be needed by the IBCLC. So just by using this protocol in the office, in this trial, they showed that women were more likely to continue exclusively breastfeeding. And this was a statistically significant increase at all five time points that they studied between birth and age six months. Next slide, please. There's also been several qualitative studies describing women's perception of support pillows for breastfeeding. One that was published in BMC research notes in 2013 studied 383 Nigerian women and over 80% felt that nursing pillows were essential during breastfeeding. Pillows have also been cited as helpful for those with postpartum depression as reported breastfeeding medicine last year. Pillows have been cited as supportive women to attempt breastfeeding in a resident run clinic reported in breastfeeding medicine in 2013. And pillows have also been shown to be helpful for reported to be helpful for women with obesity as reported maternal child nutrition in 2017. Next slide. There's also been two studies that have shown support for infant motor development. One showed that babies have increased tolerance in the prone position when they've been spending time on the infant support pillows. And they've also been shown to promote variation in motor behavior, particularly among infants with minor neurologic dysfunction. Next slide. So in summary, just want to reiterate in the context of the call for the expansion of the infant pillow band, the professional guidelines and her guidance from Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, American Encounter Pediatrics, La Leche League and USDA support the use of infant pillows to aid breastfeeding mother infant diets. And there's certainly evidence from the peer-reviewed medical literature to also support these pillows for breastfeeding and infant motor development. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you. And thanks to the entire panel for coming and testifying today. As I started out, there are many things that the commission is working on, but among the ones that we have been very focused on recently, is furniture tip overs. The common period for CSU and this proposed rulemaking closed this month. And we, as we have said, and I think many of the commissioners have said something that we need to work on quickly and to come to the conclusion as quickly as possible based on the comments that we're getting in. I also was interested in the comments on knockoff anchoring kits. That is something that I am not focused on, have to follow up. And I also appreciate the partnerships that we've had with a number of the groups on Anchorage Campaign and anybody honestly who was helping to disseminate information that we're providing to consumers on how to protect themselves and consumer products. And with respect to making sure that consumers know about where to report on dangerous products. I've been talking to the ER physicians looking to figure out if there are ways to better get information out to patients who are injured by the products or whose kids have been injured by the products. So happy to continue to work on that as well. I do say that I've learned much from the questions that my colleagues have been asking the first panel, and I do want to hear from them. So I may take up a second round, but at this point in time, turn to Commissioner Bianco for her questions. Thank you, Chairman. I do have some questions and comments for this panel or on this panel. First of all, Dr. Paul, thank you for being here. I have been very stressed, frankly, in this position as to why the information you just presented and the Academy Association or Academy of Pediatrics has given completely contradictory positions on these nursing pillows. So I do appreciate you, you know, providing this information. Do you have an opinion on why there's just people taking up one position in another position and they don't match at all? Do you have an opinion on that or what's your thoughts? Yeah, so certainly I'm speaking for myself on this as a pediatrician and not representing anybody else, including the American Academy of Pediatrics or any manufacturers. So having served on American Academy of Pediatrics committees, national committees before, I recognize the difficult position that the Academy is often in and there's competing goals here, certainly. So those of us who are focused on breastfeeding first are certainly going to be passionate and feel very strongly about anything that we can do to promote breastfeeding is important. Whereas on the other hand, those of us that are more focused on infant safety would focus on the safety issue. So I think it doesn't mean that it's possible that both are right, that we want to do both. We want to support breastfeeding and we want to make every baby safe. And I think that there's probably a way to work to do that. Can we prevent every single death or the use of products that the inappropriate use of products? No, we can't do that in the consumer home, but I think we can work collaboratively to make products that are useful for moms and babies as safe as possible. Are you currently Dr. Paul, a member of the Academy of Pediatrics? Yes, I am a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Let me address something that both Ms. Shin and Dr. Paul said, because this was something that has been on my mind. And that is the reference to an expansion on the pillow ban. And then I think Ms. Shin had made a reference to the agency pulling back its work. Let me explain something from my perspective and why I voted, the way I did on the operating committee on this issue or operating plan. First of all, you can't just expand a pillow ban or any ban to include or encompass a group of products without going through the process. Those processes have not been addressed yet. So I believe that telling the staff to go back and do what they're supposed to do is necessary. That does not mean we're cutting back on it, but frankly we haven't had any work done to the extent necessary to conduct a ban. On nursing pillows. And that we need to go back to the beginning and do the work. So it's not that we're cutting back on the work. It was not adequate work done. And so that needs to be done just so we're clear. I think that's really important. And I think this issue has a long way to go. I think that we have people on both ends of the spectrum. I can tell you that my previous leadership, who I'm sure has never breastfed ever, took a position that was conclusory and really did not have anything to back it. So I'm proud that this agency is going to go through the proper steps and that we are hearing from all people who are involved. And I think it's very necessary. I think you're right, Dr. Paul, that we can look at safety and we can look at issues that are pertinent to women and infants. And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. So stay tuned on that. I'm watching this one very closely. Mr. Long, I don't know, you know, we've talked before and I know you all have been through a horrible, horrible experiences. But I wasn't here 24 years ago. I wasn't here 10 years ago. I wasn't even here five years ago. But I can tell you that I'm here now. And along with my colleagues, I think there's a thank goodness, a thought that we need to move things a little quicker. I mean, moving things quicker does not mean just moving things quicker. I think that there really needs to be workable solutions, real solutions that fix the problem and a constant monitoring and updating where necessary. But dragging them out for the years that they've been a drug out, whether it's on this issue or any others, I have never been a supporter of. I wasn't a supporter of when I got here four years ago and I'm not a supporter of dragging this stuff out now. And I am a believer that there are workable solutions for many of the product issues that we see and they need to be done. That does not mean and I'm going to hold Dr. Paul again here because I think this applies to almost every product that we see. We cannot protect every, against every possible risk, but we can certainly protect against unreasonable risks and certainly the majority of the risks that aren't even dealt with now. I will continue to support, you know, stronger work, deeper work and moving these things forward, not only to you, Mr. Long, but to everybody on every issue. Mr. Howe. So let's talk about fireworks. Personally, I think fireworks are exactly what they are. They're dangerous. You light them on fire and they explode. I mean, let's start from there. I'm interested in your comments in many regards. First of all, all fireworks are imported, correct? There's no domestically made fireworks. I don't think you're on. Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. Yes, ma'am. Only display fireworks tend to be manufactured in very limited quantities in the U.S. The consumer fireworks are imported. Okay. So any actions that we take need to be taken to stop the non-compliant fireworks at the ports, correct? Yes, absolutely. Okay. And I appreciate your campaign this year. I'm wondering if you're going to be putting those posters in liquor stores. You know, we're going to put them every place where people will carry them. You know, we've been very proud of the fact that Walmart and Target have partnered with us to start the first year that we've partnered with Walmart. They have been great partners in helping us get the safety message out. This year, with a more formal campaign, we're going to expand beyond that too. Hopefully some of our state fire marshal partners, certainly all of our members and others, and hopefully CPSC. So I personally did several media interviews on the use of fireworks and with COVID, the years have now blended to these. I don't know if it was last year or the year before I did an entire media campaign on giving out information on how to use them appropriately and safer. But it seems to me when I read a lot of the reports on the injuries, almost all, I'll say it all, but almost all of them involve the misuse of these consumer fireworks. So I would like to hear what your recommendations are for addressing misuse. So you're actually correct. You know, we've identified two audiences out there, right? There's the user who wants to use them responsibly and they need to understand better how to use them and celebrate safely with their family. But you go out to YouTube, you can see the other group, the group that quite frankly you have to be careful about what you tell them not to do because oftentimes that's exactly what they're going to do. They are using the product irresponsibly and you have to be a little creative about how to address that group. And so what we're trying to do is we've modeled our campaign a little bit after a campaign that was run years ago, I think it was Melbourne, Australia. Their Metro organization had some safety incidents and they created a campaign called Dumb Ways to Die. And it went viral. I understand and on that note, I'd like to know are you doing anything like are you reaching out to social media groups like YouTube or Facebook to say stop posting this stuff. It's dangerous. It is a misuse and it contributes to injury. Are you doing anything along that way? You know, certainly that's something that we've intended to do. We've not done it yet. Whether or not it's been done prior to J-Holl joining AFSL, I don't have knowledge of that. Certainly we want to. I don't know that that's going to end it all with a lot of the debate, but certainly we need to get that message out to those that need to understand the risks that they're taking and those that are quite frankly promoting the irresponsible use of the product. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all that I have right now. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was raised earlier and I wanted to thank you again to all of the witnesses for being here today. I do appreciate your testimony. It was raised earlier and I wanted to circle back to the issue of Inspector General Recommendation Implementation. So this question is for Consumer Reports. Miss Shin, on page two of your written testimony and the testimony you provided here today, you state that CPSC agency staff should be given free reign to ignore recommendations from our independent Inspector General. And I must admit, given the important role that Inspector General serve, I frankly find such a statement to be quite shocking. Our Inspector General is empowered to be an independent and objective voice within CPSC to combat waste, fraud and abuse, which unfortunately we've seen all too much of here at CPSC. And that includes the 2019 Clearinghouse Data Breach. And frankly, much like Consumer Reports itself, RIG serves as a watchdog for the betterment of the agency and our mission. RIG is nominated by the President of the United States. Our Inspector General is confirmed by the United States Senate. Our career agency staff is neither, which is another reason I find your suggestion to be just so troubling. And for too long, I'll be frank, our Inspector General recommendations here at CPSC have been ignored. Some of the unimplemented IG recommendations are over a decade old. That's why Commissioner Biakko and I sought to expedite the implementation of IG recommendations in the current CPSC operating plan. And to be clear, several of the unimplemented IG recommendations stem from the IG's investigation into the 2019 Data Breach, which included the unauthorized disclosure of consumer PII and confidential business information. So, Ms. Shin, given CR's position here, I just have to ask, which of the outstanding current Inspector General recommendations do you think staff should ignore? Thank you so much for the question, Commissioner. First, I want to state our full support of the OIG's office. We do not believe that they are some rogue entity that should be ignored completely by staff. What my comment in my position and CR's position is referring to more is that each OIG recommendation should be carefully considered, just because there might be some inner workings that I am not aware of that might conflict and that might need a little bit more time to investigate and make sure that the recommendations that the OIG provide do align with what the staff is doing. And that's more of where our concern is. It's just that we want to make sure that each OIG recommendation is carefully considered and calibrated to what the staff needs and what the staff is able to do at that time. But we do fully support the OIG and we do appreciate all the work that they do. Okay, but that's different than what you testified. You said that staff should be given flexibility to recommend and evaluate recommendations as appropriate for implementation with the clear implementation that some recommendations are appropriate for implementation and others. So are you backtracking in your testimony a little bit? No, I'm not backtracking at all. I think what my point is that I think what I'm trying to say in a short amount of time that I did have was just to make clear that staff should have the discretion to review, carefully review and consider all the factors that might be in play and make sure that maybe potentially that some OIG recommendations conflict with another previous OIG recommendation, make sure that those types of conflicts are considered and evaluated. And so that's where my comment about the CPSC staff should have discretion is more that they should be able to consider all the factors and ensure that they're not automatically implementing contradictory recommendations. So what should the commissioner's role here be? I believe that the commissioner's role is to help staff evaluate and make sure that the OIG's recommendations are sound and that they can be implemented smoothly and quickly. What about GIO recommendations? Should we as commissioners defer to agency staff on whether or not to implement particular GIO recommendations? I will have to get back to you on that. I haven't really looked into the role there. All right. Frankly, I'm disappointed in hearing that because the IG recommendations that we have in front of us are, as I see them designed to strengthen the agency and put us on a stronger footing to accomplish our safety mission on behalf of consumers. I think it's consistent, frankly, with the watchdog role that groups like CR in fact occupy. These recommendations are outstanding and standing need to be implemented by the presidentially nominated and Senate confirmed commissioners who are ultimately the ones that are going to be accountable. And I'm pleased to say that's exactly what we're doing right now. But I do want to move on and recognize Ms. Seifert and Ms. Belong. I want to take a moment to thank both of you for your testimony today. I don't have a specific question for you, but I do want to recognize the important work that both of you do on the issue of furniture tipovers. As you know, and as we talked about today, this is an issue that the commission is now paying close attention to your dedication and to this particular cause and the work that you've put into it have been, frankly, instrumental in getting to the commission to where it is today. And I thank you for all of that. Lastly, I'd like to address the issue of agency transparency and 6B that's been mentioned at this hearing and previously in front of the commission. We heard testimony today from some of our witnesses about Section 6B being a gag order on this agency and putting air quotes around that. In consumer reports written testimony, for example, it states that CPSC should inform the public about legitimate safety hazards in a timely and complete manner, regardless of whether or not a company wants that to occur. And this view of 6B, frankly, it's based on an erroneous reading of the statutory requirements. Companies do not have a veto over what the commission says or doesn't say. And the requirements of 6B prevent the commission, don't prevent the commission from completing a timely unilateral safety notices to the American public. I'm encouraged that in my recent experience at the agency, the commission has included several of these unilateral safety disclosures. I'm also encouraged that the commission is making more frequent use of its health and safety authority to shorten the time period that many of these releases have and tying those findings to administrative litigation, if appropriate. This is something that I've advocated strongly for. And we've also been able to provide the notice in as little as 24 hours and to do so over the objection of the target firm and with full statutory due process. And in all of these recent cases, I've supported providing this expedited notice. So listen, 6B is hardly a gag order, and yet this myth persists. What is accurate is that the commission has misapplied the statute at times. In my view, the commission's also demonstrated a lack of political will to be fully transparent and to use the full set of enforcement tools that we have under our control. And I'm not alone in this view. There was an op-ed last year in 2021 from Alan Schoem, our former assistant general counsel. He also served as the director of the Office of Compliance. Mr. Schoem wrote that it's disingenuous on the part of the critics of 6B to claim that 6B prevents the commission from acting quickly to warn the public about a product hazard. Mr. Schoem served nearly 15 years with the agency. He wrote further that what appears to prevent us from acting quickly is the commission itself and our seeming inability to understand and use our existing authority. So I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Schoem's article op-ed be included up for the record. Without objection. Thank you. And thank you again to all the witnesses who participated here today. Your testimony is important for us to consider as we shape CPSC's agenda and our future priorities for the coming years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues and commissioners. Trumpka and Biaka for today's discussion. I think it was positive. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions and I would yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Trumpka. Thank you. And Commissioner Feldman, thank you for those, for the statements you made about the importance and power of unilaterals there. I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is, it's a tool that we need to make sure we use every time it's appropriate. And you've certainly been a champion and proponent of its use and much thanks for that. Ms. Shin, I wanted to ask, you made an interesting point that I wanted you to expand on. You want us to, quote, make it clear to the public in Congress when the statutory civil penalty cap results in a lower penalty than otherwise would have been justified by a company's conduct. What would you like to see there? And I think, thank you for the question. First of all, Commissioner Trumpka, I would like to harken back to what Commissioner Feldman said in the first panel regarding civil penalties, because we wholeheartedly agree that there is a statutory limitation that is preventing the CPSC from really providing, really penalizing companies that are not following, following the rules. And so, and not reporting as they should. And so what we would love to see first is a statutory amendment and change. I agree with Ms. Coles from Kidd in the panel one about eliminating the maximum penalty altogether, especially when we're talking about multi-billion-dollar companies. And so that would be the first step. The second step really would be to, would be to use the new penalty maximums that we would have. Some of these companies have had some awful track records and they should be penalized accordingly. I think I also think that using the whole toolkit that the CPSC has in addition to civil penalties is necessary, including those unilateral warnings that you and Commissioner Feldman have mentioned today. That is definitely something that we're seeing here at CR as being very powerful in making sure that previously uncooperative companies are working with the CPSC in order to protect children and consumers. You mentioned the whole toolkit and one thing you mentioned in your written testimony was the use of criminal penalties. How could those be an important tool to further our mission? I think the first thing would be to find if there is any criminal violation and if there is, and that's something that I am personally not aware of at the moment. I can do a little research to see, however, it is a tool in the toolkit that is readily available and should be used if there is a violation of the law. Consumer Reports made a recommendation in the written testimony that we implement internal mechanisms to protect staff from external and internal pressures that would distract them from their work protecting consumers' safety. What are external pressures that you're worried about and what should those new protection mechanisms look like? Overall, I think that the agency has actually started to work on this. We're seeing a change in how staff, and we've always said to staff that we appreciate all the work that they're doing in the voluntary standards process as well as the mandatory standards process. But there are times when there is a change in the dynamics in the leadership where we do see a slowdown or delay of certain activities that CER has invested interest in seeing move forward quickly. And sometimes we do hope that certain changes in dynamics don't delay, but we would like to prevent that kind of incident from happening so that we can help address all the product safety hazards that are out there today. One prime example really that I can think of is the delays that we had seen with persistent hazards, whether it's window covering cords or CSU rulemaking. I think we would all agree that they took way too long, and there is a concern that maybe there had been delays because of these shifts. You know, I would, if you could follow up with maybe more detailed recommendations on what our mechanisms could look like, I think it'd be really useful for us to consider how we could prevent those types of delays going forward. So, Mr. Long, you said that the final rules have often taken the agency years, and I agree with you that years long timelines from an NPR to a final rule are not acceptable. Just wanted to state my agreement with you there. When a child, a separate question here, but when a child's been injured or killed, police are often the first people who are on the scene to find out what happened, and I think very understandably with the grief that families are experiencing, some parents don't want to talk. But some of their hesitation, if it's not due to grief, if there's any part of it that's due to fear in interacting with authorities, do you think it would benefit parents for CPSC to provide guidance to police on how to respond respectfully in those types of situations? So speaking from my experience, as when you're in that situation, you are interrogated to a level that nobody should be subjected to. You know, your home is infiltrated by police and every single one of us on par from Pat have been interrogated by DCF, threatened to have children taken away from us. So, yes, I think that when CPSC knocked on my door and they asked me, can we publish this? And I was like, you want to publish the worst day of my life? Like, where is this going? Who is seeing this? I have no idea. So if that was something that had been brought to my attention by the police officers, you know, I had so many different, you know, we did a reenactment. We had special victims like somebody saying to me like, hey, this is an organization that's going to reach out and this is what they're going to do. And this is why they need it. Yes, I think that would be super helpful. You know, many of us spend a lot of time in the hospital, you know, praying for the best outcome. If those doctors had known, again, brought it to my attention. Again, you know, we're interrogated by DCF and I'm a social worker. I know that that's their job. But if they had brought that to my attention, but the thing is, nobody is bringing to your attention when you're on, you know, when you've relived the worst day of your life, the 20th time in a row. And I have no idea where it's going. And, you know, for a long time before I knew the data from my son's death wasn't even brought into the whole ASCN process. So his dresser met the voluntary standard, but it wasn't even brought into the discussion because I didn't know. Well, thank you. That's a really, really useful perspective, which is why I'm so happy you're here to share it today. You know, the more of the incident reports that we read when we look at a fatality, the more obvious it is that, you know, sometimes police might not be ill-intentioned with their questions. But as you read them, they're jarring, you know, asking a parent who just lost a child for the third time, whether they're lying about what actually happened. They're used to investigating criminals, and I don't think there's any ill intent, but some education could be very useful there. Missy, you believe it is important for CPSC to address CSUs that are already in people's homes and present a hazard. Can you elaborate on the importance of that aspect? Well, so many people pass down furniture, especially the older furniture that's been passed down in generations, and all those need to be anchored, absolutely. So anchor it, anchor it not only covers older furniture, but also it should cover and does the use of the straps that do come with the furniture. Mr. Hal, you've suggested that we partner with industry to educate the public about fireworks. And I think obviously we can't allow regulated entities to have input in the substance of our public education because of the inherent conflict of interest. But if you're an organization sincere about promoting firework safety messaging, would you agree to promote CPSC's firework safety messaging using all of your available channels like websites and paid advertising? So, Commissioner Trump, we have in the past reached out to CPSC, actually shared the demographic last year, but I will remind you that AFSL is not a regulated entity. We don't sell fireworks. We don't import fireworks. We're a test and standards development organization. So there again, I would suggest that perhaps we would be able to share our educational materials and then your staff could make their decision whether or not that was something they felt like they could help get that message out to a broader audience. So you would be open to pushing out our messaging on your website and through paid advertising? Yes. I mean, we've pushed your message out on our social media before. That's not anything new. That is great to hear. And I also wanted to state that I agree with Commissioner Biacco on this that we know these are dangerous products and that's a different position than a lot of the products we look at, which makes that messaging necessary here. I do have concerns that the thrust of your testimony seemed to focus on blaming the users and not the product, but I'm going to move on from that. So, Mr. Chair, I think I'm probably going to spill over into a second round before you cut me off. Should I stop here for now? Why don't you stop here from now? We'll start a second round. Thanks, Commissioner. So I had a couple of questions coming from some of the questions that were raised in the first round. So I appreciate that. Dr. Paul, I know that you focus a lot on banning of nursing pillows. And it's really been my understanding that a lot of the focus has been more on whether there should be standards for the pillows, whether it's nursing pillows out there to really focus on the first round. And that's the fact that oftentimes children go to sleep on the pillows as they're nursing. And what happens after that? Putting this on the ban, which I think is not really, I think, with the focus that I've heard, are you opposed to looking at and writing standards for the pillows to make sure that they are safe as they can be while being still utilized for the purpose that you're talking about? I think they should be used as they're designed. And I would not be opposed to standards. Ms. Shin, is my understanding consistent with what Sierra's been advocating for? Or is there something else that you've been advocating for? So I understand your position as well. No, that is correct. We want to make sure that nursing pillows are used for its specific purpose and that it is designed and that there are standards to prevent it being used for other things like sleep. So you're not advocating for banning nursing pillows? No, we agree that they have a very functional role to play in the caring of children. Got it. Yeah, I think this is more of a comment. I know that 6B has raised a number of times and I would note that no other safety agency has a statutory construct like 6B when it comes to disclosing information about particular dangers that name companies or products in particular. And so haven't really been, really haven't seen the problems for those sister agencies. I would say since I've been here for about six months, never seen so many people and staff talk about 6B as often. Almost every conversation I have is a consideration and it ends up being part of the considerations going forward and takes time, energy and oftentimes becomes, it just, people err on set of caution. I'm not saying that unilaterals aren't possible. Just saying it is part of the work that everybody does and a large part of the time in the mind frame that's out there. And I don't see that in our sister agencies. So, Now it's conversation that we call have and have going forward, but note that it's not simply whether a unilateral can go out is how much focus time and tensions is put out there and how that affects the work that we can do in the most effective way possible. So, With that, I turn to Commissioner Bianco for a second round. Thank you. I really only have one follow up question for mission. I heard you reference earlier certain issues that CR has a vested interest in. Can you explain to me what that means? It's a vested interest. Well, product safety is core to our mission and we do monitor very carefully the products that are out there and we have a vested interest in ensuring that all products that are out there need a standard or are as safe as they can be. How? I mean, as an advocacy group as a magazine, I'm struggling to understand what you mean here because I may be because vested interest means something different to me. Sure. Thank you so much, Commissioner and I'm happy to clarify. So, as a team member on the product safety team here, the CPSC and as some as as part of a company who really is ensuring that consumer interests are served, we want to make sure that that consumers are are Excuse me. I'm trying to find the right words. That really it's about the vested interest is really more about our interest being in the consumers well being and then their safety and that might have been something I actually maybe overstated and I apologize if I created any confusion. Really what we want to make sure is that consumers are kept safe and that the products that are out there are are as safe as possible. And I get that I would you agree with me though that maybe CRS charge and and the CPSC charge, which is to protect consumers from the unreasonable risks of harm may not always dovetail. We would like to think that we do dovetail. I would like to I would I would love to talk more and and if you would be so kind to just give me a little bit more time to look into this because I would actually argue that our interests do dovetail. And so it would love to continue that conversation to kind of clarify how we can of course anytime you'd like I would appreciate that. Absolutely. Absolutely. That's it for me. Thank you, Commissioner, Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any further questions. I just want to again thank everybody on the panel for being here today. This testimony is so important to what we do. Mr. Chairman, thank you for running a smooth process today. We'll yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump. All right. Commissioner Feldman keeps yielding back his time. I think I might use it all. So sorry. But Dr. Paul, you conducted an important study in 2016 where you took a look at video of parents putting their infant infants to sleep in their own homes. And you found that despite the messaging that had been out there to put infants to sleep on their back on a firm flat surface with nothing else in the environment is that the vast majority of parents then were still putting their children to sleep in unsafe environments. 21% on unsafe surfaces, 14% not on their backs, 91% on loose items like stuffed animals and pillows. And these were parents that knew they were being recorded. I think you said you believed at the time that sleep deprivation could have contributed to some of those unsafe decisions. Is that right? I believe that that's correct. Okay. I mean, and particularly when there was a parent who was moving a fussy infant from one sleep location to a second sleep location in the middle of the night. Is that right? That's right, Commissioner. Thank you. And for that study, you counted it as an unsafe sleep environment. If the baby slept in bed with the parents or in a car seat, co-sleeper or in a baby swing, essentially anything that wasn't a crib bassinet or playpen, right? I'm going to take it. Forgive me. It's been a while since I wrote that paper and I've looked at the details of that. I wasn't, I didn't prepare by reviewing that paper today. You know, it's unfair because I read it yesterday, so. Right. I've written a couple of papers since then. I've noticed that you are a prolific writer. But this one, you know, I thought was really important. And that's why I wanted to ask a little bit about it. And if you'll accept my assertion that that's what I accept it. I appreciate that. Thank you. And you counted pillows and soft bedding as unsafe loose items. Do you remember that part of it? Yes, sir. Thank you. So I imagine you would not recommend that a baby be put to sleep for the night in a soft infant pillow, right? That's correct. And then based on that study, sleep-deprived parents, they, as you said, they were making these unsafe decisions when they moved a baby to a second or third environment in the middle of the night. In that state, parents might not heed a label warning against sleep in that product. Is that consistent with what you would have found? That's fair. So, look, I also want to say that I very much appreciate your disclosure at the outset of your testimony of having testified for BAPI. I think that's really important to be transparent and it's much appreciated here. I'm not sure if we always see it, so I thank you. I do have some questions about the group that you're testifying for because when I tried to look into the breastfeeding and infant development support alliance, I couldn't find much. I couldn't find a Form 990, which all nonprofits file with the IRS. I had trouble finding a website for the group and I did find it. I found a bare bones website that looks like it was recently created. It has a mark at the bottom of the page that says copyright 2022. Is it a newly formed group? I am not prepared to speak on the origins and the history of the alliance. I would more say I'm supportive of their goals to find a safe use for these infant support pillows because I do believe that there is a place for the safe use of them. You know, you're here because you think that breastfeeding is beneficial and I appreciate that and I think you're definitely an expert on that. And to the extent things can make that easier, you said before, I mean, you're interested in making sure that the mothers are able to do that and that the breastfeeding is facilitated. There might be a divergence in the group's overall goals. That's what I kind of wanted to ask about because I'm not sure that's their only goal here. Commissioner, I am completely for safe sleep in my clinical practice that I was at this morning. I advocate for safe sleep. I don't believe that these infant support or breastfeeding pillows should ever be used for sleep and babies shouldn't be put to sleep in environments where these pillows are ever. I appreciate it. I think that's a useful point and thank you. You know, you're you're the other thing I want to ask about is you weren't the first witness to sign up to testify for this group. That was a lobbyist named Christine Wyman who had lobbied according to public records lobbied for Bobby docket and dream on me. Who who asked you to fill in for her. How did that come about. So let me say first I was unaware of that I was asked that someone else had been asked before or was prepared to testify. I agreed. I was asked if I would testify on the evidence that the literature view that I did for Bobby on behalf of that the law firm that they have hired and I agreed to do that. Okay. So, yeah, I think even when we take a look at the name I mean breastfeeding and infant development support Alliance sounds like something to be right up your alley it sounds like you're certainly expert on those topics. It sounds like a public health mounted group and it gives the impression that it's made up of parents and childcare professionals that's that's what I initially would have assumed. But when you look at its website, it's made up of quote, a growing group of manufacturers retailers and like minded stakeholders. The group's goal is to protect the future of infant nursing pillows you might share that goal. But I was surprised by the makeup of the group. Do you know who the officers and directors are. Commissioner I was. I appreciate you bringing this up and I will clarify I was given a two page document that described the goals and asked if I would support that and and I did. Understand what would you mind sharing that with us. The document. Yeah. I believe I can. I'd have to let me know how you'd like me to if you could follow up the secretary of our commission is Alberta Mills and if you could send that to her once once you've taken a look. Contact me and I'll see if I can get that will do thank you and and I guess maybe this is the same answer but you know the companies who make up the Alliance are. I do not. Okay, do you know who wrote the written testimony because it was delivered weeks ago before you were asked to testify do you know who wrote the testimony. I do not. I guess moving on to the substance a little bit more when you when you talk about the benefits of breastfeeding. Certainly any benefits are tied to the products that are used to facilitate breastfeeding right so so we're talking about the nursing pillows. There seems to be a separate category of round flush pillows that are used on the ground to set the baby in is that right that the breastfeeding would be tied to the nursing pillows. I am not familiar with every product that is on the market for these but I know that there are infant support pillows that are specifically used for breastfeeding and that's what the majority of my testimony was focused on. So the benefits would be tied to those products. Yes sir. You know the Alliance is testimony I had a tough time tracking this it seems to conflate those two separate product categories the nursing pillows that that you're concerned with and a separate round flush pillows that would be used on the ground and and the testimony focuses on the supposed benefits. I think what you're satisfying to have just the nursing pillows but the written testimony seems to try to tie the benefits to both categories. As you saw from my slide presentation there is limited evidence that I was able to uncover to support motor development as well. So I provided that evidence. Okay and just one more thing on that point on the on the Alliance's website. There's a further attempt to conflate two separate categories here they try to define them with one term stating quote breastfeeding and infant support products lovingly called nursing pillows by many. I think I think nursing products might be a separate category there. The Alliance the Alliance is written testimony and you did expand upon this in your presentation today. The written testimony only cited one study in support of its argument and it was a study conducted at one hospital in Indonesia that tested whether Indonesian mothers nursing sick babies in hospital beds were more comfortable if given a pillow if the mothers were more comfortable. Now certainly that's an important aspect of this whole process to to to consider because if they're not comfortable they're not going to follow through on breastfeeding but it is not an issue with the link to infant safety. And much of your testimony here today went down the same route of mothers comfort in the process which again is an important aspect to study but I think a different one than the infant safety side of things. I'll end with this my last thing is I'll mention that I have an issue with this this is a public meeting. This is not an issue with you Dr Paul but but with the group that that you're testifying on behalf. Anyone's welcome to testify here and that includes companies the manufacturer products that we that are within our jurisdiction. And I think we have a right to know if a message belongs to the messenger whose interests are are being advanced and I shouldn't have to dig to find out that a newly created group with the misleading name is actually an industry lobbying group in disguise. I why hide. Commissioner just just to address it. I want to be clear that I was asked to testify from the Alliance. I hope you appreciate that my testimony was strictly based on I do evidence based and evidence based medicine presentation with full disclosure of who supported my time to put this together. And I did not cherry pick the data or cherry pick the evidence I presented the evidence that was available. Dr Paul I don't accuse you of doing anything wrong here and and I'm glad you stepped in to clarify that because I don't. It doesn't seem like this was fully explained to you from the group who asked you to testify with their name your testimony on its own. I don't question anything that you presented to us and so thank you for for contributing to the conversation and for making that clarification but I think overall my point is one of transparency. You certainly did actively you know present a transparent disclosure, but I think the group did not and and I think we're entitled to to know who's who's actually being having your interest advanced when when testimony is presented but thank you. Thank you. That includes this round. Would anybody else like to go to another round. No only I just want to remind everyone both panels and the Commission that this is a priorities hearing and I think we're we all including myself have gone down some some paths that we need to get back on to the priorities. This my opinion. Mr Felman, Trump. Dr Paul. Just just real quick in your written testimony. I'm not sure that that included the slide deck that you provided today. If you haven't already would you would you please make sure that we all get an electronic copy of it or at least Miss Mills. I'm sorry. What is it that you're asking me to do this slide deck that you present included as part of your presentation today. I sent that. I think that was sent in. I think you have that slide presentation. I have not seen it. That doesn't mean that we haven't received it. Let us let us check on our end and I appreciate that. Thank you for your testimony. Yeah, I wasn't managing the slides today. Those were managed on your end. We'll make sure you get those. Commissioner Felman. Thank you very much. I have no further question. Well, once again, I want to thank all the people who have testified today value of this event is opportunity to hear from a variety of stakeholders on the commission's priorities and also to hear from my fellow commissioners. So I'm looking forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, CPSC's dedicated professional staff and all interested stakeholders as we look forward on how we can do everything we can within our authority and resources to reduce the unreasonable risks of injuries and deaths associated with consumer products in the coming years. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you again. Thank you.