>> Good morning and welcome
to this public meeting
of the United States Consumer
Public Safety Commission.
Today we will consider one agenda item;
the Notice of Proposed Rule Safety
Standard for Baby Changing Products.
This proposed rule would establish a
safety standard for baby changing products
under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety
Notification Act, also known as section 104
of the Consumer Products
Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
We will, as we always do, start with five
minutes of questions for each commissioner
to ask of the staff in front of us and then we
will turn to consideration of the proposed rule.
Today we are joined by Mr. Mark Kumagai
who is the Director of the Division
of Mechanical Engineering and the Directorate
for Engineering Sciences NEXHR and,
Ms. Meridith Kelsch Attorney in
the Office of the General Council.
I do want to thank the both of you for
the excellent work on this package.
It was well written and easy to digest which
is not always the case for us to be able
to do that with some of these topics.
So, I appreciate the work that you did.
I'm going to start with questions.
Mr. Kumagai, if you could just give us
a brief sense, please, of how the back
and forth has gone and just to set it
up, so Section 104 of the CPSIA envisions
that the staff consults with a number of groups.
And, it usually occurs, of course, in the
ASTM process with the voluntary standard.
And then, if the staff is comfortable with
the standard, as proposed, they move forward.
If staff believes they can
justify further stringency
in the name of safety, staff proposes that.
Can you explain?
Because, in this case, we do have
staff proposing additional items
because of hazard patterns and data.
Can you explain how that process has worked and
where we are in the back and forth, and, really,
when it started and how you see
it carrying through, please?
>> Mark Kumagai: Sure.
So, this is, each ASTM and 104
Standard has, sort of, the same pattern.
In changing tables, we started, we
started the process, I would say,
around May 2015 where we presented
the data to ASTM, the incident data.
Now, prior to that, we've always been active
in all ASTM juvenile product standards.
So, it's not like we just jumped in.
So, we have very good relationship with
the entire Juvenile Products Group.
So, in May 2015, we usually start out
with a presentation of the incident data.
We have a discussion amongst the
ASTM subcommittee and the CPSC staff
on what we consider are the incidents, the
data, the hazards that need to be addressed.
Usually, at the point, the ASTM subcommittee
will divided out the problem into task groups.
And, in this particular case, we had
a task group for structural integrity
and collapse restraints and warnings.
Then, once that gets established, the
hard part starts, the work starts.
And, that usually consists of a lot of task
group meetings, a lot of back and forth
between ASTM task group committee
members and, which, we are one of them.
We will discuss data; we will perform
tests and evaluation on products.
In this particular case, we
would meet over once a month.
So, we've met, during that time
since 2015, about 16 times.
And, my engineers, Shana Donahue was very active
in developing test requirements
to address these issues.
And, we would go back and forth and
try to understand some of the issues
that the manufacturers would
have with our proposals.
And hope, and they, in the end we would
come up with some agreed upon proposals.
Now, in this case, we came upon, we, after
this iteration, we had a pretty good base
and we had a few outstanding items that ASTM
and the CPSC staff are still working on.
At this point, we feel that
we had enough development
into those requirements to
move forward and propose.
>> Thank you for that.
And, for the three areas where staff
is proposing additional changes,
at what point do you feel,
roughly, in this process,
staff alerted the ASTM subcommittees
to those changes?
>> Mark Kumagai: We, it, well,
we've had ongoing discussion.
So, early in the process, we were
discussing structural integrity,
which is one of the largest hazard
patterns in changing tables.
So, I would say, or, a little bit after
2015, the May 2015, we started working that.
So, the ASTM subcommittee knows that that's
an issue that we need to address and we,
and the ASTM subcommittee balloted some
proposals and we got some negative.
So, that's part of the process
to work through those issues.
>> And, of course, there could be, I'm not
suggesting this, but, it's also possible
that one avenue would be that
you would just wait and work
through those negatives and
then come to the commission.
What made you decide or made staff decide
that now is the time to propose the NPR?
>> Mark Kumagai: Certainly, timing
is something that we would consider.
At this time, we know the incident data
collapses, one of the largest hazard patterns.
I think, our staff, our engineers were very
comfortable with what we were proposing.
We think we understand the issues.
We think that this is a good, that we've
developed this requirement to a point with ASTM,
with the ASTM task group; we've
developed this requirement to a point
where it's ready for public comment.
>> Excellent.
Thank you for that.
I fully support what you're doing
and now turn to Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: Thank you very much.
And I only have two quick questions in this.
When I was looking at the briefing
package, it said that we relied on data
from NSC [assumed spelling] and reports
from retailers and manufacturers through,
what we now call, Consumer Product
Safety Risk Management System Data.
Did that include our database?
Did we look at our database for injury patterns?
I'm assuming we did, it just
didn't say it here, so.
>> Mark Kumagai: Right, that is,
that was traditionally, the CPRMS's.
>> Robert Adler: Okay.
Well.
>> Mark Kumagai: Database that we.
>> Robert Adler: Live and learn.
The other issue that's a
little more concerning is that,
That you say the staff found a
statistically significant increasing trend
in injuries during this ten year period.
Do you have a theory about why it is?
Is it a changing demographic?
It is a changing, an expanding
use of changing tables?
Or, no particular theory but
it's reflected in the data.
>> Mark Kumagai: We that is what
our statisticians determined.
We really didn't spend any time trying to figure
out why we were more focused
on how to, how to fix it.
>> Robert Adler: Yeah, I know, and
I agree and, if for no other reason,
that's an argument for not waiting.
It's an argument for pressing ahead,
if we see an upward trend in injuries.
I have no further questions.
Thank you.
>> Mrs. Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Thank you.
And thank you so much Mr. Kumagai, both for you
and your team putting this together and also
for the very informative briefing that you
did in my office before this hearing today.
I just want to make sure that I understand
the focus that you have today with respect
to the things that are a little bit different
than what the voluntary standard
is at this point.
And, as I understand it, you basically, when
you're sitting in the ASTM meeting, I mean,
you're the, you're the guy whose
sole focus is on consumer safety.
Is that fair to say?
Sole focus.
>> Mark Kumagai: Our sole
focus is consumer safety.
But, we are engineers.
We understand the concerns of and the
difficulties of the manufacturing process.
>> Marietta Robinson: Right.
And, as I understand it, when you looked at
the incident data, you basically had about 65%
of the accidents that were happening with kids
with collapsing tables came
from 3 particular models.
Is that right?
>> Mark Kumagai: That's, yes.
>> Marietta Robinson: And what you found was
that the difficulty that seemed to explain much
of these is that these were consumer assembled
changing tables as opposed to being done
in the manufacturing environment.
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes that was an observation.
>> Marietta Robinson: And, as I understand, your
recommendation that's a little bit different
than what the, what the ASTM's standard is and
the one about which there are some negatives,
and I understand you're working through it,
but, as I understand it, one of the reasons,
one of the primary reasons that you want to
push forward with this and not delay further is
that you believe by addressing ability
of consumer assembled changing tables,
we can decrease the number of children who fall
and are potentially injured or even killed.
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
We are trying to; we are trying to
address the injury data in the incidents.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And, you've been working with the
ASPM committee on this, obviously.
And, they're still trying to address this.
And, that process, there's nothing about
us going ahead with the NPR that will
in anyway impede them progressing toward
what their final recommended standard is.
Correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: Correct.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
Now, you've been working with
them since 2015 you said?
>> Mark Kumagai: We really concentrated at 2015.
But, we've been working with them
on a routine basis even before 2015.
>> Marietta Robinson: And,
I am intimately familiar
with how long things take
here at the commission.
But this is basically going
to be putting it out there.
People can comment.
This is not a final rule.
And, we'll continue to work
with the Standards Committee
with respect to any differences that we have.
Is that correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: That's correct.
>> Marietta Robinson: I think that, just, with
respect to the changes other than the stability,
the threaded fasteners that you explained
so clearly and the package that came to us,
the rest of them that are differences
from the ASTM standard are ones that,
that there have been no negatives.
It's just that they're still working on
whether they're going to incorporate those.
Is that correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: They have yet to
ballot and finish balloting it.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
>> Mark Kumagai: So, yes,
they're working towards those.
>> Marietta Robinson: But, it could very well
be that they'll come out exactly where we are.
Is that right?
>> Mark Kumagai: That's correct.
>> Marietta Robinson: I think I
have nothing further at this point.
Thank you.
>> Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you and thank you
both for being here this morning and again
for this package which was extremely
well written and very well instructed.
I have a couple questions.
First I'd like to start, Mr. Kumagai, with some
of the questions you answered for the chairman.
When you said that we have a good base
but we're still working on various things,
can you just elaborate for me,
what are you still working on?
>> Mark Kumagai: They, they, there's,
essentially, three issues that we're working
on in ASTM and that we propose in the NPR.
The first one is structural integrity
to address collapsing issues.
And, in that, we are working on
the use of wooden, wood screws,
threaded wood screws into structural elements.
We think that those should be
prohibited for consumer assembled units.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And is that the, is that
the only piece on the structural integrity
that is in question or are
there other factors as well?
>> Mark Kumagai: There's a second part of that.
Essentially, a lot of these
tables use a restraint,
a support system underneath the changing table.
And, we found that, in the
incident data, sometimes consumers,
we've noticed that consumers
did not attach those.
So, we're proposing to test the changing
table units without that component
if the consumer has to install it.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And, before we get to
the other two, [inaudible] still working on,
you also mentioned that there were some
negatives when these things were balloted.
So, while we're still on the threaded
screws and the structural issue,
can you explain what were the negative
and the comments you received back?
>> Mark Kumagai: The, gist of the negatives
for the structural components issue was
on the threaded fasteners, the wood screws.
There was some concern that that requirement
would make it difficult for large dresser type,
furniture type changing tables
to meet that requirement.
And, there were some questions, the
commenters did not know if that,
or did not thing that those were
hazard patterns that they saw
in there, larger lesser type product.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And, in that
instance, do, is our agency showed
to the community our hazard
information and our data that would show
that that's why you're encouraging
this change in [inaudible]?
I mean, can you specifically defend
what you're proposing and do you share
that information with [inaudible]?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
We're very, we make a very, we're very, we
make a good effort to be clear to be open,
we show them all our data,
we express our concerns.
So, yes, we've done all that, we've been open.
We still have a bit of a
difference in opinion on this one.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Now, in, I don't
think it's necessary with the restraints
and the warning and the discussion, because
you say you're still working on those.
I understand what our position is.
So, maybe you can just address
the negative comments.
Those also received negative comments?
I should ask that first.
>> Mark Kumagai: Oh yes.
They, the restraints is currently being
balloted, the ballot doesn't close until,
I believe, it'd be at the end,
I think, the end of this week.
And, the ballot is fairly
close to what we're proposing.
That's for restraints.
The warning labels, again, they're,
the committee is still, the task group
and committee is still working
out some of the details.
They have not gone to ballot on that yet.
But again, we've been working
very closely with them
and with the Ad Hoc Committee too
to develop these warning labels.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I see
my time is running out.
Maybe I can get one more question in.
Just some clarification, on page 6 of what
would be published in the Federal Registrar,
it talks about incident data Roman numeral 3.
I just wanted some clarification
regarding the data.
In the first full paragraph, under Incident
Data, it says that other sources include reports
from consumers and other through the Consumer
Product Safety Risk Management System
which also includes some NISE data.
And so, I'm a little bit confused.
Is this information and data that we're
getting through our saferproducts.gov
and NISE, does the system combine them or?
Because, on the next page it then separates them
out, and so, I'm wondering how that all occurs.
>> Mark Kumagai: So, the NISE data
is for our statistical analysis.
What we use for developing requirements, we
get a little more detail out of the CPRMS data.
But when EPI is making estimates,
they'll base it on the NISE database,
the hospital emergency room data.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Well maybe then, just, if
you could, and I don't, I'm not over my time.
Am I? Just, what does that mean when
you say NISE data is also included
in the Consumer Products
Safety Risk Management System?
Because, if I'm thinking of it correctly,
there's the saferproducts.gov,
does NISE feed into that system?
I just don't understand what
they, because, on the next page,
it separates them out and
talks about the NISE data.
>> Mark Kumagai: [Inaudible] planer.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
>> So, I'm statistician from
IPM and I analyze the data.
So, for some of the products, children's
products, that [inaudible] for example
for cribs, and I'm not, you know, familiar.
But, there are some categories
that CPRMS do have NISE data.
I didn't, I analyzed the data separately
so that if there was a NISE data in CPRMS,
I didn't include it because
it's included already in NISE.
But, searching CPRMS with a
product code for the changing table,
you can actually also pull
some data that is in NISE
because the changing tables are many
times attached to the crib or something.
So, [inaudible] codes are coded for
the changing table and the crib.
If I'm pulling the data for the changing
table, I'm also pulling something,
what is in CPRMS because
it was a part of the crib.
And, I know one of those products that will be
in CPRMS and is NISE they will be like cribs.
I'm not familiar with the other product,
but, I think there are four or five products
that are in CPRMS that are [inaudible].
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
>> And that excluded them from [inaudible].
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So, on the next page,
when you talk about NISE data, that's separate.
>> Yes.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: That's
not included what's in CPMRS.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you very much.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, good morning
Mr. Kumagai and Ms. Kelsch.
Thank you very much for your
presentation today and the package.
I have some questions first in
regards to process, the chairman got
and other commissioners got
some of those questions as well.
And, somewhat, it also relates somewhat recently
to a change that we made at the commission level
in regards to staff participation,
just generally speaking with regards
to the durable juvenile nursery products
that we call 104 related subcommittees,
how are staff's comments and concerned received
by the committee members just generally speaking
and maybe in specific with these?
I mean, are we treated on an equal and fair
footing or are we just almost something
to be listened to and not really
taken fully into consideration?
>> Mark Kumagai: We're taking them as part
of the task group team subcommittee team;
our comments are very well received.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And I would imagine
that we would feel the same way
about other participants
whether the consumer interests,
technical interests, industry interests as well?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
>> Joe Mohorovic: So, it is an
effective working environment.
>> Mark Kumagai: We believe it's very effective.
>> Joe Mohorovic: It is an
effective work environment.
Is there, is there a perception among the
committee members in the 104, whether it's fair
or not that our staff is trying to end run
the voluntary standards process with regards
to extent to which we subject
our recommendations fully
to the full committee for their consideration?
>> Excuse me one second Mr. Kumagai.
I'm just going to ask you if you can
keep it specific to the changing table
since that's what's the agenda item today.
If the commission would like to have
a discussion about the 104 process,
I do think we need to have
to set up a separate hearing.
So, if you could please just try to
keep it as much as possible specific
to this particular rule making or
proposal in front of us, that'd be great.
Thank you.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I don't have the
committee number in front of it so.
>> Right.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I know you know it.
>> Mark Kumagai: The subcommittee
for changing tables has been very,
we have a very good working relationship.
And, as I said, we had 16 task group meetings.
We talk a lot; we pass information
back and forth.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And I can appreciate that.
You mentioned the fact that the
ASTM committee's still working
on this particular standard including some
of the recommendations that we've made.
Is that correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes that is correct.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I can take it
from my own personal experience
when I've got a recommendation.
I know that I find great value in sharing and
bidding that recommendation with my staff,
with my colleagues on the commission.
And, I find that not only does it give
me greater confidence, but, often,
my recommendations will evolve based on
the input from those that I would consult.
So, personally, I find, in
terms of recommendations,
that that process has great value.
And, what I'm concerned about is the extent
to which some of our recommendations have had
that full vetting by the committee.
So, what I'd like to do, if you can indulge me,
is go through the specific CPSC recommendations
that are above and beyond the what
current exist in the voluntary standard
and understand the extent to which each one of
those recommendations have been fully vetted
or are they half vetted or are they
still being considered by the committee.
Because, I do, I do have an appreciation
of section 104 of CPSIA as we call them
in the fact that, in my opinion and
my interpretation of the statute,
that we were given this authority, the
commission was given this authority,
should we be forwarded for this particular
class of products in terms of our recommendation
that we feel are critical and
important to safety to in our adoption
of our voluntary standard to
include other recommendations?
And, I think, the shining example
of that was the crib standard
and the additional recommendations that were
made by our staff, and not to go too much
in the, not to divert too
much about the crib standard.
But, I think, given that, my experience
in the private sector in working
with product manufacturers in the crib
industry, I got a better appreciation
of the structural integrity elements and I
found, personally, came to the conclusion
with my former colleagues in the private
sector how critical those recommendations were.
So, if, maybe we can start, I think
I'm going to run out of time, but,
if I think three of the recommendations staff
has made, if we can conclude what those are
in terms of structural integrity,
they would be the wood screws
and the threaded fasteners, the second.
I'm sorry.
>> Yes go ahead.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
And, I may not be fully explaining
all of them, but the second has to do
with the support systems in
terms of testing to performance.
Without the support system
attached, if in fact it's designed
for the consumer to attach that element.
And, the third is a performance
element for restraints specifically.
Does that capture the three?
>> Mark Kumagai: And labeling.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And labeling.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Kumagai.
I'll have to wait my turn and maybe if you
can be thinking about where I'll be going
with those next and looking at the extent
to which those have been fully vetted
with the spirit that they might
be informed by the process.
Thank you.
>> Mr. Adler.
>> Robert Adler: At the moment
no further questions.
But, I will wait to see how
the further questioning goes.
>> Ms. Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Mr. Kumagai, I just
want to make perfectly clear when we talk
about negative comments, am I correct in
understanding the only one of the changes
that we've proposed that are
not consistent of the standard
about which there has been any negative
comment is with respect to the threaded,
I can't come up with the
phrase, the thread fasteners.
Is that right?
>> Mark Kumagai: That's correct.
>> Marietta Robinson: And, there
isn't an objection, as I understand,
that the only negative didn't have to do with
the fasteners of consumer assembled products,
because that's exactly the
same as with other products.
Correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
So, the only negative was with respect to scope.
Is that right?
>> Mark Kumagai: That, right, exactly.
>> Marietta Robinson: And they, that, the
objection was just that it shouldn't apply
when you're dealing with a changing table
that's part of a piece of other furniture.
>> Mark Kumagai: Correct.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And, is, just so that I understand,
is that other furniture,
is it still consumer assembled other furniture?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
So, if you, if you go in and buy something in
a furniture store that is a, that is a dresser
and it has a changing table
and the manufacturers put it together,
this requirement wouldn't apply.
Correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: Correct.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And, Mr. Kumagai, based on what you've
seen in the task groups that I'm delighted
to hear are working so effectively together, do
you expect that the ballots on the other issues
about which we have a little bit of
difference with the committee, will be,
what they come up with will
be similar to our proposals
or don't you know one way or the other?
>> Mark Kumagai: I don't like to predict.
But, if I were to predict, I
would say yes they're going
to be very similar to what we propose.
>> Marietta Robinson: I've heard that it's
hard to predict, particularly about the future.
The, and, as I understand it, as we move
forward in parallel, as we're proposing to do,
obviously, that's going to be more efficient.
But, with this process of the NPR,
we will have the advantage, wont we,
of not only having comments from the committee,
the ASTM committee, but also public comments?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
Thank you.
I have nothing further.
>> Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
Mr. Kumagai, I'd like to go back to
the consumer assembled changing tables.
Is there, in our data, does it break down
the injury patterns for consumer assembled
versus what Commissioner Robinson was just
mentioning when the furniture puts it together
and it's not consumer assembled,
have we broken that down?
>> Mark Kumagai: That's difficult
to get from the data.
What we do is we take a look at the data and
the photographs and we try to match it with some
of the product that we've had to look at.
And, for this particular case,
we know that several of the,
a majority of the incident product, we
know, has used wood screws to assemble them.
And, it's a consumer assembled product.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: The wood screws is a
determinant that the consumer assembled it?
>> Mark Kumagai: No.
The consumer, we know that
the consumer assembled it.
And, it's pretty typical
of this type of product.
And, we know that, in a lot of the incidents,
the product is assembled using wood screws.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: But, we don't know
for sure which ones were consumer assembled
which ones were already assembled
when they bought it.
>> Mark Kumagai: We have to make a judgment
on that based on what we see in the,
based on what we know from the brand
that we see in the incident data.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I want to go back to where
we were before in my first line of questioning.
You mentioned the restraints were being balloted
and were being completed
by the end of this week?
Or, could you just explain when you say
the end of this week, what does that mean?
>> Mark Kumagai: The restraint, ASTM
balloted a restraint requirement.
And, the ballot will close
at the end of this week.
And, we will determine whether there's
negatives that need to be addressed.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So, to Commissioner
Robinson's point, we don't know whether there's,
might be negatives on the
ballot regarding restraints.
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes, there's
always that possibility.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And this may,
this may call Epi back up to the table.
Do we have a specific code?
What is the NISE code for changing tables?
You mentioned sometimes the
crib and how that can conflate.
But, can you just.
>> Yeah so, at the same time,
[inaudible] I believe.
But, I put not only the product
code for changing tables, sometimes.
As I said, the changing table can be
attached to the play yard for example
and maybe the product code is missing.
So, I also pull, for example,
products that are coded
as a play yard, as a cribs, as bassinettes.
So, there were like 10, I believe,
products codes that I include.
And also, I include some key words to
help me to search for the changing table.
I didn't want to miss anything.
And, there were incidents that I did not pull,
we just using the code for the changing table.
So, there were additional incidents
that they put with other product codes
that were not coded as a changing table.
But, there was a problem
with the changing table.
So, [inaudible].
I'm sorry, in the footnote of my memo, there are
10 product codes that are [inaudible] and, 15,
I'm sorry I didn't take my
glasses, but, 1, [inaudible], 1502.
This is the changing table.
1052 is the changing table.
It's in the footnote of my memo
to Mr. Kumagai, there's a footnote
and I put all the 10 product codes
that I was searching the database with.
But yes, the product code, the main
product code for the changing table
that the most incidents were pulled, it is 1502.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And so, that code,
along with 9 other product codes
is how you get to the assessment.
>> What we used to look at
the changing table data.
And, as I said, there were some
additional incidents that were not found
with the product code for the changing table.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: How comfortable
are we that that information is accurate
if we're pulling other product codes and?
>> I agree.
So, when pulled the data,
I have to screen the data.
If it's [inaudible] incident.
So, for example, the changing
table can be mentioned
if something failed on the changing table.
Let's say the lamp fell down on the changing
table, yes, both product codes are coded
as the lamp and the changing table.
But, it's not the fault as the
changing table as we cannot, you know,
say that the changing table is in the fault
nothing, you know, in the case for that.
So, I have to, when I pull the incidents,
there were probably over 2,000 NICE incidents
that I pulled and I screened the incidents
that mentioned the changing table.
As I say, I also used the key
words when I was pulling the,
when I was using the other product codes,
the product codes for the changing table,
I was looking, for example,
for change as one key word.
That helps me also narrow down what I'm pulling.
But, I have to read my analysis and read
the narrative of each incident and decide.
And, there is also, for example,
some incidents were considered
out of [inaudible] and hit the changing table.
There is nothing we can do about that,
[inaudible] came around and hit the table
or another piece of the furniture.
So, there is a lot of screening done,
the team also looks at the incident
that I prescreen and agree with me or not.
We also excluded the incidents that
are, that were not for domestic use.
So, for example, incident happened in the store.
So, for those kinds of things, we just have
to read and the team also goes and tracks it.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you very much.
I'm out of time, I'm over time.
Thank you very much.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kumagai, you mentioned that if you, if you
had to predict, you'd say they'd be very similar
in terms of the recommendation we're making
and [inaudible] in the voluntary standard.
Is that because they agree or because they see
the writing on the wall in terms of, you know,
something that will eventually be the position
of the commission and we might as well get
on board right now because, otherwise, it'll be
a waste of time to try to, resistance is futile?
Is that the approach?
>> Mark Kumagai: On these last two, the
warning label and the restraints, I think, no,
I think we're, they're doing the best they can.
They're balloting what they
believe is the right ballot.
So no, it's not because we're
influencing it in that manner.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Oh okay.
>> Mark Kumagai: But, we
are part of the task group.
So, we, our opinion is known.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Right.
If not, it's well known right now.
But, I'm sure it's well known when
the, when the package came out.
In terms of the, first getting back to the
wood screws with the metal threaded fasteners
and the glue, you mentioned that
in May 2015 was a presentation
of incident data to the subcommittee.
When was the recommendation made
by CPSC for this particular change?
What approximate date what that, was
that presented to the subcommittee?
>> Mark Kumagai: I'm not quite
sure what the approximate date is.
Now just, to be clear this,
the requirement that we,
that we're recommending is
a requirement that's used
on other consumer products, cribs, highchairs.
And, what we do know is it was balloted
on, let's see, 5 of, May 16th, 2016, so,
it had to be discussed prior to that.
And, it was discussed during task
group meetings until it became,
to a point where the task group
was comfortable in balloting it.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I see.
Now, in terms of the consensus, the driving
towards consensus in SGO's generally,
does the point in time where the, well the
ballot, would the ballot be by the subcommittee,
the full subcommittee or would it be the,
is it the task group or the working group?
>> Mark Kumagai: It's the subcommittee.
>> Joe Mohorovic: The subcommittee.
>> Mark Kumagai: So, the changing
table subcommittee will ballot that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
So, when that ballot, at the
point in time that the committee
or the subcommittee chairman feels
comfortable in issuing a ballot,
is that because consensus has been reached
or is that to gain a better understanding
of the full subcommittee's
position on the subject?
>> Mark Kumagai: It can be both.
It can be either or, or both.
>> Joe Mohorovic: What do you think it is in
the case of this particular recommendation
with the structural integrity
and the wood screws?
>> Mark Kumagai: In this case, I believe it was,
there seemed to be consensus
amongst the subcommittee.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
>> Mark Kumagai: To move forward with that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
Outside of this one situation, I imagine,
with where the changing table is part of a,
of a great, of a, of a bigger product, does
the recommended change regarding the ban
on these wood screws included an exemption for
product like that, dressers with changing tops
that are not likely to be disassembled?
Does it have a carve out for an exemption for
products that are not likely to be disassembled?
If, in fact, the rationale behind
having this recommendation is
because the products are often disassembled
being without this particular kind of hardware,
then, there could be a question
as to the structural integrity.
However, when the changing table is part of
a bigger, much bigger component and product,
and I've got some of those, still
around the house today, but,
it's unlikely that that would be disassembled
put in the basement or the attic or garage
and wait for child number 2, 3, 4, 5.
Is there a carve out for those other particular,
for those type of products, an exemption?
>> Mark Kumagai: There's
not an exemption in the NPR.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Nor in the ballot in
terms of the voluntary standards work too,
I imagine there is not an exemption.
>> Mark Kumagai: There, at the original
balloted standard, there was no exemption.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Do you think
there should be an exemption?
>> Mark Kumagai: I have not come to,
no I haven't come to that conclusion.
I'm, we're willing to take in public comment,
and, of course work with ASTN to determine
if there's a better, if there's a
better way to make this requirement.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
Now, with regards to testing the performance
of the bed, in 20 seconds or less,
when was that recommendation
presented to the subcommittee in terms
of the performance requirement, the
second one with structural integrity,
if there's a strap involved to provide
more strength to the base to test
that without the strap attached, if in
fact it was part of consumer assembly?
>> Mark Kumagai: There's not an
exact date where we proposed that.
Our engineers and Patty, who was the project
manager there, were constantly working on that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I'm sure we could allow
maybe staff to respond with 30 seconds.
The extent to that recommendation is
all I'm getting to not exact dates.
>> Sure.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Can you just
tell me the extent to which
that has been discussed and what the outcome is?
I'm trying to understand what
kind of consensus has been.
>> Patty Edwards: Yeah I'll try and
give a little bit of background.
The collapsing issues started a
long time ago, before the 10 rule.
And, we've always been part of the task group.
And, it eventually started
and became a much bigger deal.
It was a dynamic test where they were going to
cycle everything and put a lot of loads on it.
They were going to do a diagonal force test.
And, once we got involved in the 104 process
and started doing our own testing, we came up
and said this is overkill, this is way overkill.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Sounds like a lot more
than I did with my three recent [inaudible].
>> Patty Edwards: Right.
And so, we looked at the kind of
products that were involved and that's
when we discovered it was a
consumer assembly problem.
And this was in about, we did all
the testing in the summer of 2015.
And so, in October of 2015 we presented
the data at the October meeting of 2015.
And, from then on, we started to pair it down.
Okay so, we don't need to do all
these huge, convoluted sickly tests.
What should we do?
And, that's when it started
formulating from then on.
>> Thank you very much Pat.
Do any commissioners have any further questions?
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: Yeah.
I appreciate Commissioner Mohorovic's
questions and he seems to be leading to a point
that I thought I would just ask directly.
And, that is, when I look at section
104, it says that we're supposed
to promulgate these rules as
Consumer Product Safety standards.
When we find that they're
substantially, that the rule we want
to promulgate is substantially the same as
the voluntary standard, or is more stringent
than the standard, if we determine that a more
stringent standard would further reduce the risk
of injury.
So, my question is as follows.
If we had found that there was a consensus
that we didn't think was a correct consensus,
in other words, we didn't think it really
adequately reduced the risk of injury,
is it our mandate or is it your mandate to
the staff who is participating that they defer
to the voluntary standard process or is it the
case that we would then make a recommendation
that may not agree with the consensus
standard but that is more stringent
because we think it promotes safety?
>> Patty Edwards: Yes, your
summary of the requirement
under the CPS [inaudible]
we have two alternatives.
One is to adopt a requirement
that is essentially the same
as the voluntary standard and, alternatively,
where staff and the commission concludes
that additional more stringent
requirements would further reduce the risk,
we have the option to adopt such more
stringent requirements as an alternative.
>> Robert Adler: And, I do see that 104 calls
for extensive consultation
with all stake holders.
And, listening to Mr. Kumagai discuss
this, it sounds like we bent over backwards
to do extensive consultation
and the consultation continues.
Am I correct in saying that?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
>> Robert Alder: Thank you.
>> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: A couple
very quick follow up.
Mr. Kumagai, can you just explain to us
what it is that's the concern with respect
to the threaded fasteners when
consumers put these things together?
>> Mark Kumagai: For threaded fasteners such
as wood screws or wood screws that go into wood
on structural components, it's been
our experience that consumers can
over tighten those screws and strip
them out or not tighten them enough
or repetitive use will eventually
make that fastener degraded.
>> Marietta Robinson: And that
could explain them collapsing?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
These are structural, key structural
components that they're being used in.
>> Marietta Robinson: And,
could you just tell us why it is
that you're proposing the NPR now instead of
waiting for further balloting by the ASTM?
>> Mark Kumagai: We're pretty confident
that our requirements are sound,
that they will address the
incidents that we seen in the data.
And, this is, we're ready to go, we're
ready to get some public comments on that.
>> Commissioner Robinson, I'm
sorry, Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I wanted to go back to where we started in the
first round of questions with the balloting.
So, if that ballot comes back that's out and
going to be closed by the end of the week,
comes back with negative feedback
[inaudible], what then happens?
What is the normal process?
>> Mark Kumagai: The subcommittee will determine
whether those negative comments are valid
or persuasive.
If they are persuasive, then, the
ballot fails and the task group
or the subcommittee group will go back
to working those issues out and trying
to address the persuasive comments.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And, will that
happen even if we publish an NPR?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes.
That will happen.
[ Inaudible ]
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: In the I wanted
to ask a question about package.
The package claims the ASTM
committee has authorized the committee
to print the requirements of the ASTM standard
and, because they're essentially the same.
Can you just comment on that?
So, is the ASTM committee okay with
this or they, what is their feeling
on these voluntary standards or consensus?
What, they gave you, or they authorized
the commission to print the requirements.
So, they, are they okay with us
going forward and publishing the NPR?
>> Patty Edwards: That was simply to address
copyright issues because it's ASTM's document.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
>> Patty Edwards: For the purposes of us
publishing it we received [inaudible].
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
So, it is nothing to do with them
agreeing with what we're doing.
>> Patty Edwards: That wasn't part of the
discussion it was purely a copyright issue.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Mr. Kumagai,
could you speak to that, what the ASTM?
I mean, obviously there must
have been discussions
within the, within the various task force.
What is their feeling about
us publishing this NPR
and not letting the rest
of the process play out?
>> Mark Kumagai: We were very clear
that we were publishing the NPR.
I personally didn't get any feedback
about whether we should or not.
But, we've made it very clear that our
schedule was to publish an NPR at this time.
And, when it got closer to
it, I continued to inform them
that that's what we were going to do.
>> I'll also just add that because this is a
proposed rule, we're only at the NPR stage,
this doesn't preclude us
from potentially aligning
with ASTM should their standard move ahead in
the same direction of our proposed requirements.
There have been a few, [inaudible] in the
past where either at the final rule stage
or subsequent to the final rule, we have
ultimately aligned with ASTM standard
when the requirements eventually aligned.
>> And, I'd like to augment to your
question about the scheduling and so forth.
One of the things that I did in the past and
Celestine [assumed spelling] is continuing
to do, is we keep a chart of
what the, what our milestones are
for the various 104 rules
and we share it with them.
And probably at every meeting
it's one of the last questions.
So, can you get an update on the NPR?
And, we will always say well right now
we've got it scheduled for May 2016.
And, only on one occasion
has that date ever moved up.
Most of the time it slides.
So, the next six months, we report and
go well, now it looks like, you know,
it's going to be postponed a little.
So, they are kept well informed of exactly
on all the different 104 rules of exactly
when staff has it on our milestone
calendar and when it's coming up.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So, in this case, why,
and my colleagues know I'm kind of a stickler
for what Congress directs us to do, but,
why, in this case, are we going to let it,
we won't let it slide until unless,
we're just going to go forward
because our schedule tells us to,
where, in other cases, we let it slide?
What is the call there, reasoning
for that decision?
>> Mark Kumagai: We decided to go forward
because we were comfortable
with our proposed requirements.
We don't, and it's addressing the hazards.
We think that we need to get that forward,
moving forward to get public opinion on it.
I don't, I can't predict what, where ASTM
will be and how, what their schedule will be.
I don't have control over that.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I am out of time.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kumagai, back to the support
system performance element of the test,
I think you mentioned that that was,
is that out for ballot currently?
>> Mark Kumagai: That one got
combined with the wood screw ballot.
And so, since we got negatives
on the wood, or, yeah,
since the wood screw issue got
negatives, the entire ballot failed.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And then
it waits for more discussion
until either the negatives are withdrawn or the
committee as a whole feels comfortable enough
that there is enough consensuses
to adopting those.
Correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: Well, currently, yes those
are, those are some of the alternatives current.
For this particular case, the
committee is reworking the requirement.
It hasn't, it's not ready for ballot yet.
But, they're reworking it they're
trying to address the negatives.
>> Joe Mohorovic: But it, but it did receive
the benefit of having those two elements vetted
through the ballot and we were
able to receive the negatives.
I'm sure that, as a member of the committee,
you were able to identify and consider some
of the negatives that came through.
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes we were part of that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And put that into
consideration while still [inaudible].
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes we considered those.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Understood.
Now, in terms of, I don't know if it's fair
to combine the other two with the restraints,
with the restraints recommendation.
We're recommending a performance
requirement for restraints.
But, restraints are not required
in the, in the product.
Is, do you find that, that seems a little bit
unusual to me to require a performance element
for a, an added safety feature but yet, at the
same time, if we thought it was important enough
to have a performance element, why
aren't we requiring that as also part
of the overall requirements for the product?
>> Mark Kumagai: Yes that's exactly
the discussions that we've had.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
>> Mark Kumagai: In the task groups.
And the task groups of the committee,
we came to the consensus that,
if you're going to offer a restraint,
then, it should be a good restraint.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
An adequate restraint.
But, we don't, our stuff doesn't feel that, for
this particular product, it's critical enough
for safety to be a required element.
Would that be correct?
>> Mark Kumagai: That's correct.
It's not required.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
And, those, that and the
warning label recommendations,
those are currently out for ballot?
>> Mark Kumagai: The restraint
is currently out for ballot.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
>> Mark Kumagai: Warning labels are not.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Not out for ballot.
Okay. So with the, with the restraints
being out for ballot, have we, has the,
has the ballot period where members are,
there must be some timeframe associated
with the ballot in terms of when
committee members must submit any negatives
or other comments related to the ballot.
Has that expired or is that
still an open period?
>> Mark Kumagai: It's still open.
>> Joe Mohorovic: It's still open.
Okay. And, with the warning labels, we
haven't, that has not yet been balloted.
>> Mark Kumagai: No it has not been.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Do you
believe it will be balloted?
>> Mark Kumagai: The task group
is definitely working on it.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
>> Mark Kumagai: Yeah, they're
getting close to balloting it.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Do you think that, if it
was not an element that staff was recommending
or we include in an NPR,
would it still be balloted?
The recommendations that staff is
making right now for the warning labels,
would that recommendation still be
balloted and considered among the commission
if in fact it wasn't part of the additional
recommendations that we might include in an NPR?
>> Mark Kumagai: I believe, if I understand
that correctly, are you saying that,
if we didn't say anything
about the warning label.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Yes.
Would you expect that that would
still be balloted in the SDO realm?
>> Mark Kumagai: I think that, you know,
we've been working very closely with them.
And yes, I think that there, throughout the
entire 104 issues we've looked at warning labels
and we update and yes I think
they would do it on their own too.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
So, to inform this NPR, we have had the
benefit of receiving the comments in terms
of the four additional staff recommendations
on the wood screws and the threaded fasteners,
we have had the benefit of understanding
what the Voluntary Standard Committee feels
about those.
We have had the benefit, form
having had the ballot open
on the support system performance requirements
and what the committee feels about that.
But we, it's still an open period right
now for the performance requirements
with regards to strengths, so, restraints.
But, we do not have any benefit of
the committees input with regards
to our recommendations for warning labels.
>> Mark Kumagai: That's correct.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
Thank you Mr. Kumagai.
>> Ms. Kelsch, can you do me a favor please
and turn to a different part of the statute
that I don't think we spent enough time
on which is the time element
of 104 and where this fits in?
If you could please just remind the commission
what the annual requirement is in the statute,
crystal clear, from Congress
in terms of producing 104
such as changing tables on a regular basis?
>> Now chairman, you did want us to only talk
about and to respect to this particular one.
Are you objecting to your own
objection before with regard
to having a general discussion by including 104?
>> Including how changing tables fits into that.
>> The chairman's a powerful guy.
>> Meridith Kelsch: Yes.
The original directive in the CPSI under
section 104 was within one year of enactment
of that statute to commence rule making
and thereafter to promulgate standards
to at least two products every
six months thereafter according
to the commission's determination of priority.
>> And is there, when we do something like
changing tables, is there anything that you see
in the statute that calls for the commission to
put that aside to work out further discussions
with the voluntary standards process?
Does it override that temporal requirement?
Is there anything in the statute that says
that if ASTM has not yet balloted or has not
yet finished clearing out negatives that
that overrides that statutory requirement?
>> Meridith Kelsch: No it does not.
There is also an additional requirement, well,
additional provision relevant to section 104
that allows for the commission,
actually it provides
that any standard the commission adopts
automatically updates subject to, you know,
commission action, when a group
such as ASTM updates their standard
and requests the commission.
>> So, fair to say that, based on what is in
the package in terms of staff's concerned about,
as Commissioner Adler mentioned, the statistical
significance of the increase in injuries,
there's a safety concern and there's
also a time element to keep these moving,
to keep items like the changing table proposed
regulation, that is consistent in your mind
and the staff's mind with congressional intent.
>> Meridith Kelsch: Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: No further questions.
>> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Nothing further.
>> Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I want to spend
just a few minutes on warning labels
because this is a recurring theme
and we were very appreciative
of the briefing we got on warning labels.
But, there seems to be, in the three years
I've been here, a shift in warning labels
and how we view warning labels, certainly,
the value of warning labels and so,
as I want to comply with the chairman's
requirements, specifically, with this product.
Can you talk about the warning labels, you know,
what has changed and I think, more broadly,
with regard to warning labels,
the agency's position?
>> Mark Kumagai: Hope Nestorak [assumed
spelling] is our warning labels expert.
>> Hope Nestorak: I think, and actually,
this gets back to something Commissioner
Mohorovic said a minute ago asking
about if the warning labels had been balloted.
A good portion of that has been the
formatting requirements, that has gone through,
probably a year's worth of
discussions with an ad hoc task group.
And so, what happened, because there were,
the warning labels were different
among the various 104 subcommittees,
104 related subcommittees, they formed a task
group that was across different subcommittees.
And so, we called it the ad hoc, Ad Hoc Wording
Task Group, I think, was the exact name.
And so, they worked to get the
formatting requirements to conform
or be consistent with [inaudible] requirements.
And, that was based on some of
the previous 104 work we had done,
I think, with bouncers in particular.
But, and so, based on that we worked, Tim Smith
who's back here too also worked very closely
with that ad hoc group to come up
with those formatting requirements.
And so, because we've worked so
closely with the ad hoc group
because these various subcommittees are actually
putting those out to ballot and passing them
in ballot and putting them into their standard.
And so, we included those here.
So, does that get at your question?
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Yes it helps.
So, the ad hoc has warning labels in some of
the issues labeled and balloted right now?
>> Hope Nestorak: No, actually they
were balloted back in March and April.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
And that's completed.
>> Hope Nestorak: Yes, that's completed.
It's not, because it's not a
standard, but it is available
for all the F15 subcommittees to look at.
And, it is in balloted they
received comments on it.
They made a couple little tweaks in it.
In particular, there was one figure
that it had like six different example
of what the word left justified meant.
And that, for example, we did not include.
That was in Tim's response
to the ad hoc committee.
And, the ad hoc group now has actually now
moved that and recommending it being included
in the appendix of the standards.
So, it's not actually in the text.
They're not recommending it in
the text of the standard anymore.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
That's all I have for now.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic.
Do any commissioners have any further questions?
Hearing none.
We, and thank you to the staff for that, and
we're especially also for the staff we jumped
up not anticipating having to join today.
It was very helpful.
We're now going to turn to consideration
of the package in front of us.
Are there any motions?
Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Chairman
to explain the motion.
>> Please take a moment to explain
it and then I'll ask for a second.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Understood.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I move to defer the vote in this matter for six
months in order to allow the ASTM subcommittee
to finish its current round
of revisions and balloting.
Congress designed the 104 process to allow the
product experts including both the Voluntary
Standards Committee and our staff
to fully consider each change before
the CPSC relies on those standards.
If there are ideas for changes
to the changing table standard,
including some of the ones recommended by staff
here, we should give the subcommittee time
to vote and consider those changes fully.
If some of those changes are rejected
by the Voluntary Standards Committee
but our staff feels strongly about them and
have the facts to support the positions,
then we absolutely have the right to make
safety changes beyond those from the committee
in the interest of safety,
and we should do that.
However, because it sounds like the Voluntary
Standards Committee has not been given time
to finish their work and actually have
ballots out right now or going out very soon,
we risk prejudicing the voting members by
sending the signal that whether it happens
in the voluntary standard or a mandatory
rule the outcome has already been determined.
Mr. Chairman, that's not how I believe
this process is supposed to work.
I think we owe it to the experts including
our staff, who have devoted their time
to carefully consider these changes,
the opportunity to finish their work before
we try to force these changes through.
We need to let the process play out.
And, I think six months is a sufficient time
to do that and to make sure we get this right.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you Commissioner Mohorovic.
Do I hear a second?
>> Second.
>> Having heard a second, we'll now
turn to consideration of the motion.
I'm going to start and just say
that I do not support the motion.
I think it's entirely inconsistent both
with the data, with the work that was done,
with the safety directive that is clear in
the CPSIA, and with the time requirements.
And, for those reasons, I will not support it.
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: I strongly, strongly
oppose Commissioner Mohorovic's motion.
I think that, what we've seen in the changing
table example is a terrific president
for how the commission should interact.
We consult, we continue to consult.
Even as we're moving forward, we continue
to listen to them and continue to consult.
But, I'll state the obvious.
Safety delayed is safety denied.
In the interim, people are
going to have children injured
on changing tables that might
have been made safer.
So, I don't, I just cannot see
by any interpretation of events
that this is promoting safety,
Commissioner Mohorovic.
Plus, this is a terrible president.
The idea that you can delay a proceeding
simply by walking in, in the end
and offering amendments is an
invitation to bad behavior.
So, I'm not saying that occurred here.
But, if we were to extend this for six months,
that would be the example we're setting.
And, I'll just make a quick broader
comment, sorry about this Chairman K. But,
one of the best things that's happened
to this agency, as far as I'm concerned,
is having Patty Edwards designated as
our voluntary standards coordinator.
She has hit the ground running.
She is vigorous, she has the respect and
admiration of the Voluntary Standards Committee.
And, she is going to help us accept the
reality that so much of what we do depends
on voluntary standards development.
And, if we're going to do that, we have to have
cooperative voluntary standards groups, SDOs,
but, we have to be very, very
strong in these committee meetings
to make clear what the commission's position is.
We are not supposed to be deferring
to standards that we don't agree with.
So, for those reasons, I strongly
opposed Commissioner Mohorovic's motion.
>> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: I echo
absolutely everything
that Commissioner Adler said
particularly with respect to Ms. Edwards.
These are tediously long
processes that we go through both
with respect to the NPR and a final rule.
And with respect to working for years in
the Voluntary Standards Committee, we know,
in this case, as Mr. Kumagai has
not only told us but demonstrated,
we know what can keep children injured
by these tables, we have the solutions.
And, to delay any further in getting
it to a mandatory rule is something
that I would strongly object to, especially
keeping in mind that, no matter what we do,
even if we delay, then we'd still
have to go through this process
of getting public comments,
analyzing and so forth.
And, there's absolutely no
reason to delay this any further
and allow more children to be injured or killed.
I vote against this.
>> This stickler for congressional
deadlines, Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Well, if we
were consistent I would be, but,
we're not consistent on these 104s.
We have not complied with the
statute, I brought that up before.
And so, I think really, if, and I
will be supporting am amendment.
And, it isn't, it's not any disrespect
to the Voluntary Standards Committee,
to Ms. Edwards, it's nothing at all.
It is about process.
And, it seems to me, we should
let this play out like we do
in most other situations instead of preempting.
Let the consensus process work out.
Commissioner Adler mentioned about
what the commission's position is.
It isn't our position.
It's the staff's position.
It's what gets worked out in
the voluntary standards process.
And, I just, I can't understand why, in this
case, we're being a stickler to the deadline
and in so many other cases, as was mentioned, we
let them slide for a whole variety of reasons,
none of which are negligence or it's just, you
know, for reasons, we say we're going to wait
until the process plays out and then
we'll either incorporate by reference
or we'll apply more stringent requirements
to that voluntary standard
when it comes to the 104.
So, I just, I'm more of a
process person and it just seems,
I can't understand why we're
treating this any differently
than we treat some of the other 104s.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic
last word on your motion.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I think, if we're going to just forge
ahead because we feel strongly, I think,
we've got to ask why we'd even bother, why
would other members of the subcommittee, I mean,
even bother to spend their time
coming up with their expert opinions?
I mean, why not just let the CPSC do our thing?
Why not create just a standard that's just a
blank sheet of paper saying since CPSC is going
to do what it wants to do regardless?
And, aren't we diminishing, maybe even
insulting, the value other expertise?
I mean, what's missed upon me is the
fact that we crank out 3,000 regulations
in this federal government in the extent to
which we can pump the brakes with the process
to understand that instead of just
doing that in an overbearing fashion,
we're trying to build consensus, which,
to me is more about the spirit of the 104
and not just giving us a blunt instrument and
the opportunity to just wield it and hammer
down any negatives that might come up, I think
the extent to which we start to pump the breaks
on the regulatory government
the $2 trillion anchor
that is making the United States a less
competitive international presence,
I think we ought to also be careful about
the extent to which we play into the idea
that the Federal Government is
patronizing, condescending, overbearing.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
>> I now call the vote on the
motion by Commissioner Mohorovic.
Commissioner Adler, how do you vote?
>> Robert Adler: No.
>> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: No.
>> Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Aye.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Yes.
>> And I vote no.
The nays are 3, the ayes are 2.
The motion is not agreed to.
Are there any other motions?
Having heard none, we now move to
consideration of the final package.
I move to approve the notice of proposed
rule Safety Standard for Baby Changing Tables
and to publish the same in
the Federal Registrar.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Having heard a second, we'll now turn
to final consideration of the package.
And, I do want to remind the commissioners,
of course, they'll be closing statements.
I have no further comment at this time.
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: No further
comments at this time.
>> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: None at this time.
>> Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Nothing further.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Nothing.
>> Having heard no further
comment we now move, call the vote.
Commissioner Adler, how do you vote?
>> Robert Adler: Aye.
>> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Aye.
>> Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: No.
>> Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: No.
>> And I vote aye.
The ayes are 3 the nays are 2.
The motion to approve staff's proposal of
Safety Standard for baby changing table products
and to publish the same in the
Federal Registrar has been approved.
We'll now move to closing statement.
Can you keep it brief?
I do think it's important to point
out that congress addressed the issues
about what the priorities should be
and what the timetable should be.
With this rule making, congress went through
all of the policy considerations of adding
to the regulatory process and made a
determination, which I strongly support, that,
in the name of infant and
baby and toddler safety, that,
the commission should move
expeditiously to consider,
as we have here, a proposed regulation.
And, if the commission, as
we've now approved it,
believes that it can be made more stringent
based on the data based on the incidents,
based on engineering solutions
as, again, has occurred here,
that the commission should
go ahead and move that.
So, I think that in the time that I've
been here, this has actually been one
of the best processes that I've
seen about staff following the 104s
as they were, as they were written.
One can interpret it differently, but that
would end up being a different statute.
And, for all the other considerations
that others may have,
that's a congressional determination to make.
I think Congress spoke loudly,
I think it spoke clearly.
We do endeavor to stay on track with these.
I certainly continue to push staff
from my perspective and I'm sure I have
at least two other commissioners
that would agree creating a majority
that staff should continue to press ahead,
continue to follow the statute to a T
as you have, work with the voluntary
standards, evaluate, consult.
But, when you've reached a point
where you've decided that you believe,
based on the incident data and your
solutions that people will be protected,
kids in particular, by what you're working
on, there is an urgency to move these rules.
And so, I applaud what you've done here.
I think you've made a big difference.
And, families across the United States
will definitely benefit from your work.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: Well, thank you very much.
And I do have a couple of quick observations.
The $2 trillion regulatory figure that
Commissioner Mohorovic announced is one
that is hotly contested, I'm sure
he knows, there are many people
who look at that figure and scoff at it.
But, even if it were vaguely, vaguely
accurate, which, I'm sure, it's not,
it says nothing whatsoever about the trillions
of dollars worth of benefits from regulation,
which, anytime there's been an analysis,
far, far outweigh the costs, which,
by the way are typically short term costs
and often drop much more quickly
than government estimates.
Because, costs are easy to estimate when you're
doing a regulation, benefits are much hard
to estimate and they happen
over a longer period of time.
I also think it's a false alternative to say
that we either are ignoring the ASTM process
or else we're doing it, that
we're accepting what they say.
Congress gave a mandate to us in
the 104s to consult, to listen,
to share information, to
cooperate, to collaborate.
But, there's no mandate that we agree.
The mandate is that we focus on safety.
And, that's precisely what that staff has done.
And, I commend the staff for an excellent job.
>> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: I am puzzled
by Commissioner Buerkle's comment
about us not doing, not being
consistent with respect to how we go
about with our 104 go about our 104 NPR's.
I am, since we both been
commissioners, we've had several occasions
when NPRs have been presented to us while the
process is still ongoing, the ESTM process.
And, we have fully worked with them
in working toward a final rule.
I am not aware of any incidents at this
agency, either during my 10 year or before,
when we have kids being injured or killed
by a product, we know the solution,
in this instance we have one tiny negative
comment with respect of scope, and, from there,
to engage in the hyperbole that the Federal
Government is condescending and overbearing
and bring in all federal regulation whether
contested or not reaches a level of hyperbole
which would be amusing were we not
living in the political environment
that we're now living in,
in this country right now.
And, I don't find it amusing.
I think this is exactly what we should be doing
in terms of going forward on parallel tracks.
We know the solution.
We know how to keep kids from being injured.
And, we should go forward with
it as quickly as possible.
We've worked with the ASTM
process for two years.
We have a tiny very tiny areas of,
perhaps disagreement, perhaps even not.
That process will play out while our process
is taking in comments from the public
that are not part of the ASTM process.
We'll have a 75 day comment
period and then we'll, hopefully,
visit the final rule as quickly as possible.
As Mr. Kumagai said, he's
comfortable, he's got the answer
on how we can save kids from injuries and death.
So, the idea that we would delay any
further would make no sense whatsoever.
>> Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
And, I again want to thank all of the staff
for the briefing package and for this morning
and for the information you shared with us.
It's all very helpful.
Our, there's no denial, and it's an
important part of what our staff does.
And that is to play a very important
role in the voluntary standards process.
In fact, the commission has authorized the staff
to now be able to vote and also be a chairman
of a subcommittee on voluntary standards.
So, I recognize and appreciate
all that gets done.
In fact, so much gets done in the
voluntary standards committee.
So, I don't want that to be a part of, I don't
want that to be construed as a lack of respect
for staff and all of the good work
they do with voluntary standards.
So, many of the comments here, from the Dias
just now are far beyond changing tables.
I'm focused on changing tables
today, not anything else.
And, process, to me is important,
it always has been.
And that's why my concern and
that's why my vote this morning,
we're asked to vote on an
NPR for changing tables.
But, after two years of working with
the voluntary standard and the ASTM,
the balloting hasn't been completed.
And, as Mr. Kumagai mentioned, the outstanding
issues, the structural integrity, the strengths,
the barriers, and the warning labels, there are
differences and disagreements still to be worked
out on the warning labels, as I mentioned.
It seems to me, this package
has just come up prematurely.
We're being asked to vote on publishing a
proposed standard that has not been finalized.
We are being asked to apply
more stringent requirements
to a standard that's still being worked on.
The voluntary standards process is a well
regarded time honored system comprised
of the professionals from industry, government
and consumer groups who bring their expertise,
their practical experience and their vision
to create strong, voluntary standards.
It's an important part of what we do and
how we accomplish our mission of safety.
It's important that the voluntary
standards committees
and the system maintain it's integrity and
that the process is not needlessly disturbed.
CPSA section 104 provides CPSA the legal
authority to move beyond the voluntary standard
if we believe that improvements to the
voluntary standard will further reduce the risk.
I'm concerned, at times, that our staff
is invoking the authority prematurely
to make standards more stringent.
Is it because that we perceive that the
debates and the technical dialogue that goes
on within the standards committee is
moving to slowly, or is it influence by,
as was suggested by myself, that the
internal agency's pressure on staff
to meet the end of the year requirements.
Regardless, I just think
that the package was brought
up a little bit prematurely before
it was ready to be published.
As an agency we need to make sure that we
do not reduce the quality of our draft rules
or create unintended consequences
in the marketplace.
We must not minimize the concerns of
our industry partners making assumptions
about what we think should be incorporated
into the voluntary standard or succumb
to time lines that short change the process.
If we are to recommend more stringent
standards, I think it is incumbent upon us
to make a strong showing that the additional
requirements would further reduce the risk.
At the very least, before we say more
stringent requirements are appropriate,
there should be a final voluntary standard.
We should be careful to give the ISTM
committee ample time to consider our proposal,
do the testing that's necessary and evaluate the
changes and come up with alternative procedures
that accomplish the same
ends, perhaps at a lower cost.
We are a government agency and
we have a higher bar, I believe,
because we have that legal authority.
Additional authority always carries
with it additional responsibility
and we must not invoke our
authority unless it is necessary
and we must make that a compelling
case to do so.
Our staff brings a depth of
knowledge to the standards process,
but as a government agency we must respect
and encourage creative concepts, new designs
and innovation by American ingenuity.
We must resist the temptation that we know best
before all the other ideas are out on the table.
We should not lightly override the
judgments made in the consensus process
because Congress gave us the
extraordinary authority to do so.
When we exercise our authority, we should
make sure we are doing so responsibly.
We should be careful to give the
voluntary standard committees ample time
to digest our proposals.
I realize that Congress has imposed a rigorous
time line when it comes to the 104 activities
and I have been consistent with how I think
we should, to the best of our ability,
comply with congressional intent
and with congressional direction.
But I think we also need to be consistent.
We can't cherry pick the issues
that we want to be timely on.
I also believe that if the congressional time
line is unrealistic or puts undue pressure
on staff, then we should go back
to the hill, engage with them
and perhaps revisit the schedule
for durable nursery products.
A well reasoned, data driven, robust
and thorough debate in preponderance
of all the evidence is the
better way to proceed.
The integrity of the ASTM consensus standard
process must be maintained and proper procedures
and practices upheld, as well as our own.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Mr. Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I'll be very brief.
First I would just like to associate myself with
the words of my colleagues, Commissioner Adler
and Commissioner Robinson, with
respect to the participation of staff
in this particular matter, and contribution to
this hearing today, as well as those associated
with our voluntary [inaudible]
coordinator, Miss Edwards.
I would also like to just associate myself
with, I think, Commissioner Buerkle's close,
which I think was very well done.
I had ample opportunity to express my
feelings about this particular matter,
and I think to the extent
which the chairman allowed it,
our approach to one of four process in general.
So, thank you, very much.
>> This concludes this public meeting
of the United States Consumer.