>> Elliot Kaye: Good morning and
welcome to this public meeting
of the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
We have one item on the agenda today and that
is that our CPSC staff will brief the commission
on the fiscal year 2017 operating plan.
The CPSC staff members briefing us are Mr.
Jay Hoffman our chief financial officer,
Miss Patricia Adkins, our executive
director, and Mr. DeWane Ray,
our deputy executive director
for safety operations.
At the conclusion of staff's briefing we
will turn to questions from the commissioners
and those will last 10 minutes each.
But we'll begin now please
with the staff briefing.
Mr. Hoffman, are you going first?
Or Miss Adkins.
Miss Adkins, if you can please begin.
Thank you.
>> Patricia Adkins: Certainly.
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Kaye.
Good morning to the commissioners.
In terms of the slides that you have in
front of you, there are brief slides.
And at the conclusion certainly we
will be prepared to answer questions.
As far as the FY 2017 operating plan process,
there was a broad range of inputs considered
in formulating the plan, including suggestions
from our stakeholders, certainly the public
as well as individual commissioners.
I think if you recall back in June
when we had the priorities hearing,
that certainly gave us a list of
things to consider with respect
to our stakeholders and the public.
Congress has not enacted
the FY 2017 appropriations
or a continuing resolution at this time.
And the FY 17 operating plan is
premised on the $130.5 million budget
that we submitted in February 2016.
There are $6.5 million of new initiatives that
we have added to the FY 17 president's budget.
Those items will be deferred until
we have final appropriates enactment.
Agency funding allowances will be certainly
calibrated to the enacted short-term CR.
We expect that this is going to be approximately
$125 million which is our current funding level.
As is certainly our process, we expect
that in the spring 2017 midyear we will use
that opportunity to align and amend the
operating plan to make it consistent
with the full year appropriation.
The new strategic plan alignment.
CPSC operating plan is the key implementation
plan for the agency's strategic plan.
The staff has identified priority activities to
accomplish as a result of the strategic plan.
And I think that you notice that we
added an appendix to the operating plan
that highlights the new strategic activities.
Just to do a summary of the strategic goals
and then some of the significant priorities
that have appeared in the FY 17 president's
budget request, the strategic plan,
four goals that we have certainly shared with
you going through the strategic plan process.
The first is workforce in terms of cultivating
the most effective consumer product safety
workforce that we have here at CPSC.
Strategic goal two is prevention, prevent
hazardous products from reaching consumers.
The third goal, response, respond quickly
to address hazards consumer products both
in the marketplace as well as with consumers.
And the last strategic goal, communication.
Communicate useful information quickly and
effectively to better inform decisions.
On the right hand side are the
priorities as I mentioned that came
from the February 2016 submission.
Those four items, improving US
effectiveness at ports of entry in identifying
and interdicting products
that do not meet US laws.
The second one, identifying emerging
technology and consumer issues related
to nanotechnology as well as chronic hazards.
The third, warning about product
hazards, empowering our stakeholders
and the public through effective communication.
We also would be responsible for
implementing congressional requirements
in a prudent and timely manner.
This goes through the contents
of the operating plan.
The areas we certainly have shared
with you in earlier prebreifings.
The summary of changes from the 2016 enacted
to where we are proposing
the FY 2017 operating plan.
Then that's followed by the
funding and FTE by organization.
And then we go into the key performance
measures that are externally reported
and describe the progress of the
new strategic plan objectives.
We also have the proposed voluntary standards
and then the proposed mandatory activities.
After the first section there is a more detailed
section in the plan and these are the areas
that are covered within each of
the major mission organizations.
Certainly the resource summary that
identifies the funding and the FTE's.
There's the overview and key
priorities by organization.
Then we have the strategic plan
alignment and then we have performance
and operating plan measures
and then the annual milestones.
This is the last slide.
And it's the summary of changes between our
FY 16 and what we're proposing for 2017.
And on the left-hand side
of the chart you'll see
where we're starting from with the $125 million.
And then these are the activities
that are planned for,
but certainly these will be deferred, pending
when we get our enacted appropriation.
So the key changes here, first
there is a reduction of $1 million
for the third-party testing burden
reduction to assure compliance
because of what was enacted in 2016.
And we have sufficient funds
to cover that in 2017.
The next item has to do with our
safety incident data gathering.
And we're setting aside $500,000
for that activity.
The next one, import expansion.
This is the $3 million in terms
of increasing port presence
for our surveillance pilot program.
And then the last item has to do
with our research and exposure
to potential chronic hazards related
to nanomaterials in consumer products.
And then crumb rubber related to playgrounds.
So as indicated, those items
in the middle would be deferred
until we have our final appropriation.
That concludes my presentation.
I would like to say thank you to the staff
that prepared the FY 17 operating plan.
Certainly that is Jay Hoffman and his staff.
Also James Baker, all of our program
area staff that contributed to that.
So we are prepared to answer
all of your questions.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Miss Adkins.
We'll begin the round of questions now.
Thank you, Mr. Stevenson for the laborious
job of keeping track of all of this.
I'm going to begin where you left
off and start by thanking the staff.
This is obviously a very heavy lift every year.
A significant amount of work goes into it.
It requires offices to gather a lot of data
early in the process, months prior to now.
And to run that up the chain and for OEX,
the Office of the Executive Director,
working with the Office of
Financial Management to really try
to turn this into what we have now.
We're deeply appreciative and Mr.
Baker, thank you for your work as well.
You're not at the table, probably happily so.
But as our chief budget officer,
obviously you are at the nexus of this.
So thank you very much.
I'm going to turn and I'm sure we'll
have multiple rounds with these topics.
I'm sure many of these topics will get
covered in multiple different vantage points,
but I want to start with trying to frame
some of the visibility into some of the work
and why things move and don't move.
So I guess I'll start with Miss Adkins,
but maybe Dr. Borlase who's sitting
behind Mr. Ray might end up joining us.
Can you give us some visibility
into the unplanned work
that comes up during the fiscal year?
Last year for instance we had a
number of major compliance actions
that staff successfully completed
on behalf of the American consumer.
But those have a resource implication.
Can you explain how that works
and how you try to manage to that,
and then also what the practical
aspects of those things are, please?
>> Patricia Adkins: Certainly.
And I'll invite my colleagues certainly to
the right and left as well as George to share.
We had some very major activities last year
and I think you all aware of
the Hoverboard activities.
Certainly Lumbar Liquidators.
There were other activities that because of
the overlap be it with compliance or certainly
in EXHR, it involves staff moving away from
their existing packages to bring forward
to the commission, and focusing on those.
I usually refer to the bench in terms --
we have a very sort of short bench in terms
of people being able to fill in when we
have other activities that draw them away
from the packages, the programs that we're
working on to bring up to the commission.
So it does have a resource implication.
It has a timing implication.
And I think you'll see by way of
the different mandatory standards
that were carried over for FY 17.
There are a considerable number
and they are in varying stages.
But nonetheless we still were not able
to bring them forward to the commission
or to complete some of the other either
data analysis or the technical activities.
So that's what affects the timing
of bringing things forward.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you.
And I would just ask, and maybe Dr. Borlase
has this information, have you been able
to quantify what that means in terms of real
effects on staff time to have those type
of compliance actions like we had last year?
>> George Borlase: Yes.
Using an analysis of the time sheets
for the staff where they're had
to put the time last year versus where we
had planned in the FY 16 operating plan,
EXHR has explicitly put about five additional
staff years of time towards compliance support
above what we had planned
already in the 16 operating plan.
>> Elliot Kaye: And just to
contextualize that, is that a significant
or an insignificant number for EXHR staff?
>> George Borlase: Well it's five staff years.
That's significant in that it has to come from
somewhere and that's five staff years then
of project work that we were
deferring as we reprioritized
that time towards the compliance activities.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you for that.
That's very helpful.
And in terms of trying to give a little
more visibility into some of the projects,
and I'm going to start with
petitions for instance.
Because obviously people
petition us for a reason.
They're looking for a specific action.
Whether it's warranted or not,
we have to do that analysis.
But they certainly have an expectation.
And we get a little bit more visibility into
some of the petitions and where they stand.
I think there are at least three.
There's probably a lot more, but
there are at least three that come
to mind as the organa halogen petition.
There's the residential elevator petition and
there is a supplemental mattress petition.
And I didn't see anything, and that's okay.
I don't think we need every
little bit of detail.
But do you have a sense as to, since
they're not on a table of showing
that they will reach some specific
regulatory milestone, do you have a sense
as to what the expectation should be of
the commission for this kind of work?
And what the limitations are?
If we're not able to cover it as
much as we would, is that resources?
Is that because of scientific
information that hasn't yet been learned.
Can you help us with that pleas?
>> Jay Hoffman: Sure.
So for the ones you mentioned, especially
the next step for staff is to bring
to the commission a briefing package that
recommends whether the commission approve,
defer, deny or take some other
action on those petitions.
So just a reminder of where
we are in the process.
Because sometimes that can get
a little confusing where we are.
In terms of work on it, we had
time in 16 operating plans.
Some of that got deferred.
Staff has been working on those packages.
So for each of those listed as a
briefing package to the commission in 17,
we do plan to bring to the commission
that briefing package for those
to recommend grant, defer, deny or other action.
And we do have the time planned
in this 17 operating plan
in our kind of internal planning process.
We've put the time towards those
projects so that we can complete them
and bring them to the commission in 17.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
Thank you for that.
And the reason I mention petitions is
really because they are similar in my mind
to the compliance actions where
they are somewhat unplanned.
And I know in the operating
plan you carve out space for it.
But ultimately you can't anticipate with
any type of accuracy how many we're going
to get and what the magnitude are.
And not every petition is the same.
I would imagine that organa halogens
requires a different level of work
than something else would for instance.
So thank you for that.
While you're still up there, if we can switch to
the epidemiology side, can we talk a little bit
about the work that's mentioned in the
operating plan about predictive modelling
and how the epi team envisions that helping us?
What are we not able to do now?
And how would the predictive modelling
enable us to do our work better?
Thank you.
>> Sure. Let me just -- I have some notes
because it all runs together as you can imagine.
Thank you.
So in the predictive modelling,
what we're trying to do --
and we've been working on this in
epi starting last year on this --
is really tie together kind of and create
a feedback loop from the injury reports
that we get in say through SaferProducts.gov,
through actions that the staff take.
Especially compliance related actions that
then get captured by dynamic case management.
So the idea is if we can link injury reports
coming in with actions that we've taken
as we get future injury reports
in, we can have a better idea.
Instead of doing an independent analysis every
time, say "Well we've seen this pattern before.
We know how we've adjudicated before."
And like I said, create that feedback
loop then between the two systems.
>> Elliot Kaye: And how quickly
would you anticipate we would be able
to see some type of yield from this effort?
>> For 17 staff's going to be
implementing the software that we need,
and then creating the model and
testing its ability to predict.
So perhaps by the end of 17
we'll have some raw results.
But from staff's plan it's not necessarily
envisioned that we've got full results in 17.
It also takes some time.
We've been using the integrated teams to
populate the field to get the information.
But it takes some time to develop
enough of baseline if you will
so that you can have enough
results from injury reports coming
in that you can use with some accuracy.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
And for those of you who might not be
familiar with -- obviously the commission is,
but for anyone viewing, can you explain
just briefly what our integrated teams are,
how that works?
>> Sure. So for the integrated teams we have
interdisciplinary teams involving different
offices, both within EXHR but also
with the office of compliance.
And these are the teams that look at
every incident report that we get in.
So as an integrated team,
this inter disciplinary team
of subject matter experts actually
reads and reviews every incident report,
the injury report that we
get into the commission.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
Thank you.
Obviously data is central to all of that.
And on the topic of data I'm going
to switch to Mr. Ray for a moment.
Can you give us a sense?
I think during the last operating plan based on
an amendment by Commissioner Buerkle we talked
about having industry be able to upload monthly
progress reports for corrective action plans.
Can we get a sense as to where that is please?
And then what it would take to be
able to push that out to the public.
Like we have our letters of advice.
>> DeWane Ray: Sure.
So at this point we have put together the
statement of work and are in the process
of getting the contract piece together on that.
Assuming that flows, then they'll go
through into business requirements,
make sure they fully understand
what we need to happen.
And then they'll start specing out the
system and ultimately build that piece.
So that's the piece on allowing
companies to submit the reports currently.
We do not currently have plans for
the outward publication of that,
assuming we were headed down that direction.
You know, I think we need to work through
some of the policy issues related with that.
But beyond that, from a technology
perspective we would you know,
do a similar process, develop
a statement of work.
Also spec out the requirements
and then integrate it
into the existing system for publication.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
My time is expiring.
Thank you.
There are obviously legal issues associated
with that, not only the policy issues.
But that's something I'd
like to continue to explore.
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: Thank you
very much Mr. Chairman.
First I want to join in the thanks to the
staff for doing an excellent document.
Over the years I've noticed these
have gotten more and more readable.
And this one probably is as
readable as any one I've seen.
So congratulations everyone who's
put in all the work to do that.
I also can't help but note that our
funding level is within the margin
of error from most other departments.
And it's just amazing what this agency
achieves with such incredibly modest funding.
And so again, that's a credit to
the staff for being so diligent.
So the first point I want to make is if
you were to look on page 9 you'll see
that a project called Table Saws has slipped
from this fiscal year to next fiscal year.
And I don't think it surprises anybody to hear
that that makes me extraordinarily
sad and disappointed.
And so I actually had what I thought
was a five-minute eloquent discourse
on why this is so important.
But my staff this morning assured me
that it was a 10-minute snarky rant.
So I'm not going to say anything further,
other than to make the most urgent plea I can
to Miss Adkins and the staff
that they work as diligently
as possible to move this project along.
And you don't even have to respond to that.
That's just a plea from me.
But I also, picking on page 10,
I see that we have resources
and as a priority moving a
voluntary standards training program.
I can't tell you how thrilled I am to see this.
I'd first like a brief description if I might.
I think this is one of the most critical
activities we're going to undertake this year.
So could somebody just give me a
brief synopsis of what's going to be
in this involuntary standards training program?
>> Good morning.
So Patricia Edwards, our voluntary
standards coordinator is still putting the
training together.
And she's come along on it.
And what we're envisioning is training for the
staff so that they develop the skills to be able
to be as effective as they can be in
the voluntary standards participation.
We recognize that just being hired at
CPSE is probably not enough on its own
to have the skills to work
on the voluntary standards.
So we're looking at putting that together.
>> Robert Adler: And I can't think of
anybody better situated to do that,
because Pattie's been involved
in negotiations for years.
And by all accounts, when you talk to the
folks at ASTM and you talk to the folks
in the industries where she's been doing
the negotiating, she's extremely respected,
liked and effective in making
points that are so critical.
This is a terrific way to have a multiplier,
so I'm thrilled to see that we're doing that
and I applaud you for having
Pattie Edwards do that.
And I also can't avoid saying how thrilled
I am to see Pattie Edwards in this job.
She hit the ground running and
she is a whirlwind of activity.
I think she's identified some
serious issues with respect
to the voluntary standards process generally.
I think we now, at least I
now appreciate that as good
as it's become there's still substantial reforms
that I think need to be done with respect
to the groups that are writing
voluntary standards.
And I'm so glad that Pattie is
immersed in that at this point.
And I just wanted to alert the chairman that
I'm thinking through a possible proposal
for the decisional that would
free up some greater resources
for Pattie to do the job that she's doing.
And I know you're very, very sympathetic
to this and a lot of it depends
on what available resources we have.
So just a couple of questions.
My normal question, which is on page
four, and it has to do with fast track.
And it says that 90% of fast track cases
will have corrective action initiated
within 20 business days.
So two questions.
First of all, what does the term initiated mean?
And secondly, within 20 days of what?
Is that within 20 days of the initial report?
What starts the clock running on that?
>> All right, Commissioner, I do not
have that exact answer for you right now,
but I would be happy to get back to you.
>> Robert Adler: Okay.
I appreciate it.
>> I will note it's not a new measure.
>> Robert Adler: I know.
It's not a new question either.
>> Of which all the baselines, but I am not
prepared to give you that specific answer.
>> Robert Adler: Thank you.
I certainly appreciate that.
And then just a small question, but
it's one I've been meaning to ask.
And I apologize for not having asked
it during the weekly briefings.
But when I'm looking through
the list of voluntary standards,
I keep running across flammable refrigerants.
And that has been a big issues, but I don't have
a sense of where we are and what we're doing
with respect to flammable refrigerants.
Can somebody give me a 30-second update on that?
>> Sure. So staff from engineering sciences is
working with the voluntary standards on looking
at how the standards could be updated
to allow what are colloquially
called flammable refrigerants.
They're viewed as green alternatives to some of
the refrigerants in use now, R-142-A, et cetera.
So staff's focus is working with the
voluntary standard on updates to allow these
that they would call green refrigerants.
>> Robert Adler: Okay, yeah.
And I'm just very interested in that because I
was at the commission when we were petitioned.
And I don't know why I'm blanking on the
chemical that was used as refrigerants.
But it had all of these devastating
effects on the environment.
So now that that's been removed,
we've moved back
to these other refrigerants
that seem to work well.
They just have this problem of being
flammable, which the others didn't.
So and because we know that
refrigerants are used so widely,
it's an important issue to stay on top of.
On page 12 I noticed we have this
project 11282 mortality incident data.
And for years I know we have had
serious problems getting other agencies
which are collecting this data
to share the data with us.
And I blanked on the reasons for that.
There was either a statutory
reason why they couldn't share it,
or they wanted to charge
us a whole lot of money.
But have we gotten on top of getting, I think
it's National Center for Health statistics?
But whatever agencies are collecting these data,
are we now satisfied and comfortable with it
where we're getting the data
as quickly as we can get it?
>> To dig into what were the specific problems
before in terms of what's captured in 11282.
We do have a robust medical examiners
and coroner reporting program.
>> AR: Yeah, that we've had for years.
>> Right. But I'll have to get
back to you on the specifics
of what were the hold ups with some of that.
>> AR: Yeah, I appreciate that.
And by the way, I want to apologize.
This year, unlike most years, I haven't
had a chance to send the questions
to staff that I planned on asking.
So I apologize for putting you on the spot.
I don't like doing pop quizzes.
The other sort of a broader question
I've noticed, and that is this year,
and if you look at pages 17, 18 and
23 and 24 and other pages throughout,
there are a lot of things that are listed
as metrics that have the word baseline.
And I think I know why that is and I think
it is a reflection of the strategic plan.
But I'm wondering if somebody could explain to
me why so many of these have the word baseline.
And do we have a general sense of
anytime we see the word baseline,
next year we won't see the word baseline?
>> I'm going to have Jay
Hoffman answer the question.
But I asked the same question as well because
I was comparing the various milestones
and certainly what was intended
to be accomplished.
And they seemed very similar to what
we may have already done in the past.
So Jay Hoffman can share some
more information about it.
>> Jay Hoffman: Sure.
So baseline is actually a term that
comes from the OMB circular A11.
So it's a process that a lot of agencies use.
The reason we use the word is typically when
we have a new measure that the data sources
and definitions have not been sort of
sufficiently put together or defined.
And so it's basically a one-year
period to sort of get things together,
make sure the calculations work before
actually committing to a target.
In some of the baseline measures that appear
in these pages, and I've spent quite a bit
of time going through each of them, it would
appear that we have some of the historical data.
And so I've asked my staff to between now and
you know probably budget time come this spring,
to say, "Hey, can we start calculating
some of these prior to the one-year mark?"
But if not, the short answer
to your question is yes,
next year these would be
populated with a number.
>> Robert Adler: Yeah.
And it's not a criticism.
I think that a source of constant revision and
constant upgrading is generally a good thing.
I see my time is expired.
Thank you.
Miss Robinson?
>> Marietta Robinson: Thank you.
This is my fourth op plan.
And every year I appreciate even
more how important this document is
and how much effort goes into it.
And I not only thank the four of you, but all
of staff who put in so many hours of effort
in putting together this operation plan.
And I also just want to thank all of
you, and then there are others also
who have answered questions of
ours and given us briefings.
And I just really appreciate the effort
in helping us understand this plan.
As you all know, last year I did not
share the laudatory comments of a couple
of my fellow commissioners on
the transparency of the op plan.
And I was quite critical of the timing
because I think we were past half the
fiscal year when we got the op plan.
There wasn't any participation by commissioners.
And the plan itself was very, very opaque.
This is a very different year and
I really want to thank all of you.
And I want to compliment you
on what we got this year.
We're getting to it before
the end of fiscal year 2016.
I was very appreciative as I know at least some
of my fellow commissioners with whom I've spoken
about this are, with respect
to the participation
that we had in terms of giving ideas.
Obviously it didn't mean our ideas necessarily
got incorporated, but I understand that.
But at least it was participatory
and I just thought it was just
so professionally done this year.
And also the plan is much more transparent
in terms of the description of the projects
so that we can understand it so much more.
So I really wanted to thank
you for that preliminarily.
I'm still as you know, weighing a couple
-- well some pieces of information.
We're getting a breakdown of the hours and
the contract dollars that are being expended
on the line items as I understand it.
And also there are some specific questions
that I think each of you have that you're going
to be getting back to me on before
we vote on the final op plan.
I also just wanted to note that,
and particularly thank Miss Adkins
for the effort on the strategic plan.
I really, really appreciate how
much you're trying to make this
into a living document, to use your words.
And by aligning the op plan with
the strategic plan goals and even
as Commissioner Adler was just
talking about with these baselines,
that we're trying to get some new metrics.
I just really appreciate the enormous effort
that's gone into that by all of staff.
But obviously you've been the person
coordinating that and I want to thank you.
The deferment of the $6.5 million, I just wanted
to add a couple notes just to
flesh that out a little bit.
As I understand it, on the $3 million, Miss
Adkins, that is deferred pending approval
of the final budget that we're
hoping will be over the 130 number.
The Healthy Children at Home, Play
and School, $1 million of that
as I understand it is for
the crumb rubber project.
And $2 million is for the
nanotechnology project.
Is that right on that?
That's for Mr. Hoffman or Miss Adkins.
>> Patricia Adkins: It will
probably go over to George,
depending on what specifics you
want for each of those areas.
>> Marietta Robinson: I just wanted the
breakdown that that's what they were.
>> Patricia Adkins: That's correct.
The numbers are correct.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And then the $3 million to increase the
port presence would be 15 new staff members
with respect to monitoring our ports.
Is that correct?
>> Patricia Adkins: That's correct as well.
>> Marietta Robinson: And then the last thing
that I understand is deferred pending
the approval by congress is the $500,000
for escalated NICE contract costs
in improving functionality of NICE.
Is that correct?
>> Patricia Adkins: That's correct.
Do you want to add to that?
There's one aspect of it.
>> George Borlase: So the
only wrinkle in that is
that the contract escalations
have already been agreed to.
And so we'll be working with EXHR
to make sure those are funded.
It's not huge dollars Most of
the money was for the technology.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay, good.
Because I just want to note how
strongly I feel for anybody from Congress
who might be listening, how strongly I feel
that each of these items is so important
to consumer safety and for us
to be able to do our missions.
I have some specific questions of my own,
but I just wanted to follow up on a couple
of them that Chairman Kaye asked.
Dr. Borlase, with respect to the predictive
modelling, am I understanding this correctly
that once this is in place, what we're hoping
is if there's a particular type of hazard
that compliance will be able to quickly
look at what we've done in the past
for purposes of defining our course?
>> George Borlase: Right.
It will be the entire integrated team.
>> Marietta Robinson: I'm sorry.
Integrated team?
>> George Borlase: For the integrated team.
>> Marietta Robinson: Right.
>> George Borlase: So all of the different
offices could see that relationship.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And so when we do this, it doesn't necessarily
meant we'll do what we did in the past.
We'll just know what we've done.
Is that right?
I mean, I remember one recall recently that
when we went back with that particular hazard,
we'd handled it very differently
in a number of recalls.
And then we decided that we
would do it better this time.
So I'm just hoping that that
analysis would go into it.
>> DeWane Ray: If I could
jump into it a little bit.
>> Marietta Robinson: Sure.
>> DeWane Ray: The idea is really to help
us improve the ability to identify things
that we should investigate and start working on.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
>> DeWane Ray: So it's not so
much like what did we do as far
as a compliance action, the specifics of a case.
But you know, if you think about the volume
of reports coming in, if we had to put eyes
on every one, is there a way to
have a system help us focus our eyes
to the most important one?
This one may be like one that we did
something with, meaning we recalled,
and try to focus our energy on that and using a
system to do that, versus like we were saying,
a whole team of folks looking
at every report every week.
>> Marietta Robinson: Right.
>> DeWane Ray: So that's the vision
of the predictive modelling piece.
We've been working on it for some time
and so we're hopeful that we can get
to that point through this process.
>> Marietta Robinson: Thank
you for that explanation.
That's terrific.
The other thing I just wanted to quickly follow
up on is these electronic monthly reports
which I think you have all five
commissioners agree this is a great idea.
But in your explanation, Mr. Ray, of what we're
hoping to do this year, I'm wondering if as part
of this, in terms of the
description of the work --
I know there's a more technical
phrase that you just used.
But are we giving some thought to --
because I know what's in it for
the companies reporting to us.
But I wonder if we're able to do this
electronically, if we're putting real analysis
into what the CPSC can gain
in terms of being able
to more carefully monitor what companies
are doing with respect to the recalls
that we're coordinating with them.
>> DeWane Ray: Yeah, I think that we're hopeful
that by getting the information in a system
in a more timely manner, you know, that
we'll be able to react more quickly
to the data that we're receiving right now.
I mean that's a challenge because
like you said, it's a manual process.
And it doesn't get updated as quickly
as if companies are able to
put it right into the system.
So we're hoping those efficiencies will help
us react to the data as we're getting it.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
I would just strongly encourage you
that not just to focus on the speed,
but the quality of the information
we're getting.
Because some of the information, some
of the reports that I've looked at --
and when we examine it with you in
particular, we've looked at some of them.
The quality of the information is
such that we have to dig behind it,
as opposed to having it right in front of us.
So I just would encourage that.
And Dr. Borlase, I asked you a question in
our private meeting on this but I just wanted
to follow up on this description on page seven.
It's number 76 on the child safety locks.
Could you just tell us what is anticipated in
terms of what is included in the safety locks
and other household child
and accessibility devices?
>> George Borlase: Sure.
So the staff's proposing adding a
voluntary standard activity number 76
on page seven related to safety locks.
And from staff's work on product
safety assessments, et cetera, 16,
identified that there could be performance
requirements developed or improved related to --
these are the small child proofing
locks if you will that they're known as,
where you could put a plastic lock over the
toilet so that a child can't lift the toilet.
Usually used under the sinks as cabinet locks
so that the cabinets can't be easily opened.
So staff's proposing actively working
with the voluntary standards to develop
and improve the performance requirements
for those so that they don't break easily
and that they are strong enough from a
physical sense that they don't break when used.
>> Marietta Robinson: And could you tell
us why we're adding that at this point.
>> George Borlase: Yes.
So staff is proposing adding it at
this point from information we learned
when we did product safety
assessments in 16 during the course
of normal work with the Office of Compliance.
We have reports in.
We brought samples or had samples brought
in as our engineering sciences
staff was looking at the locks.
We identified some what we felt
were gaps in the voluntary standard.
And so that feeds into our
recommendation here in the 17 op plan.
>> Marietta Robinson: And are you aware of any
voluntary standards presently that cover the use
of biometrics or RFID technology?
It's only recently come to my attention
how ubiquitous those are even in books.
>> George Borlase: Right.
Following up on our conversation,
staff did do an initial look.
We didn't have honestly much
time before today's hearing,
so we're still looking to get more specifics.
But we did identify some standards just
at a first initial glance from IEEE
and a couple other standards
development organizations.
>> Marietta Robinson: I'm out of time.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Buerkle?
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo my colleagues' appreciation
for the ops plan and for your willingness
to meet with us and talk with us.
And as I've said to many, this is
really the beginning of a process
until we have our decisional
on October 19th for input
into the ops plan, and concerns or suggestions.
So but again, thank you for
your willingness and cooperation
in answering some of the
questions ahead of time.
I do want to follow up on just a couple
of things that were already talked about.
And again it has to do with
this increase in the budget.
We're in the ops plan, the $6.5 million.
So I just want to clarify, will these changes
only be incorporated in the operating plan
if the number of our budget is $130 million?
Or I mean, is that going to be how it's
differed, otherwise it won't be entered in?
>> George Borlase: That's correct.
We don't have the funding.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
And so what if we get something
between $125 and $130?
How will we decide how to implement it?
>> George Borlase: Yeah, that's a fair question.
We'll have to look at that and bring
back a prioritized recommendation
through the executive director.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And then on page two
the FTE breakdown for the various offices.
It's already been mentioned,
but I just want to clarify.
The 15 FTE's.
So it's for import surveillance, but
10 will go to import surveillance,
three will go to EXHR and
two will go to compliance?
>> George Borlase: That's correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
But they will all support
the import surveillance?
Their role, whether it's in the EXHR
compliance is to support the port presence?
>> George Borlase: That's correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
I don't see Mr. Wolfson at the
table, but this is actually for him.
I'm sure he'll be happy to move.
On page two, the Office of Communications will
have an operating budget of $1.65 million.
And it will be allocated to each
of the major educational campaigns.
Can you break that down for us
as to how they will be spent,
whether it's Anchor It or Pull Safely?
>> Scott Wolfson: Yeah, I wish I
could, but it is a bit situational.
So for Anchor It, it has
its own standalone budget.
For Pull Safely, its own standalone budget.
So really it is based upon the ideas
of the staff or the needs at the time.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So there's
some discretion at this point.
So I would say $1 million is
allocated for Pull Safely?
>> Scott Wolfson: No, that's a standalone
allocation of $1 million, beyond the $1.65.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
>> Scott Wolfson: That's
a line item unto itself.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay, so
that doesn't come from the $1.65?
>> Scott Wolfson: No, it does not.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
And then Anchor It has to do with what
we agreed to in ops plans and midyear.
>> Scott Wolfson: That's right.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
And then any of the other like Back to Sleep.
What all is included in that $1.65?
>> Scott Wolfson: Sure.
It's the 24 activities that we have.
And it's really where staff feels like
there's new priorities for the office,
new opportunities to partner with other
organizations, new media opportunities.
So it's a big organic.
We allow the staff to share
their ideas coming up to us.
But we just allow the flexibility to
have opportunities present themselves,
while utilizing our resources
to the best we can.
But it speaks to the value that we
have through the Anchor It campaign,
through the Pull Safely campaign to have
that full-scale public relations activity.
We just don't have that luxury
with the other activities.
We have to be a little bit more opportunistic
through the development of videos,
production of posters and then the
partnerships or the collaborations
that we have with our other organizations.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you very much.
>> Patricia Adkins: Commissioner Buerkle, I'd
just like to add one thing to that in terms
of Anchor It related to how
long Anchor It is funded.
And I think certainly Scott can confer.
It's funded through September of next year.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: 17?
>> Patricia Adkins: 17.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
>> Scott Wolfson: If I can provide one
clarification to that, we are not working
with enough dollars to get
us through September of 2017.
The contract was just signed
yesterday for the Anchor It contract
with Weinmeyer to extend into the next FY.
But it is only at $288,000.
That will not get us through
the entire fiscal year.
But that can be a further
discussion if the commission wishes.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And I will defer
to my colleagues to carry that water.
At the midyear FY 16 ATV work was
changed from an MPR to a DATR.
Now the table on page nine has a
target for FY 17 back to the MPR.
But I note that now specifically
we're mentioning conspicuity.
So are we now segmenting ATV work?
Why are we just singling out conspicuity?
>> George Borlase: Scott was on a roll.
I was hoping he would continue.
For ATV's on page nine, the proposed work
is the same as what we had originally
in the 16 op plan specifically on conspicuity.
When it was deferred last year it
was for the voluntary standard.
And the reason it's MPR this year, it is the
same scope of work of what we had last year.
We're looking at should the
voluntary standard process finish
where they incorporate conspicuity.
We believe we would need to
do a rule making activity
to update how the ATV's are
already captured in the CFR.
And then should the voluntary standard
not be updated to capture conspicuity,
then staff would be bringing forward an MPR
package specifically on conspicuity separately.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So if the
standards committee addresses that issue,
then we don't have to do
rule making on conspicuity?
>> BG: Well we believe it would not be --
it would be to update the CFR
because when they did the consumer --
honestly I don't follow all of
exactly how it got incorporated.
Because there are ATV requirements incorporated
into the CFR we would have to update those.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
Commissioner Adler brought this up and I just
wanted to talk about it a little bit more.
This voluntary standards training program.
Can you expound on that little bit?
And also it was mentioned by Commissioner Adler
that there are some problems
with voluntary standards.
And I'm not sure if you have that information
or if I would need to talk to Pattie Edwards.
But I would like to hear more about
the training, who will participate,
what will the substance be, and whether or not
policy will be discussed during that training.
>> George Borlase: The scope of the training as
we're putting it together is really envisioned
to be training that develops
and sharpens the skill of staff
in participating in voluntary standards.
We recognize that it's an
essential part of their job
and it's an essential part of their performance.
So just like any other skill that they
would need as a professional here at CPSC,
we're just specifically focusing
on that skill of participating
and being engaged in voluntary standards.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Like what skills?
>> George Borlase: I think skills associated
with being able to clearly communicate position,
clearly describe the foundation for
recommendations, those sorts of skills.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: On page six we've added
to the voluntary standards count
swimming pools, spa safety, vacuum relief.
Is this a new voluntary standards committee?
Or is it just because we're joining
it now and going to participate in it?
>> George Borlase: You're
referring to number 23?
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Yes.
>> George Borlase: Yeah.
So there's two different
voluntary standard activities
and we are recommending adding this one because
we believe that there will be new activity
on the safety vacuum relief
systems that occurs this year.
That's why we're recommending adding it.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: On page 20, and
this is actually for DeWane I guess.
One of the compliances priority activities
is to conduct research on the submission
of incident data from third-party
platforms and ecommerce websites.
Can you further explain this?
What does that mean?
>> DeWane Ray: Sure.
This is a follow on of some work that we
did over the last year with Virginia Tech.
And what I will say, it's
very much in the early stages.
We had some interns for the summer, so we
were happy to have them part of this process.
But what we realized through that
is there's a lot of potential
to use publicly available information.
If you think comments and things like
that, that you see on online sites.
And somehow using that through a computer
system similar to what we're looking
for with George's team and the integrated teams
to try to help identify through this vast amount
of information out there, where
there may be potential problems.
It's very much in the early stages.
We've got some ideas on how that will play out.
But it is something that we're very interested
in continuing to investigate and research.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So for instance we would
maybe peruse the Amazon websites and look
at people's comments as to whether or not
they liked the product, if they had a problem
with the product, if there was --
you know, if they cut themselves.
>> DeWane Ray: It could be
broader than just that.
And you know, we're looking -- you
know, some of the ideas that at least
from the technical standpoint is, how do
you get systems to help you parse this data
and help you identify where there
really could be a safety issue.
And that's kind of the end
state that we're looking at.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: My time is expired but I
will just add to that conversation that seems
like a good place for retailer reporting.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Nicely done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Miss Adkins, Mr. Hoffman, I want to also
echo my appreciation for this document.
For the details provided therein.
I think Mr. Hoffman, you emphasized
the change in year over year,
what's different with this document in
terms of how it looks or how it reads.
It's been mentioned by my colleagues.
I appreciate that.
And all the work from all the staff
that went into the development of it.
But I also very much want to demonstrate
my appreciation for Commissioner Robinson.
I really believe Commissioner, that you
elevating the importance of the timing
of this document as well as the level of detail,
helped provide some momentum behind
the situation where we stand today.
So I very much appreciate your leadership there.
I believe getting on regular order is a
demonstration of regulatory best practices.
So I really appreciate where we are
today and what we're looking at.
I do want to mention something that
Commissioner Adler had to say about table saws.
And I'm sympathetic to his disappointment
with where we are on the project.
But I do want to mention, Commissioner,
your personal efforts on this subject,
what you do behind the scenes
to get to an acceptable position
to mitigate this hazard is something that
I think very few recognize or appreciate.
I know it won't come as great solace to you,
but I do want to tell you
how much I appreciate that.
You do it in your typical modest, quiet fashion
without seeking any praise or recognition of it.
And you're very, very generous
with sharing your thoughts on it.
So I hope you appreciate that.
And you mentioned that your staff
suggested you curtail your remarks
because they sounded snarky, like a snarky rant.
And if my staff suggested I don't say what I
planned on saying, I wouldn't have much to say,
if they said don't say something
that would come off as a snarky rant.
The chairman mentioned something in terms of, I
don't know if it's a correct way of putting it,
a distraction of resources
from our operating plan.
Mr. Borlase, you mentioned that there were five
staff years that were dedicated to projects
or efforts that were unforeseen
in our operating plan.
Is that right?
>> George Borlase: Right.
>> Joe Mohorovic: So five staff years.
I know the chairman tried to get to
putting five staff years into perspective.
Can you give it another shot
in terms of five staff years?
Just a general, not holding you to it,
but your best guess in terms of what kind
of an unforeseen distraction
that was imposed upon the staff
and therefore impacted staff's work and time
to get other foreseen projects
in the operating plan completed.
>> George Borlase: Sure.
You know, so in terms of staff
years I guess a perspective would be
that just looking behind me, that would
be as if the half of the specialists.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Behind me?
>> George Borlase: Behind you.
Half the special assistants
were gone for a year.
Or for some of our divisions
or directorates even,
I mean that is half of our
directorate of economics.
So you know, putting it in context of five
staff years, it is as if suddenly you know,
there were five people that we thought
we were going to have in FY 16 working
on projects that were not then just there.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Right.
Now in terms of allowing the
staff time to be distracted away
from commission approved
projects, how is that determined?
Who makes that call to take staff
time and effort away from something
that the commission has decided through
either the original operating plan
or the midyear review to
dedicate time and effort towards?
And then have those resources
to be rededicated elsewhere?
>> DeWane Ray: I want to be clear.
I think when George was describing some of
these unplanned activities, these are activities
that we try our best to anticipate
and allow some level of --
when they're developing the plans for this
year and they're estimating the number
of staff months that it will take to
do the job, that historically any EXHR
and the technical directorates,
they set aside a certain amount
of time for these unforeseen things.
Petitions, compliance support, you
know, all these different areas.
And I think what George was trying to say
is, we thought it was going to be this
and we had a bunch more in those areas and we
had the support compliance and their support.
We were required to do some
of these petition pieces.
So that's where the shifting of that focus is.
But it's not so much a not following
the direction of the commission.
It's just that inability to predict what's
going to come in for things that we can't.
So the project work, we define
it well in advance.
The rule making activities, we
do our best to predict that.
But the things that we cannot
predict, those are the issues
where we get the uncertainty
in the staff months.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And I can appreciate that,
and I can appreciate how that comes up.
I guess in terms of my consideration
where I think it might be worth
discussing a little bit is
to what extent do we allow ourselves or does
staff allow those resources to be rededicated?
Is there a threshold period at which
point in time someone would say, "Well,
this particular incident, this
consumer product safety crisis emerged.
We have to address it, but it will
have a certain level of impact
on what was already considered and approved
by the commission in the operating plan."
The threshold is certainly
not five full staff years.
What is the comfort level with which
staff is willing to redirect away
from the commission approved direction
and resource dedication before it
should come up to the commission.
And/or if this is an element that is
identified in a particular directive
and I'm not aware of it, I apologize for it.
You can direct me to that.
But I'm not familiar with it if it does exist.
What is that threshold where it becomes
uncomfortable that we're moving away
from express commission direction
in terms of staff resourcing?
>> DB: I think as far as a process goes,
the midyear process is part
of that feedback mechanism.
So we make that assessment at midyear.
Now that's once throughout the year.
And you will see not just the
money issues that we reallocate,
but also projects that we anticipated
getting done, we need to readjust.
And so I think as a process, that's where
we come back to the commission and say,
"We thought we could get all this done.
Here's where we're at and we need to adjust."
>> Joe Mohorovic: Excellent.
Okay, I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
>> Patricia Adkins: Mr. Mohorovic,
just in terms --
I know you described them
I believe as distractions.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Well okay,
unresourced activities.
>> Patricia Adkins: Okay, so certainly DeWane
Ray did give some background on that in terms
that there are things that are planned
and there are things that are not planned.
But when do we make a decision
to not do something?
And I think when we have -- just as
an example -- tipovers with Ikea.
Certainly with Hoverboards.
Those were very major projects.
And we certainly felt that the supportive from
the commission that we should engage in those,
and we certainly shared with the
commission where we were in those projects.
So I only use those as two examples of things
that we felt that were critical to accomplish
and take the necessary resources to do those.
Is there a directive or something along
those lines that we were following,
I would probably say no, it was a judgement.
And we knew that those were important areas to
address, not only certainly from our mission,
but we certainly felt as
though we had the support
of the commission in moving those forward.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
That's a good point.
What also would be helpful is, as much as
you'll see a lot of the discussion today
when we're talking about resourcing
items, it's usually not a matter
of the commission not wanting to
resource a particular project.
I've found that going through this exercise
it's more a matter of opportunity costs.
If we had an unlimited budget, if we had more
money to spend, we would spend it in this area,
but we have to make tough choices.
So when the situations do come up,
and I appreciate Mr. Ray's comment
that we had midyear to make those adjustments.
And I think that is a reasonable amount of time.
Please give us the understanding of
what will be sacrificed to the best
that you can make those estimates when we're
going to redirect our resources in ways
that are not foreseen by the operating plan.
But at that point in time I've got too many
questions on specific matters, Mr. Chairman.
So I think it's a good time for me
to pause and wait for the next round.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: So continue to the next round,
just picking up where Commissioner
Mohorovic was, Miss Adkins.
Clearly, though, not only does the
commission bless the specific activity
on the rule making side, but the commission
has historically blessed through delegations
and directives compliance
to use that discretion,
meaning just to fill out that picture.
It's not as if staff has gone
off on frolics and detours
without the commission having provided
a blessed framework to do so, correct?
>> Patricia Adkins: That would be accurate.
>> Elliot Kaye: Okay.
Just want to fill that picture out.
Thank you.
Turning to that blend of compliance actions,
picking up on the phone recall from last week
and our EXHR activities, I am
concerned about lithium ion batteries
and how many recalls we do
see and where this is going.
And today it's lithium ion.
Tomorrow it's going to be something else.
They're going to be smaller,
they're going to be more malleable,
they're going to be more powerful.
And right now you see on airplanes
that you have an issue with some
of these loose external batteries
ending up in seats.
We saw that last week with an airline.
There have been reports that with the larger
seats that have more folding pieces to them,
that these batteries can get caught in them
and end up creating fires on airplanes.
I noticed in the operating plan, Dr.
Borlase, on page 14 that staff has
in the project description 21518 electrical
hazards voluntary standards and codes,
the last bullet point is study of
scope of unprotected lithium ion
and lithium polymer cells and batteries.
I would like to see, and
this will be an amendment
that I will circulate for the decisional.
I would like to see a more thorough
examination by staff of the state
of affairs of lithium ion batteries.
What is the regulatory landscape?
What are the voluntary standards issues?
Is it that we are seeing products
that don't comply with the standards?
Do we see products that do but there are
regulatory or voluntary standards gaps?
Where are we on partnering?
And I see Mr. Simmons from
compliance has done a phenomenal job
of working with our sister agencies.
Where are we in partnering with FAA and
other agencies that have oversight DOT?
And then where are we -- and you might have
to bring in our international programs office
for this -- where are we in partnering
with other countries and trying
to get our arms around lithium ion batteries?
So can you give me a sense as to the
resources that you have dedicated
in the proposed operating plan
based on that project sheet?
And then I think we'll have a further
discussion as to what it would take to try
to fulfill the requests that I'll make
through the amendment if it is adopted.
>> George Borlase: So certainly from
staff's perspective we see these,
we'll call them high energy storage devices,
lithium ion, lithium polymer, et cetera.
We've seen through compliance activities over
the last few years also from our work supporting
that and other research,
the issues related to --
and staff's identified this as one of the you
know, top hazards that needs to be addressed.
So in the 17 op plan, specifically
in the voluntary standard
and then this other supporting activity,
we do have the resources already
for Doug Lee specifically
in electrical engineering.
Others in engineering sciences, laboratory
sciences and EXHR to do engagement with UL
and other standards development organizations
on not just the batteries
themselves but then the systems.
We've seen from Hoverboards for
example that you've got to look
at the system, not just the battery.
And for all the different emerging systems,
for lack of a better way to describe it,
that are lithium ion or lithium polymer battery
or any of these other high
energy batters are in,
how do we kind of build those layers of safety?
Starting at the cell level to the battery
pack level, all the way to the system level.
>> Elliot Kaye: Hopefully you are open
to working with my office to try to come
up with what the resource implications
would be beyond what you have allocated
in the operating plan.
And I think you mentioned
Mr. Lee who has led many
of our electrical engineering investigations.
And the challenges right there of, as these
batteries continue to become an issue,
he would get pulled off of preparing one of
these reports to try and do the investigations.
And that's part of the challenge.
But I do think the public has an expectation
that somebody in the United States government,
and I think we are the somebody who's
most appropriate, is looking at this
and is thinking ahead as to how we can
get on top of it and provide assurances.
This is not a product, or
its usage in a product.
It might end up getting here unfortunately.
But right now people shouldn't expect
that when they use one of these,
that this presents a risk
of their house burning down.
That is unreasonable, and so I
do think we need to do more work
and really get ahead of this issue.
I want to pivot now to section 15J
of the Consumer Product Safety Act.
I noticed in the operating plan that there is
a notice to propose rule making identified.
Can you give us a sense as to what 15J so
to speak we should be expecting to see?
>> George Borlase: The mandatory
standards table, page nine.
Substantial product hazard list 15J rule.
Staff had an MPR in the 2017
performance budget request,
but staff does not have a 15J proposed
rule in the 2017 operating plan.
>> Elliot Kaye: Got it.
I was looking at the wrong column.
And if we were to be able to
fund it, what would be next?
>> George Borlase: We'd have to go
back and look at a specific one.
Part of the issue was after we had completed the
work that we did last year on the holiday lights
and the extension power cords, staff didn't
have a product or a candidate readily available.
So that's why we did not recommend a 15J in 17.
>> Elliot Kaye: Okay, so at some
point if your office could follow
up with my office as to what
those items might be.
Because I feel like I remember from
previous years there was a long list.
And it's possible that some of those
items may have taken care of themselves.
But this is a great tool that
we have when appropriate.
>> George Borlase: Oh yes.
Absolutely we'll follow up with you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you.
I also see that the federal toy
standard is due to be updated this year.
Do we have a sense as to -- maybe
you can just give us the top line
as to what kind of changes that we should see?
>> George Borlase: I don't actually have
all the different changes in front of me.
Staff though has been working with
ASTM 963 committee all the way through
and providing inputs all the way through so
that we're ready when we do get the notification
or revision from ASTM to be able to turn
that package around quickly and get it
to the commission, because
it's on a short timeline.
>> Elliot Kaye: Got it.
And do we have at least a
basic sense as to whether
or not these are safety related changes
or other sort of clean up items?
>> George Borlase: There's
a combination of both.
But staff's been engaged on
the safety items to make sure
if we had any concerns we
were voicing them early.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
Thank you.
Miss Boyle, our general counsel, if I can
just ask you a quick question about an item
in the package having to do with updating
our Freedom of Information Act regulation.
Could you give us a brief sense
please as to why we're doing that now
and what we should expect to see?
>> Sure. Congress passed legislation that
went into effect in June to update the FOIA.
It had a number of provisions
to increase transparency.
But one of the things the legislation
requires is us to update our FOIA regs
to reflect the change in
the FOIA statute amendments.
>> Elliot Kaye: And clearly we've had
conversations over the years about changes
that we can initiate that would
modernize our FOIA processes.
Is that a vehicle for that, or is staff looking
exclusively at whatever Congress required?
>> Right now we're focusing on
implementing what Congress required.
I don't see why it wouldn't be a vehicle
to do other things once we're
opening up our regulations.
I think that opportunity is there.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: Thank you.
And just a couple of points that the chairman
made that I did want to follow up on.
I hope that when we're reviewing
our FOIA regs that one
of the things we'll look at
is the fees that we charge.
I think it's a good thing
that we don't charge people
who don't have much money for FOIA requests.
But people who can afford
it I think we're doing that,
subsidizing folks who don't need subsidizing.
So I urge you to look at the fees
that we charge for FOIA requests.
>> And actually that is one of
the elements of the amendment.
And so we will be looking at that.
>> Robert Adler: I'm delighted to hear that.
I also wanted to mention about batteries.
It's interesting to hear
the chairman talk about it.
This past week I went out and talked to a group
called PPAI, Product Placement Association.
And unfortunately I missed the morning
speaker, and it was somebody from a group
that is the battery trade association.
I mean, we have trade associations
for everything.
I think there are trade associations for
the flammability of belly button lint.
Whatever it is, there are trade associations.
But this is a critical group that
I hope that we will follow up on.
Because over the years I've noticed
that it isn't just Hoverboards.
It isn't just the iPhones.
It's laptops.
We've had endless recalls
involving those products.
And so I think jumping to the more broad
ominous approach is really a sensible one.
And I haven't seen the chairman's proposal, but
I have a feeling that I will probably support it
because I think it's really a good idea.
I also did want to just make a quick comment
in concurrence with Commissioner Mohorovic.
We're always choosing between our children when
it comes to doing what the commission does.
It's always a resource tradeoff.
And I think one of the better things I've seen
happen at this commission over the years --
we're not perfect -- is if
somebody wants to propose something,
we're always asking, "What
is it we're giving up?"
And we have to be prepared if we're coming in to
make a proposal to say, "We'd like to see this,
that but might mean that this slips."
And we ought to do that explicitly.
So I commend Commissioner
Mohorovic for reminding us of that.
So I did have one question and I'm sorry
this is the lighthearted question of the day.
But if you look at page three, I'm
always intrigued by these items.
So on page three, if I can actually turn
to it, towards the bottom of the page I see
under this SO2.2, two categories.
One of which says that we're going to have a
90% foreign-based representatives indicating
increased understanding after CPSC training.
And below that I see that we're going
to try for 90% for the percentage
of foreign regulatory agencies
who indicate increased know-how.
And I'm wondering what's the difference between
increased understanding and increased know-how?
But more than that, if I might.
I realize that it's important at times
to try to measure the unmeasurable.
And so I think it's fine that we're doing this.
I'm just curious, is there a metric?
Are we going to give them a
quiz to see how much they know?
Or is this just we've run them through the
training and we think it's been successful?
>> Patricia Adkins: To your point, Commissioner,
we probably will give them a survey,
a feedback form at the conclusion
of the training activities.
And hopefully the questions that are
provided to them will give us some insight
as to whether they have gained the
knowledge that we were intending.
>> Robert Adler: Yeah.
And I think that's a perfectly
appropriate approach.
I wouldn't hold my breath as saying
that will necessarily be the
absolute picture of what's happening.
It's the same way when you ask
voters, "Are you planning on voting?"
"Oh yeah."
And then you compare the number of people who
say they're going to or even who say they have
with the actual vote turnout
and there's a discrepancy.
First of all I think the underlying
project is a very good one.
I did also, just a quick question on FTE's.
I noticed on page 40 that we are looking
to have 90% of our FTE's utilized.
And I have an impression that we've done better
and better in recent years in coming close.
We'll never hit it perfectly and I'm not
sure we ever should hit it perfectly.
But am I correct in saying we've been coming
closer and closer to hitting our FTE target?
Is there some new approach that we've
adopted that has enabled us to do that?
Or is my premise wrong?
>> George Borlase: So I guess
I would say two things to that.
One, we have gotten closer and closer
to consuming all of our available FTE.
In fact I think it exceeds 90% if
that gives you a warm and fuzzy.
>> Robert Adler: It does.
It does. Congratulations.
>> George Borlase: The other thing
that we're doing is the budget office.
We haven't implemented it yet, but they're
working with the human resources office to try
to get more fidelity on -- this is
a little bit esoteric, I apologize.
But sort of fund certifying each position
and what that will allow us to do is
to really push the envelope to
maximize staffing throughout the year.
We're hoping to implement
that new approach in FY 2017.
We'll be talking to all of you more about
it once we have the details in place.
>> Robert Adler: I'd like to
ask a question to Mr. Wolfson.
So George, you can step down for just a second.
We try to bring in pinch
hitters from time to time.
Mr. Wolfson, it's my understanding that in
recent years you have gone out of your way
to try to build in some evaluation components
for some of the education campaigns.
And again, that's one of those
things that consumes resources.
So you're spending money to see what you've
done as opposed to spending money to do it.
But I was hoping that you could give me a
brief description of which programs we built
in an evaluation component and what
it is precisely that we're evaluating.
>> Scott Wolfson: So to your point
about the question about the training
on the foreign level, we like to be able to do
some of the same things at the domestic level.
We know we have a lot of our field
staff that go out and speak publicly.
A lot of people at headquarters do the same.
It would be nice to get a sense
in the aftermath of that speech,
that training session, what was the response?
The word usefulness is throughout the
strategic plan as it pertains to communications.
Was the presentation, was the
nature of the information useful?
That is kind of a no-cost approach.
We'll take ONB review.
There is another activity
we like to do formally.
We've been sensitized through the feedback
from the commission to get more survey results.
I will have some results to share with
the commission hopefully very soon
from the national awareness survey
that was completed this fiscal year.
But we want to build on that.
So we are hoping to work off of a
contract that I know EXHR is considering
to do some more formal survey work.
We feel good about our reach, but
we need to know how effective it is.
So is it the right platform
that we're communicating on?
Are we communicating at the right grade level?
We're very sensitive to certain people's
educational level and the words we use.
We can be highly technical at this
agency, but it may not serve us well.
The only way to get a sense of
that is to survey activities.
>> AR: Yeah, I mean the perfect evaluation tool
is that you see injuries and fatalities drop.
That gets to be a major challenge
and a major confound.
But you can certainly move
from impressions to awareness.
And it sounds like you're making that and
doing it as usual in a very thoughtful way.
And I guess actually I think
I'm going to stop at this point.
I have a couple of additional questions but
I can see they would use up more of my time.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Thank you, Dr. Borlase.
I just wanted to follow up on where we left
off when my time ran out the last time.
You told me that there's a voluntary standard
and you don't have the specifics that IEEE has
with respect to biometrics and RFID technology.
And as you and I discussed, what you're
envisioning this standard would do with respect
to specific products is somewhat
like the compartment requirements
for coin cell batteries in electronics.
As the voluntary standard comes up, sort of a
voluntary standard with respect to that kind
of device would be applied
to a specific product.
So I guess what I'd like to know is first of all
whether CPSC staff has looked at the standards
for these new technologies
for biometrics and RFID.
Because I'm thinking of it sort
of with respect to child resistant
or childproof packaging with certain products.
And as you know, I was optimistic that that
new project that was added might include that.
But have we looked at that, and do we have
any intention at this point in this op plan
of including that as -- and I guess included
in that question is whether we
have the expertise to do that.
>> George Borlase: So staff very recently
started looking at RFID and biometrics.
And to your point, they are
looking at them in the context
of what they usually call horizontal standards,
i.e. it's a standard that can be applied across.
>> Marietta Robinson: I knew
there was a term for it.
>> George Borlase: A number of things.
So they just started to look at that.
But as we discussed from the first place,
you know, staff didn't see anything in there
that was worthy of proposing as an
addition to the voluntary standards table.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
I want to make a comment and I
always love it when I find something
that Commissioner Buerkle and I agree on.
And this third-party platform data is a
very interesting proposition right now.
And I'm absolutely delighted that we
both have it as a list of priorities,
and then the milestone on page 24 says
that "report on solutions for submission
of incident data from third-party
platform ecommerce sites will be prepared.
And I just wanted to say that way beyond --
I think what hasn't been mentioned is that
these types, these third-party platform,
nontraditional retailers
if you will, did not exist
and could not have been anticipated
when our statute was passed.
And so they're very much a reality
in the 21st century marketplace.
And when we were looking at retail reporting,
out of my office for the first time,
and I wish it had been I, but it wasn't.
Miss Bramble suggested, well these
retailers already have a duty
under our statute to report to us under 15B.
Why don't we try to do this kind of reporting
with respect to third-party platform providers?
And it was really I confess the first time I
had really focused on the fact that so many.
We not only have exclusive but
people who are selling exclusively
as third-party platform providers, but so many
of our huge retailers are using their
websites for marketing in this way.
So that you've got one-stop shopping portals.
So I know this is the next phase for
American consumers and it's becoming more
and more ubiquitous and something that if
we don't find a way of getting industry
to cooperate with us, we've got a real problem.
Because under our statute they
certainly could strongly argue
that they have absolutely
no duty to report to us.
And I think that's been a
position that we've taken so far.
So I am delighted that we are going to use this.
And I think it's an excellent opportunity.
And hopefully what we've learned from retail
reporting is going to be able to inform the ways
in which we can work with these
third-party platform providers.
And hopefully in a collaborative
non-adversarial way we can get some of them
on board with respect to reporting to us.
And then we can figure out what else
we have to do to get that information.
With respect to the nice data, I would
just like to say that I was very,
very excited to see the enhancements
that are set forth on page 12
that have three new areas that we're doing.
And I do have some questions on that.
I'm not sure, since I don't
see anybody from epi here,
whether somebody who is here can answer this.
But one of the enhancements that is
listed on page 12 under 111.79 is
that we would implement a new mode of
collecting hazard scenario information
in addition to telephone interviews.
And I'm just wondering if anyone who is here
knows exactly what that project is describing.
>> George Borlase: That project's looking at
developing online collection of the information
versus having to make phone calls
as follow up for NICE reports.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And on the enhancement that's
described as assessing the feasibility
of statistical modelling of NICE injury data in
conjunction with US Census Bureau and HCUP data
from HHS including sociodemographic
group injury estimates.
I was absolutely delighted to see that
and I'm wondering if you could explain
to me a little bit more about
the information that's contained
in the sociodemographic group injury estimates.
>> George Borlase: That detail
I'll have to get back to you on.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
Yeah, I really think if we can
get that information we could
so much better target the
communications that we make also.
And then the third one is expanding the length
of the narrative fields and modifying the race
and ethnicity variables to align with
those used in the US Census Bureau.
And I was wondering if you
know how those would help us.
I bet you're going to get back to me on that.
>> George Borlase: I can help you.
>> Marietta Robinson: Good.
>> George Borlase: On the one,
expanding the narrative field,
so that's a limitation on the database side.
Which by increasing the size of that field
they'll be able to capture more data.
You know, right now it's cut off at I don't
know what exactly number of characters.
But that will allow more
descriptions in that narrative field
that we currently are limited by.
>> Marietta Robinson: And
the modification of the race
and ethnicity variables to
align with US Census Bureau?
>> George Borlase: Yeah, I think that
has more to do with being able to capture
and report back effectively on that,
and modifying the system to do that.
But we will get back to you specifically.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
That's fine.
I do have a couple questions and I
see Mr. Ralph is here so I'm not sure
if he's going to need to answer these.
But on page 39 we have a description
of an IT customer satisfaction survey.
And I don't know if that's describing customers
within the agency or outside the agency.
Welcome, Mr. Ralph.
>> How are you?
Hello. Thank you.
Yeah, this one is primarily looking at
internal agency, agency customer evaluations.
>> Marietta Robinson: That's terrific.
Because I know that that's been a problem in
the past in terms of coordinating the party
who is going to be using the
IT and I applaud you for that.
That's outstanding.
The other thing, the other question
I have for you before you go away,
the electronic monthly reports, do you think
that we're going to be able
to do that this year?
>> That's the plan.
So as Mr. Ray mentioned earlier,
we're in the final phases
of issuing the current procurement
actions for that.
And the anticipated period of performance
for that is within the next fiscal year.
>> Marietta Robinson: Excellent.
And just one more question for
you, the last item on page 39.
That's 2017 M53 says "an evaluation
of product identification capabilities
and of the benefits of standardization
completed."
What is that?
>> So this is evaluating, specifically looking
at G-10 as the universal product identifier
and potential benefits for applying
that to systems in use within the agency
to promote alignment of products
by identification.
Specific identification of products
across different program areas.
The reason why there's some need for
alignment is because we also have other sources
of information that come in that are
related to product identification.
Things like tariff codes
and also NICE data elements
that have their own specific
requirements and needs.
They operate within some
specific contexts as well.
And so this effort will be looking at how and
whether it's effective for us to use a standard
for product ID and also rationalize
that with these other product
description categorization standards.
>> Marietta Robinson: Right.
Standardize it.
Excellent.
Thank you.
I'm out of time.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Robinson.
Commissioner Buerkle.
I was about to give you more time.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Just
because we agree on data.
I have a couple questions for Dr. Borlase.
We are going to be receiving, the commission
is going to be receiving a briefing package
on ROV's and I understand it's not going to
come with any recommendation on rule making.
And I'm just wondering, so that ROV, that
rule, the proposed rule is on the books.
How do we get that -- maybe
this is a question for OJC.
How would one go about getting
that rule out of the system?
>> The staff would have to submit a package
to the commission explaining the reasons why
they would not support continuing rule making
and whatever those recommendations would be.
And if the recommendation, they would have to
support the record for termination and submit
that to the commission for commission vote.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And so the
briefing package that we are going
to get regarding the ROV's, is that going
to include the information
that Miss Boyle just mentioned?
>> George Borlase: The scope
of the briefing package
on ROV's is specifically just an
evaluation of the voluntary standard,
both the recently publish ROVA
and OPI voluntary standards.
It is specifically addressing only two
questions as staff puts it together.
Does staff expect the voluntary standard to
be effective in addressing the hazards related
to occupant protection, stability
and steering on ROV's?
And do we expect that those two voluntary
standards will be widely adopted?
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And then following that,
then we have to request again a briefing package
from staff that would say whether
or not and advise us whether
or not we could terminate this rule making?
>> I mean, it's a question of process.
But the main point is that if staff presents
a package, the commission can consider
that package as the basis for decision-making.
You would have to then direct staff.
There would be an FR notice involved.
So there would be another process point.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
>> We would have to notify
the public of the reasons
for termination and the support behind that.
So there would be an FR notice involved.
So yes, the answer is yes there
would be another process point.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: But that process does
not have to include another briefing package?
We could maybe surmise from what staff
gives us in that original package?
>> Well I guess I don't want to
prejudge what's in the briefing package.
I guess it depends on what's
in the briefing package.
But the commission could direct staff to --
based on its reading of the briefing package --
to proceed with the termination package.
In which case the information necessary for
a termination package would be re-presented
to the commission along with an FR
notice, a proposed draft FR notice.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you very much.
On page 25 of the ops plan, it talks
about the E-filing program and the pilot
that is now currently up and running.
Is there any idea or estimation of what the cost
of the E-filing program will
be for fiscal year 2017?
>> DeWane Ray: So I think as we presented it,
the current pilot finishes
hopefully at the end of December.
And then based on an evaluation of the
alpha pilot as we've been calling it,
and assuming that is positive and
staff feels like we need to move
on to the beta pilot as we've described it.
We would come to the commission and
recommend proceeding with that beta pilot.
At this point, you know, any kind of
resources that are associated with that,
we don't believe there will be
significant to move on to the next phase.
Because a lot of that is about you know, this
phase was a very small number of entities.
We are looking at expanding
it to a larger group.
But we would at that time, if
resources were a constraint
within that, we would put that forward.
And timing-wise we're looking more springtime
before we think we could even be at that point.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
That point being completion of the
alpha pilot and then evaluation?
>> DeWane Ray: Evaluation of the alpha and
then any kind of recommendation on whether
to move forward in the beta and further.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And you feel you have
the resources to get to that point at least?
>> DeWane Ray: I'm not going to
say that at this point in time.
I think we need to get through
the evaluation piece and I think
if we did we would come forward
for midyear process.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: No, I mean
to get to the evaluation piece.
You feel you have the resources to do that?
>> DeWane Ray: Yeah.
I think as we're currently
planned in the draft version
of this plan, we can get through the alpha.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I wanted
to talk just a little bit
about RAM and the expansion of the RAM.
You know, fondly referred to as 2.0, but
it is the attempt to bring RAM in house
so we can make some of the changes ourselves.
I guess let's start with where we're at.
If you could provide us with a status of the
transition from RAM to bringing RAM in house.
>> DeWane Ray: So we're I'll say almost
at the end of the cycle as far as the kind
of user acceptance testing that
is done with our import team.
We've done several tests at
ports throughout the country
to make sure how it's performing in the field.
We have what I'll call the punch list of
items that still need to be addressed.
And I do note the team is working through that.
So I think as far as transitioning to
what we've been calling our 2.0 version,
we're getting very close to completing that.
And the sense that I have is that you
know, we're at a much better place.
You know, like any software
development, there's a process.
And we're at the end of that
process at this point in time.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: But you're comfortable
with the functionality of the new RAM?
>> DeWane Ray: We're almost there.
I don't want to give a full comfort level.
The team is not fully through the testing, but
I believe we're on track to get to that point.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And so when
we eventually make that transition,
and I understand there's going to
be overlapping for a period of time.
>> DeWane Ray: That's correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: When
we make that transition,
then will there be a requirement
to have a third-party vendor?
Or can we handle that ourselves?
>> DeWane Ray: So I think the best way
to describe that is we were transitioning
from the least version to the own version.
But we still have support requirements that
we seek outside contractors to help in.
So that's part of that operation
and maintenance,
but it's built into the RAM support piece.
But what this functionality will allow us
to do is gives us more ability to adjust
and customize the targeting rules.
And that's probably one of the
biggest changes from the 1.0 to 2.0.
That gives us the ability to adjust that.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I have one last question I think
I can fit in my time that's left.
On page 23 of the ops plan, item number 34.381,
the internet surveillance program support.
And I mean, I could read what's on page 23, but
can you explain to me what the scope of that is?
What will motivate surveillance of one type
or another, how that is going to be run?
>> DeWane Ray: This is a continuation
of the program we already have in place,
primarily run out of our field directorate.
And this you know, continues the
process of looking at online retailers,
different sites where you know,
either recalled products or products
that would not meet a standard are being sold.
And taking appropriate action on those items.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Products that
don't meet a voluntary standard?
>> DeWane Ray: No.
For example let's say there's a site
selling children's clothes with drawstrings.
We would identify the seller that that is a
violation of a rule that the commission has
and ask them to take it down and
educate them on that process.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
My time is expiring, but I do want to say to Dr.
Borlase, still I didn't get in my first round
of questioning the follow-up with the
concerns regarding the voluntary standards
that Commissioner Adler referred to.
And I think maybe offline I'd like to hear
those with a meeting with Miss Edwards
to hear what the concerns are with the
voluntary standards and our participation.
>> George Borlase: We'll work with you on that.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question surrounds the hazard
of furniture tipover and the subject
of furniture tipover, starting
with the Anchor It campaign.
What is the level of funding in the FY 17
operating plan for the Anchor It campaign?
>> George Borlase: Commissioner, I
appreciate that question because the cycle
that we're in is a challenging one.
As I indicated yesterday, you granted
us as the commission midyear funds.
It was not until yesterday
that that contract was signed.
So Kim Dulek is doing an
outstanding job as project lead.
Weinmeyer Communications is a very good firm.
They're serving us well.
We have $288,000 now to proceed with
this last week and go into next year.
That is not enough to go
through the entire fiscal year.
My concern is lost momentum.
Because that campaign is
getting results that we saw
with the Pull Safely campaign
three or four years into it.
So it's very encouraging
what we have to work with.
But we could do more with more.
So at this point the question is, you know,
do we just need to do the best
we can with the funds we have?
Or are we back into that cycle of coming to you
at midyear and saying we've depleted our funds?
>> Joe Mohorovic: You're an advocate
so I hate to treat you this way,
but on Jeopardy they make the contestant
answer the question in the form of a question.
Can you answer the question in
the form of a dollar amount?
How much money?
And I didn't intend to ask you
this, but let's be honest here.
How much money in FY 17 do we
have planned or recommended
for the Anchor It campaign FY 17 operating plan?
>> George Borlase: There's no money at the base
level in OCM's budget, but we have indicated
in some documentation that to go above
the base we recommend another $400,000
to fully support the campaign.
>> Joe Mohorovic: 0.00 in FY 17 for
the award-winning Anchor It campaign.
Now Miss Adkins, for what
activities do we have underway then,
if we're not recommending any funding
for an IME campaign for Anchor It?
What activities do we have underway to
mitigate the hazards associated with furniture
that is compliant with voluntary
standards tipping over?
>> Patricia Adkins: I'll certainly
ask Scott to follow up on this.
But the $250,000, that's correct.
That will get us through some portion of
FY 17 although it was awarded in FY 16.
Will take us through some portion of the year.
When that is over, then staff will
certainly come back and determine
in midyear what might be
available in terms of a proposal.
And then the commission can consider.
>> Joe Mohorovic: My point is a far one.
The reason I was asking for it,
what are the mitigation strategies
for the product that's currently
out in the marketplace?
Because this is one of those typically
vexing situations where we've got out usual
and maybe most effective approaches to
mitigation can be in the standards arena,
through mandatory rule making
or voluntary rule making.
But that will have little if no impact
on product that's in the marketplace.
We know of dozens of fatalities associated with
product that complies with voluntary standards,
so therefore it limits our compliance efforts.
Are we going to do nothing about that
product where we know is in the marketplace
but consumers may continue to
use them in unsafe circumstances
by putting television on top, et cetera?
And we have no other approach if we're
deciding not to fund Anchor It in 2017?
>> Patricia Adkins: That's what
I was saying, Commissioner.
If we have funds that take us through a
portion of FY 17 and there are funds available
through the midyear and that is proposed
and the commission signs off on that,
then we would certainly move forward with that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Are you committing
that that would be the top of the list
of staff recommended midyear funding levels?
>> Patricia Adkins: I can't
commit to that at this stage.
Certainly staff would propose
a list of a product.
>> Joe Mohorovic: But that's
what you're suggesting.
How long through the current fiscal year is
the existing resources going to run through?
>> Scott Wolfson: We will do all we
can to stretch it as far as possible.
This current fiscal year was --
>> Joe Mohorovic: Your best judgement.
>> Scott Wolfson: I mean, we need to think
about trying to go three quarters of the way
through the fiscal year based
upon our current experience.
Because we ran out of adequate funds
prior to coming to you at midyear
and seeking additional funds
and therefore we had
that gap before funds were
actually allocated to us.
But you know, lesson learned for us.
We will do as best we can to go as
far into the fiscal year as possible.
>> Joe Mohorovic: No, I appreciate that.
I appreciate the efforts
of your office and working
with your contractors on
an award-winning campaign.
But I think we currently have $288,000 left
from FY 16 appropriations to spend into FY 17.
If we're going to make a decision on our
FY 17 budget, how much can we reasonably --
and hope that there's money that we might
be able to redirect towards this effort
in midyear -- how much spend are we going to get
through on that $288,000 in your best judgement?
End of year?
Two quarters?
I mean, not trying to be
more specific than you can.
>> Scott Wolfson: Right.
We will do the best we can to kind of look
at the allocations of placement for PSA's,
other campaign activities related
to development of more partners.
We'll try to be smart with those dollars.
Just to give you a bit of a metric for
our national awareness survey we went
out and talked to 650 respondents.
And we had a 33% response
rate, affirmative response rate
that they had heard about the campaign.
That's a pretty good start for where
we are thus far with that activity.
So we're going to do all we can with
the funds we have to get back to 40-50%.
But I think if we view the campaign
in terms of where we're at now
with Pull Safely this many years, there's a
lot of potential there for Anchor It to build
up to a highly, highly recognized campaign.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I recognize you're going to do
everything you can and I applaud those efforts.
But now be very specific.
Since it was difficult to get
a dollar amount answer in terms
of how much money we have allocated in
FY 17 for this campaign, which is $0.
In terms of the current spend, $288,000 that
we'll be using in FY 17 and an answer of Q1, Q2,
Q3, Q4, FY 17, when will
those funds be fully used up?
>> Scott Wolfson: I think
it's fair to say in Q3,
to be realistic about out
prior two years of experience.
I think that's the best answer I can give.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Well thank you.
That wasn't so difficult.
And I hope my colleagues have
been thinking about this hazard.
As we come to a final decision on it in terms
of meriting, as Commissioner Adler pointed out,
deciding among our children here,
this remains among the most severe.
It's got a level of latency that is not seen in
the other hazards that we're trying to address.
And of course it addresses our
most vulnerable populations.
And I will also point out that we have no other
strategy other than Anchor It that is planned
that we could reasonably be
confident is being exerted
to mitigating the hazard involving
existing product that's in the marketplace
that complies with voluntary standards.
We know that there are continued fatalities
from children that are dying from being crushed
from the furniture or TV tipover.
And this is our only approach.
Fortunately we have an approach
that's award-winning.
And in terms of making decisions, I
appreciate Commissioner Adler pointing
out the international programs
efforts on capacity building.
We've got a metric, and I wouldn't have made
note of it had you not, Commissioner Adler.
But we have a metric, the percentage
of foreign regulatory agency representatives
indicating know-how after CPSC training.
As opposed to understanding after CPSC training.
So what we're doing is we're
determining that it's more important
to train our international counterparts
in how they can do a better job
for their constituencies than
putting funding towards Anchor It.
That is an olive branch towards
a potential amendment.
I hope my colleagues will consider that
if you're looking for somewhere else.
I would look there first.
It's not that the international
activities and capacity building
for foreign counterparts
isn't laudable in some way.
But certainly in terms of perspective
I don't think it measures up.
I'll yield at this point.
>> IK: I'm going to continue on the
topic of tipovers and there are a number
of different areas that Commissioner
Mohorovic got into.
And I'm going to try to cover them.
We obviously can't discuss
publicly implying factions,
but we can point to the fact we've
already taken two compliance actions
so far this calendar year on this hazard.
And we may not be done.
Fair to say we may not be done.
Now I think if I heard Commissioner
Mohorovic correctly, he's distinguishing
from a mitigation strategy between products
that don't comply with the voluntary standard,
which may or may not be the
basis of our compliance actions.
And hazards from products that do
comply with the voluntary standard.
Did I hear you correct?
And I'll yield for that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: You heard me correct
in suggesting and asking specifically
from staff's point of view, what mitigation
hazards they plan on employing towards product
that complies with the voluntary standards.
Not making a difference there.
But in an honest assessment, what
resources are to address that,
knowing what can be disclosed
and what cannot be disclosed?
>> Elliot Kaye: Got it.
And I appreciate that, reclaiming my time.
Because that's the first time I think that
we've at least publicly acknowledged --
well maybe as a group concerns about product
on the market that complies with the standard
as opposed to product on the market
that's not compliant with the standard.
Staff is due to send up soon a briefing package.
I don't know what's in it.
I don't think my fellow commissioners know
what's in it, what their recommendations.
But based on what I thought was absolutely
outstanding work by Underwriters Laboratories
and Kids in Danger, they have already
identified test methods and changes,
improvements to the voluntary standards
that I think will make a huge difference.
And yes, that doesn't get to product
that's on the market right now.
That gets to future products.
But I do think we need to pursue those.
And I'm grateful that the
staff as part of soliciting --
Commissioner Robinson mentioned
this in the beginning as part
of soliciting information
from the various offices.
The one item that I did request
that staff consider including
in the operating plan was
commencing rule making on tipovers.
Because I do think based on that report by
UL and KID, as well as other information
that we know enough now, including
the recalls that we've done.
We know enough now that we should be considering
not only what the standard can evolve to,
but how we can enforce that better.
So I am very eager.
I understand that there's other
work that has to come before that,
but I'm very eager should the staff
packets warrant or confirm that.
Those suspicions that we would forcefully move
in the direction of improving the standard,
both through the voluntary standards process
and if that's insufficient or compliance
with that is insufficient, that
we would move on the rule making.
I do want to mention one other topic, and
Dr. Borlase if you could please return
to the table since this is in your purview.
I did receive a request within
the last week or two.
I think it's the first that we've gotten at
least that I'm aware of, from an outside party
or from any party for that matter, to
have CPSC staff lead a voluntary standards
technical effort.
And it's in the area of sensors
for athletic helmets and headgear.
I was pleased to see it.
I do think from the experience that
I've had involved with youth sports
that parents are desperate to have some type
of assistance in figuring out what's going
on with the impacts to their children's
brains while they're playing sports.
And I have serious concerns about the efficacy
of the products that are on the market.
I do think that they are misleading
and that they provide a false
sense of security to parents.
There is no current voluntary
standard to address the validity
and repeatability of those standards.
So can you just briefly walk us
through how will staff now handle
that request to have staff lead that effort?
What's the process?
And more importantly, the
timeline on that please?
>> George Borlase: So after the commission
approved the final rule on the 1031 changes
to the 1031 16CFR1031 staff developed, and as
an approved directive that provides the steps.
So with the request within
EXHR and this is the step
that we're still on, we're
evaluating the request.
And the request then comes with
documentation of reasons for, against.
And there's a number of criteria
that we evaluate.
The subcommittee that is related to the
hazard that we're trying to address,
whereas the hazard we're trying to
address compared to the other hazards,
I guess is it one of the more important hazards
for lack of a better way to describe it?
We're trying to address at the time,
where does it fit in our priorities,
the commission's priorities?
That goes up to the executive
director for a call.
I would say within a couple
weeks is when it has to come
out of EXHR to go to the executive director.
But it's the executive director's
final decision as to whether staff --
and it's a request for a task group leadership.
So in this case lead a task group.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you for that.
And even if we don't end up leading it, and
that's what the executive director decides,
it's still in the operating plan as one
of the voluntary standards I'm guessing.
For recreational headgear,
does that include sensors?
>> George Borlase: Absolutely.
The reason we requested to lead the task group
is we sent a letter last fall requesting ASTM
to form a task group.
So I guess we should have seen
that one coming right back around.
But the specific request from ASTM is a direct
result of a letter staff sent ASTM last fall.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
So whatever the executive director's
decision, it does sound like we'll continue
to support that effort at a minium.
Is that correct?
>> George Borlase: Yes, absolutely.
Participation in the voluntary
standard is still separate
from whether or not we lead the task group.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
Because I know there's some excellent
work out of the University of Ottawa
and other institutions including I
believe from the gentleman who requested
that we lead the task group
to try to find some way
to create a baseline standard
for these products.
So hopefully CPSC staff, whether
in the leading capacity officially
or unofficially can play a major role in that.
Commissioner Adler?
>> Robert Adler: Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I just wanted to return to a point
that Commissioner Mohorovic was making.
And let me say I think tipovers
is a serious issue
and I think you've done a good
job of describing tipovers.
I just want to point out something that's
vexing to me about doing op plan and budget.
And that is, as much as I would love to
say that people who are staff who work
in the international program could be
reprogramed to doing tipover, what we're talking
about with the $400,000 is contract dollars.
It's not staff resources.
So if you want to free up the $400,000
and I'm very sympathetic to doing that,
what you have to do is find $400,000
in contract dollars to reprogram.
And of course I've got a suggestion or two
of my own in possibly different directions.
I did also want to return to something
that Miss Adkins said at the start.
Because I don't think we've sufficiently
congratulated or applauded the tremendous work
that you and the staff have
done on the strategic plan.
And the appendix to me is
just an extraordinary thing.
To see you trying to integrate the
strategic plan into things like the op plan.
So I'm wondering if you can just give
me an overall impression of your feeling
about how effectively the strategic
plan has been and is being integrated
into the commission's work with respect to
things like budget, operating plan and midyear?
>> Patricia Adkins: This
was certainly our first,
well I won't say exactly the first attempt.
But certainly the one that has
been presented to the commission.
It was a very collaborative activity
to develop the strategic plan.
Certainly engaging the commission
as well as the commission's staff.
And we really try to engage across the
different functional areas within CPSC.
And I certainly have the
impression that there was a good job
that was done in engaging in employees.
What I'm concerned about is that
there was a lot of work put into it.
We have a document.
We will have an executive summary document
as well as a brochure associated with that.
And I think my words were used, a
living document, that we really want
to develop an appropriate launch within CPSC.
So that this will not just sit on the shelf.
But this, to your point, Commissioner
Adler, this was the first major presentation
of the strategic plan in a document that
will guide us through certainly FY 17.
>> Robert Adler: What I think is
so extraordinary about this is,
in my experience of at least 40
years of reading strategic plans,
is they're almost never the real
driver of the way we organize our work.
What typically happens at best is at the end
of the process of doing an operating plan
or a budget, somebody says, "Oh
yeah, we've got to go and make sure
that we can find X and Y in the strategic plan."
And it's all done post-hoc where they go
and say, "Oh yeah, well this kind of works
for that part of the strategic plan.
But if you really want to have a strategic
plan work, it's got to be the lead element
when you're trying to do things
like budget and operating plan.
And I could be wrong, but my
impression is that at least it feels
like that's what's happened here.
So again I congratulate you.
>> Patricia Adkins: I would also like, if I
could add again, some work that FM has done
to incorporate the strategic plan
into our day-to-day activities.
And if I could just have Jay speak to
that, because it does speak to your point.
>> AR: Please.
>> Jay Hoffman: Well thank you.
Yeah, we really have taken the
executive director's direction to heart.
And you know, I wanted to just say
we had one session back in August
when we were finalizing the operating plan.
It was a four-hour session where we reverse
engineered from the performance goals
and initiatives in the strategic
plan back to the operating plan.
And that's what you see in the appendix.
And we're really excited about carrying
that same kind of process forward
into the FY18 budget process that will
happen over the next several months in terms
of our data reviews that we're
doing on a biannual basis.
And then again we talked a lot about
soliciting commissioner input and priorities.
I see a lot of possibilities
in that area as well.
And going back and saying, "Okay,
once these planning processes start,
how can we then pluck from the strategic plan?"
So a lot of really great ideas.
I'm sure the staff will appreciate
your compliment on that.
So thank you for recognizing the work.
>> Robert Adler: Yeah.
And please understand I am a longtime
skeptic about the value of strategic plans.
I think they use up a lot more energy
than the benefit we get from them.
And this is one that to my delight it
feels like all that work is justified.
So congratulations to you and other folks.
This is apropos of nothing that I could
find in the op plan, but it is something
when I was hearing the question about as
we're gathering data and issuing reports
about the limitations of the software
in terms of expanding data fields.
And so I think I've cleared it, Mr.
Ray, that over time I would love
when I read the compliance reports not to
read words that are cut off in mid spelling.
And it would also be, while I'm at it,
I'd love to see some spell check
element added to the software.
I realize this is old software.
But it's just an ongoing annoyance that I have.
The big question I would have at
this point is turning to page 14.
And I'm looking at the older
consumer safety hazards.
Having been an older person for
many years now, I think when I came
to the commission I was already
a senior citizen.
And I'm getting even more
senior as time is going on.
I know we do an annual report or a
biannual report on senior citizen hazards.
Is this project 22640, is this going
beyond the portable bedrails annual report?
But this is actually exploring
additional ways to dedicate resources
to doing projects for senior citizens?
>> George Borlase: It is.
22640 does include the adult
portable bedrails petition.
But those include additional work.
Specifically what staff's working
on this year is work associated
with multi-generational homes.
We know from the data that there's
often -- with the sandwich generation,
older and younger in the same house now.
So we're looking at safety issues.
And there's some commonality
with safety issues with --
if you have multiple generations in the
home -- older citizens and young children.
For example, fire escape.
Making sure that everybody
can get out of the house.
>> Robert Adler: Yeah, and it is true that
there's often an overlap between hazards
that attach to senior citizens
and citizens at large,
which is not quite the same
issue when it comes to children.
Children have unique hazards
that impinge on them.
But one of the things that I think
is so good about the work we do is
that when we do our report on senior citizens,
we isolate those products that produce injuries
at a rate greater for senior
citizens than for others.
And that at least gives us a
chance to focus our efforts.
And it is my senioritis that prevents
me from remembering the statistic,
but if you look at the percentage
of senior citizens
in the population at large, it's growing.
But the percentage of fatalities
that happen to senior citizens
from products is dramatically disproportionate
when it comes to senior citizens.
So I'm always delighted to see
us doing that kind of work.
And oh, one last point and that
is with respect to a question
that Commissioner Buerkle raised
about monitoring the internet.
I mean, the internet is just exploding.
And so my question is, do you feel
comfortable that we have the correct level
of resources dedicated to
monitoring the internet
and that we have the appropriate
compliance measures being taken
to deal with the violations we see?
My sense is now that we just either
send an email or we send a letter.
But have we developed a way of finding out
whether there are significant bad actors
on the internet that we can
monitor for compliance purposes?
>> DeWane Ray: I think as you pointed out,
we do have a small team that focuses on this.
So you know, there's challenges with that,
especially when you're dealing with like
after market sales of recalled goods.
It's often difficult to deal with that.
You know, the challenge is also the tools.
You know, we're limited on how much effort can
we put in to the numbers that are out there?
And what kind of activities?
With regards to if we receive multiple
repeat offenders, and we believe we're able
to identify things like that, to
that extent we'll escalate that.
And work with our general counsels for
effective remedies as far as that goes.
>> AR: Yeah, the only last comment I would
make before my time expires is that I do seem
to think that we have a fair number
of repeat offenders when it comes
to selling what they call children's playwear
but what we call children's sleepwear.
And I'm glad that we continue to monitor that.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Mr. Wolfson,
I have a couple questions for you.
My first one is with respect
to the Anchor It campaign.
It's no secret that my office has
been intimately involved in trying
to address the tipover hazard
on multiple fronts.
I know we've measured impressions.
And my recollection is that you and
I had a conversation at some point
in the last few months about trying to
find a better metric for the effectiveness
of the Anchor It campaign, rather
than just people who see it.
But rather whether we were
actually altering people's behavior.
Whether we were getting people to
actually anchor their furniture.
My first question is whether
I'm recalling that correctly.
And the second one is whether
we've been able to find
out any information about the effectiveness.
>> Scott Wolfson: So you're correct about
our intent to endeavor to have such a survey.
That speaks to the limitations that we have
with the current budget for FY 16 into 17.
Part of our activities will
be to develop such a survey.
Now that will take time to
get through OMB presumably.
And it's expensive.
So we want to do that.
We want to take this singular
data point that we got
from the national awareness
survey and build off it.
People are hearing about it,
but are they acting upon it.
So we need to be on both tracks, continuing
to do our work, to create that awareness.
But assess whether awareness
is translating into action.
That's the key.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
I wasn't sure whether we'd had an opportunity
to measure whether it was
affecting people's behavior.
I would just like to say on this first
of all that I am in full agreement
with the observations that
Commissioner Mohorovic made
about this being very much a latent hazard.
About how many deaths we're seeing, not
only with furniture that doesn't comply
with the voluntary standard, but furniture
that does comply with voluntary standard.
And I know that Chairman
Kaye has said what he can say
about our compliance endeavors
and about the ANPR.
So I would certainly strongly disagree
with Commissioner Mohorovic's observation
that the Anchor It campaign is the only
effort we're making to address this hazard.
I think as I say, we've been
trying on multiple fronts.
But because of these observations
I've heard from Mohorovic,
I would just say that I am optimistic that
his and my office can work to aggressively try
to get a change in the voluntary standard
to make the stability performance
requirement much more robust.
Which I believe is the first and foremost way
in which we should be trying
to prevent these deaths.
The education campaign only goes so
far for so many different reasons.
But first of all we have to
make our furniture stable.
So I look forward to working with you
on the voluntary standard on that.
And on the ANPR that staff will propose.
I have another question for you, Mr.
Wolfson, and that is in 2017 OP 54.
And I just spoke about the number
of impressions from recalls.
This I assume is coming from the recalling
company's monthly report, the impressions?
>> Scott Wolfson: No, this is
from our own monitoring service.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
>> Scott Wolfson: So we were worried
about double counting in prior years.
>> Marietta Robinson: Right.
>> Scott Wolfson: So we pulled
out just the recall data
and that is a $10 billion
impression goal that we have.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And while that's an impressive number,
let me just tell you my concern.
I have watched now on multiple
occasions when our staff including you,
is presented with a plan by a company of
how they would like to conduct their recall
or sometimes it's a so-called recall.
And how strongly we push back because what
they're proposing is not what we believe would
best protect the consumer.
You carefully negotiate what
the press release should be.
The commissioners approve the press releases
that include what we believe at the CPSC needs
to be in this recall program for consumers'
alternatives in order to protect the consumer.
And then what I'll see is the initial
message that goes out, both from us
and from Chairman Kaye and from you
and from the company is consistent
with what we've agreed upon.
And then what I watch as the daily clips
come in is that the message gets eroded.
And within a very short time, on multiple
occasions what I've seen is the message
that the company is getting out there no longer
conforms with what we negotiated with them.
But rather only contains the portions
that they brought to us at the get-go
and that we said were insufficient.
And that's very troubling to me.
So what I wonder, and I bring the two examples
up only because our most visible recalls
of late have been the Ikea recall
and the Samsung Galaxy 7 recall.
But is there any way for us -- because if the
impressions that we're measuring in these kind
of numbers include messages that are
insufficient to protect the consumer,
which is clear from what we negotiated,
those as I understand it are still
getting counted as the impressions.
So I guess I'm just wondering whether
there's any effort to try to develop a metric
for the content of the message
that is getting these impressions.
As opposed to just the message which
frequently is insufficient from my observations.
>> Scott Wolfson: Commissioner
I understand your point.
And we can always do better in our discussions
with companies to make sure what they plan
to put out is pre-cleared through the agency.
We try to do that on a regular basis and
sometimes there's additional messaging
that we see that, to your point,
may not be entirely consistent
with what the accepted language
was in the release.
Let me share one development
that we will see as an agency
in the coming weeks that
we will build upon in 17.
And that is the work for responsive design of
our website in a more easily understood way
to make our website more
accessible on mobile platforms.
I think we will see some very impressive
growth of people coming to our sight,
seeing our information in a mobile platform.
And there's value to that because then you get
the whole story when you see it on our site.
So something to kind of look
forward to as we build that out
and sell that to consumers going forward.
>> Marietta Robinson: I'm glad to hear that.
And any thoughts that you have
going forward in terms of a metric
of how we can measure the
content would be much appreciated.
That's all I have by way of questions.
Well, I take that back.
I've got one more.
In the past -- and this is
not for you Mr. Wolfson.
I'm sure you're glad to hear.
But in past op plans there have been
sections, each of them has had a section
in the different parts of
the agency for unfunded work.
And there are priority projects
that are listed that did not make it
into the op plan for that particular year.
And often we will revisit those when
we come to the midyear adjustments.
This year we have no unfunded work listed.
So I'm just wondering if this means that
all the proposed work from staff is funded
in the op plan or the deferred portion.
Or are there any specific projects including
contract dollars and FTE's that are not included
that we should know about that
we may be seeing in the midyear?
>> George Borlase: So we did not
collect and vet unfunded this year
as part of the operating plan process.
Because we were already at 130.5 which was,
you know, a pretty good increase for us.
I would point to two known reasonably
vetted set of unfundeds however.
The first would be I would refer you
to the FY 2017 OMB budget request.
We had requested additional
funds for chronic hazards
and additional funds for import surveillance.
And additional funds for maintaining
current levels for various things.
And none of those were included
in the congressional request.
And those are still vetted known
requirements above the 130.5.
The second one would be ATV's.
We spent a fair amount of time in the spring
developing a multi-year project plan for ATV's.
We funded part of that at the midyear in 2016.
But there's still a fair
piece of that that's unfunded.
>> Marietta Robinson: Thank you.
That's helpful.
So that concludes my questions
unless I have any follow ups
after Commissioner Mohorovic
and Commissioner Buerkle.
But I would just say again, thank
you so much and I look forward
to our continuing discussions
over the next few weeks.
And figure out what we do and don't do.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Buerkle.
Thank you.
I do just want to comment on what Commissioner
Robinson just mentioned with regards
to companies getting their messages out.
So having been in the public
life I would have put
out a press release or I put out a statement.
And then a local newspaper or an AP
press or whomever would take that.
And they will interpret my words.
And so it's not oftentimes the company's fault.
It is what happens to it once it's
dispersed out there in Neverland.
So I don't think it is as
intentional as it maybe sounds.
The tipover issue is of grave concern to me.
I first of all want to laud my fellow
commissioners for the initiatives
that they've taken, for the hard
work they've put in with regards
to the INE campaign and the Anchor It campaign.
And as you mentioned, it's award-winning.
So I do want to make sure I
express that appreciation.
I'm a big proponent of INE campaigns.
I think that used properly and put in the
right form, and when they rise to this level
where the quality is good and all of the markets
that it's put in, and it's that title really is
so indicative of what the campaign is.
That can be very effective.
This to Commissioner Robinson,
I agree with her on this.
And I disagree with my colleague Mr. Mohorovic.
I think the agency is gone way and I'll say
overboard in mitigating this issue with regards
to the compliance actions and with
regards to the standards committee.
And I was very disappointed, and
as I expressed to the chairman,
to see the ANPR in the ops plan before
we got what we requested at midyear,
which was an evaluation as to whether
or not the 14 standard is adequate.
It seemed to me before we go to rule making and
we make a determination that it's inadequate
and we need to strengthen the
standard, which is what happened right
out of the gate before we've ever
measured the data as to whether
or not the 14 standard is adequate.
There's been a push to change that standard.
I really do believe we should have
waited for that package to come
to the commissioners and see what staff says.
And so I do want to spend a little
bit of time as to that package.
And I know it would be difficult to forecast to
us what's in this arena, what's in that package.
But I'd like to just express my
expectations for that package.
I think with regards to IDI's -- and maybe
you can answer this question now or you want
to go back and see what's
in the briefing package.
I would like to see all of the
IDI's and which were the incidents
where the injury and the death occurred.
Were those pieces compliant
with the 2014 standard?
Do we know that information?
Do we know that those dressers even
complied with the 2009 standard?
Before we're talking about advancing yet
another standard, a stricter standard.
I think it's incumbent upon
an agency that prides itself
on being data-driven that we establish that.
Where are the incidents?
And are those dressers compliant
or not compliant?
And are those dressers ones that
were manufactured after 2014,
after the standard was enacted
where there might be an expectation?
Certainly not an obligation
because it is a voluntary standard.
An expectation that they would
have complied with the 14 standard.
But if they're dressers that
were manufactured prior
to that 14 standard, do we
have that information?
That is all relevant to whether or
not the 14 standard is adequate.
And until and unless we get that
information I do think it's irresponsible
and it's very aggressive to
have an ANPR in our ops plan.
And I've expressed that to the chairman and I
really wished that this could have stayed out.
But unfortunately it's reminiscent
of window coverings.
You know, and with regard to the INE
campaigns both of those issues are analogous.
I would like to see -- and I've
met with incredible resistance --
an INE campaign for window coverings.
If we're saying it is a hidden latent hazard,
then it's incumbent upon us in that $1.6 million
to make sure we allocate funds for that
campaign as well as for the tipover campaign.
I think we have to be consistent.
If it is a hazard, we have to look at all of the
arenas to make sure we're doing what we can do
to partner with and hopefully you know,
with the industry we'll reach an adequate
voluntary standard for window coverings.
We're hopeful that that will happen.
But I do believe we should be
partnering with them in an INE campaign.
And I've been really I'll say stunned as to
the opposition with regards to an INE campaign
when it comes to window coverings.
And I think it's analogous with
the latent hazard of tipovers.
But I want to go back to where I started
and that is the data with regards to whether
or not that 14 standard is adequate.
And I also want to know with regards to --
because the chairman did
bring it up, the KIDs study.
I want to know if an analysis was performed.
If we're saying since we don't have our
briefing package and we don't know whether
or not the standard's adequate,
so there's some reliance
on the Nancy Coles on the
KIDs study that was done.
Have we done an analysis on that study
to determine that the testing conducted
by them correlates to the incidents
that are occurring in the marketplace?
I think that that --
>> George Borlase: I'm not aware
of us doing an independent study.
We're aware of the report.
We've reviewed it.
I would say a cursory review, but not a detailed
technical critique of the report or the testing.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And so if we're going
to rely on that report or at least use it
as supporting evidence why we need
to move to a mandatory standard,
I think it's incumbent upon
us to make sure that the data
in that study is something
that we can agree with.
And we need to check it out.
And I think that is something
we should be talking
about to make sure our data is valid
before we push forward with a stricter,
more stringent standard or worse
yet, to mandatory rule making.
I don't know independent of what our package
is going to indicate to the commissioners.
What other analysis has been done
to put the ANPR into the ops plan?
Is there anything else?
Or what's going to be in that package?
What has led us to a point where we put an
ANPR in the package without seemingly as far
as I know having the information
we need to support that ANPR?
>> George Borlase: In evaluating from
staff what activities we're going to do
on tipovers this year, we felt that
we needed to put forward a number
of different risk management
approaches to furniture tipover.
INE campaign which we've heard a lot about.
Continued voluntary standard effort consistent
with how we've approached other hazards.
We're looking at a parallel track.
Continuing with voluntary standard.
But an advanced notice of proposed rule making.
And then looking at the risk
management approach of an ANPR.
We purposely looked at an ANPR because it
is just that, in that it's the notification
to the public should the commission vote
to publish the federal register notice
that we are considering rule making.
You know, it's early in the process.
It allows us to receive public
comment on proposed approaches.
It's early in the process so we don't
yet necessarily have proposed performance
requirements that it would be specifically.
But it's an opportunity to put out to
the public that we are looking at that
as a risk management option, being
a mandatory regulation and opening
up public comment on that approach.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So if we're
talking about mitigating a latent hazard,
has the staff definitively determined
that the 14 standard is inadequate?
>> George Borlase: Staff is still completing
that analysis and we're not done with that yet.
No.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So we
don't have that information yet?
>> George Borlase: Right.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
That's all I have for now,
but I will have another round.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman I'd like to start
by having the record removed
of all the nice things I said
about my colleagues today.
I wasn't planning on talking
more about furniture tipover
and Anchor It, but I feel compelled to do so.
And to defend myself and my position.
There are millions of products in
the marketplace today that no effort
in the voluntary standards arena, no efforts
in the mandatory standards
arena will be able to impact.
Furthermore, we know for a fact that
there are nondefective chests of drawers
where people are putting
televisions on top of them,
doing something that we wish they
would not, but they're doing it.
They're going to continue to do it.
And our only way to get the message across
to consumers to not put televisions on chests
of drawers and other furniture that
it's not designed to hold is to go ahead
and tell them through the Anchor It campaign.
And furthermore to anchor that product.
So I believe it's dishonest to say that we have
mitigation strategies to affect that product,
to mitigate that hazard through other means
through our voluntary standards process.
We don't. If we don't continue
to fund Anchor It,
I have not heard of another
mitigation strategy for that scenario.
For product that nobody in the office of
compliance would consider a defective product.
A hazardous scenario?
Certainly.
A lethal scenario?
Certainly.
But the only way to mitigate that is to
do it through information and education.
And we have an award-winning campaign.
So I'm disappointed.
I don't know what other mitigation strategy
my fellow commissioners have in mind
to address this hazard, other than we're
going to choose not to address this hazard.
Because we do have too many
hazards that we'd like to address,
but funding doesn't allow for it.
Because I do think it's intellectually
dishonest to say that we can address
that through standards, through
mandatory rule making.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Would
you yield for 30 seconds?
>> Joe Mohorovic: If you'll get to
that particular point, Commissioner.
I did say something nice
too, but I'd like to remove
from the record nice things
I've said about you in the past.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I was going to say
you didn't say anything nice about me.
I was just going to say I was in
North Carolina last week in Hickory
and I spoke to the furniture industry.
And they would beg to differ what you're saying.
And I cannot speak to the compliance
actions that are going on in this agency.
But that is addressing the dressers that
are out in the marketplace aggressively.
And I don't agree with the
strategy, but it's there.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Commissioner Buerkle,
the strategy to address misuse of dressers
and putting CRTV's on top of chests of drawers
is being addressed today outside of Anchor It?
Is that what you're suggesting?
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I would say
that our compliance action here,
not with the CRTV's but with dressers.
Your original point was whether
or not the dressers complied.
You said there's all of the incidents,
dressers not complying with the standard.
And that issue is being addressed,
much to my chagrin.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Mr. Wolfson, what
percentage of fatalities associated
with furniture tipovers involves a CRT on top?
This is from our standard literature.
Quickly please?
Just a number.
>> Scott Wolfson: I don't have
the breakdown for just the CRT.
But I do know that nearly half involve
both the furniture and the TV coming
down together related to the fatality.
So both of those hazards need to be addressed.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Agreed.
And that's what I agree with too.
And that's why I think the Anchor
It campaign is so important.
Because also the Anchor It campaign covers
those other products that are subject
to the voluntary standard or
potentially a future mandatory standard.
If we can get that message across --
because if we all just think that a future
standard is going to mitigate this hazard
to a level that we're comfortable
with, I think we're kidding ourselves.
Even if we have an effective standard, consumers
will use these products in foreseeable ways
that any reasonable standard
wouldn't be able to address.
Unless we come to the conclusion
that a chest of drawers needs
to be a TV stand, and there's
a standard for that.
I personally don't think my chest
of drawers should be a TV stand
because we know people are going to put
a TV stand on top of a chest of drawers.
That's my personal opinion.
So I've used the first half of my time
talking, but it was fun to get in a debate
with my Republican colleague
Commissioner Buerkle on the subject.
I think we see more alike in
this subject than is let on here.
In terms of letting on as well, the
chairman mentioned that he suggested
to put rule making in the
operating plan, an ANPR.
Mr. Borlase, you mentioned that staff
considered putting an ANPR in furniture.
So is this a chicken and the egg scenario?
I mean, who instructed whom?
Did this bubble up from the staff or did
the chairman say, did he instruct staff
to put ANPR in a mandatory standard?
>> George Borlase: It certainly
came up from the chairman.
But in terms of evaluating you know, the
chairman's request, that is the thought process
that staff went through in
looking at the rule making.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Smart move.
I used to have a CEO too.
And when he made a recommendation I
gave it the pretty good thought as well.
Where I strongly agree with Commissioner Buerkle
here is -- and Chairman, with all due respect,
to put in our operating plan an ANPR
suggests we don't even have the report.
This commission funded an essential piece
of data to inform the commission whether
or not the 20-57-14 standard is effective.
And we don't even have the results of that.
How can we suggest and dedicate resources that
could otherwise be spent elsewhere into an ANPR
without having the results of that work?
Now I know for a fact you
don't have all these reports
and I'm not suggesting that you hold them.
You get informed.
These come up when it comes up
with the rest of the commission.
But it suggests that almost why
do we need this other report?
Some people are saying that
systems are rigged in Washington DC.
It seems a little bit like this thing's
rigged if we're suggesting that, "Hey,
the outcome of that report better be
ANPR and go into mandatory rule making."
I was a strong supporter behind
I think it was a coamendment,
but Commissioner Robinson took the lead.
I'm happy to take as much credit for
that forthcoming project in terms
of determining the effectiveness
of 2057 as is justified.
Because I think that's a
critical piece of information
to inform what we do next
with future production.
And I don't think now is the place to discuss or
to debate whether or not an ANPR is appropriate
at this point in time in the op plan.
But I do think it's appropriate
to talk about whether
or not Anchor It should be
funded in the operating plan.
I think before -- and I'm willing to move off
of op plan, but I think the chairman would --
Chairman, would you like me to yield?
No? Okay. I thought you were looking
to wanting to respond further
on furniture tipover or Anchor it.
I will move off of Anchor
It at this point in time.
But I felt obliged to defend my position on
why I think it should be a funding priority.
Moving on to crib bumpers, if we can.
The staff just recently completed a package
with four identified regulatory options
to address the risks of deaths and
injuries associated with crib bumpers.
And in looking at the mandatory
standards table, staff does not suggest
or recommend preparation of
either an ANPR or an NPR.
But instead suggests data
analysis and/or technical review.
What is foreseen in terms of the
staff's recommendation as opposed
to I would otherwise be led to believe
that staff suggested rule making
if it said ANPR, NPR as opposed to DATR.
But there was a thorough
amount of work that was done.
What more in terms of DA, data analysis
and/or technical review still needs
to be done and is recommended by staff?
>> George Borlase: So on 17 on crib
bumpers, staff's main activity is related
to the voluntary standards
related to crib bumpers.
There is also some data analysis work in there.
The last direction from the commission on rule
making was to initiate rule making as a result
of approval of the petition and as laid
out in the record of commission action.
So we have laid out in the package
four different rule making options,
all of which from 104 really through do
require work, as we laid out in the package.
And so the 17 work relates
to voluntary standard work,
also looking further at performance
requirements.
I think it was clear from the package that
there was still some work that could be done
on defining performance requirements.
There's a lot of unknowns still.
That's the other area there that the
staff's looking at for crib bumpers.
>> Joe Mohorovic: You mentioned that
staff was in a direction for rule making.
In that case, why wasn't there a recommendation
for ANPR, NPR in the mandatory standards table?
>> George Borlase: When we looked
at what we needed to do for 17,
we just felt that for the
resources we were putting forth
that doing both more I guess additional
data analysis, that research piece
on the mandatory side and the voluntary
side was the appropriate way to go in 17.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Okay.
I'll just close it up.
I know I'm out of time.
But if we were suggesting to not go
forward with mandatory rule making,
I just wonder why it wasn't a similar approach
as is suggested with upholstered furniture.
To send a briefing package to recommend
terminating any rule making procedure moving
forward to then unclutter
further the regulatory agenda.
Sorry for going over, Mr. Chairman.
>> Elliot Kaye: Dr. Borlase,
do you want to address that.
I'm happy to use my time
for that, Mr. Stevenson.
>> George Borlase: Sorry,
can you repeat the question?
It wasn't sure if it was a comment or question.
>> Joe Mohorovic: The staff is not
recommending moving forward with rule making
as they have recommended not moving forward
or terminating rule making
on upholstered furniture.
I'm just curious as to why they didn't follow a
similar approach with crib bumpers as they did
with upholstered furniture and did not increase
what's otherwise a cluttered regulatory agenda
where we're not really promulgating.
That's all.
>> George Borlase: From the analysis, and as
we laid out, while we recognize on crib bumpers
that there are going to be difficulties
with going forward with rule making,
staff didn't get to a point where they felt
that the recommendation should
be to terminate rule making.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thanks, Dr. Borlase.
I would hope that we can run this last round
and this will be our final round for sake
of humaneness for the staff
who sit in front of us.
I'm sure that they would concur with that.
And behind us.
Commissioner Adler is correct.
So I'm going to not use up all my time as well.
I do want to thank Dr. Borlase for those
answers on the crib bumper package.
I've had strong feelings about this product
even when I worked for the prior chairman.
And I do plan to offer an
operating plan amendment that I will
of course circulate amongst the
commissioners after discussing
with staff about finding a path forward.
And even in the staff package that was sent out,
certainly combine with the
package that was sent up in 2013.
I do believe that there is an ongoing
hazard that is also addressable.
But I'll get into that later as
the op plan discussions continue.
I do want to just mention
briefly about Anchor it
that I don't think the issue is an
abstract one or a conclusive one
about that value of that program.
I just think it's all relative.
And you hinted at this, Commissioner Mohorovic.
It's about making very difficult choices.
I'm certainly open to any amendment that
you may put forth to fund this money.
But no surprise with the discussions that I've
had with Mr. Woflson that at some point we have
to know what we're getting for this money.
And while we may have a belief
about its effectiveness,
for any education program I don't know
that we've done the difficult work
that I think we need to do to know that this
money, considering how precious it is for us
for any INE campaigns is
actually making a difference.
So that's my hesitation with it.
It has nothing to do with its abstract value.
I think it's an excellent campaign.
In an ideal world we would
get $5 million above our base.
I'm sure Mr. Wilson will be very
happy with that to fund this.
And to fund it robustly and to put
into it an evaluative component
that will actually give us some
type of conclusive responses.
So I have nothing more on that.
Thank you again to the staff both
for sitting here and enduring this.
I know that these are never easy.
I think you did a phenomenal job and we look
forward to working with you on the question
that we have and the amendments
that we're forming.
Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert Adler: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will try to be brief.
And I have been reminded that we got a little
carried away with the regulatory agenda.
And I've been implored not to
repeat the length of that meeting.
But listening to commissioner
Mohorovic and my colleagues on tipover,
I don't normally use the trite
expression that you're both right.
Because there are certain things
that are contradicting one another.
But I think it's fair to say
they're both valid points.
To say that we're doing effective
recalls, even if you don't approve of them,
recalls is a terrific mitigation strategy
for stuff that's in the marketplace.
But the point, Commissioner Mohorovic that
I think you're making is extraordinarily
on target, is that's part
of a multifaceted approach.
And we could have an effective recall program
that still leaves millions and
millions of people at risk.
And so the two are not inconsistent.
And what you're doing is making a point
which I confess I'm very sympathetic to.
That this might be an area, if we can
possibly find some additional resources to use
to address tipovers, because it
is such an extraordinary problem.
I also -- I don't want to get too lost
in whether we do an ANPR or we don't.
But I do want to go at least
to a more generic observation.
One of the things that I heard that
makes me uncomfortable is this notion
that we don't know what the injury pattern is.
And I just want to reiterate
that when the people
who wrote the consumer product safety
act wrote it, they went out of their way
to send a strong message that we
don't have to wait for a body count.
And I hope we never get into the posture that we
are immobile until we've seen bodies accumulate.
There are tremendous engineers within
this agency who can look at products,
test them and say, "This product is a hazard."
And especially when we've got an
equally excellent human factor staff
that can help paint that picture.
And it would be my hope that we never
have to wait for bodies to accumulate.
That we find out early on that there's
a hazard and we act decisively.
So end of comments.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Just very quickly I
want to be perfectly clear that Mr. Wolfson,
the campaign that's been put together
for Anchor It has been outstanding.
And certainly I think this is a multi-front
effort to try to stop kids from dying
and being seriously injured
from furniture tipping over.
But certainly the beginning and end of
what we need to do is not an INE campaign
as commissioner Buerkle seems to be implying.
We first have to design out the hazard.
So I don't mean anything that I'm
saying in terms of the other efforts
that we should be making to in any way imply
that the Anchor It campaign is not important.
But as we all know, it's going to reach
a limited number of people number one.
Number two, there are so many people with
little kids that cannot anchor their furniture
to the wall without paying a
penalty that they can't afford.
Whether it's veterans housing, whether it's
public housing, whether it's rental units.
We just know that there are limitations.
Even if we got the message
to everyone in the country,
there are limits to what we can
do with the Anchor It campaign.
To describe us as going overboard on this
I think is very, very, very inaccurate.
There's still so much dangerous
product out there.
I think all of us have been
impressed in a very negative way
at how much furniture both the
KIDs report and we are finding
that doesn't even meet the
most minimal standard.
And anybody will tell you that whether
the voluntary standard that's in place is
or is not adequate, nobody's going to say it's
anything other than the most minimal standard.
And there's so much dangerous product
out there that doesn't even meet that.
But then as Commissioner Mohorovic
pointed out, the deaths are happening
with things that meet this standard.
And it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to stand and watch.
I mean I was down in North Carolina at the
ASTM meeting and they brought out product
that had been selected for the
committee and for the CPSC to see.
And they showed us what furniture
met the standard.
And there was just no way that a real-life
situation with a two-year-old scampering
around was going to in any way be
sufficient to design out this standard.
So I look forward to working on
this, design out this hazard.
I look forward to working
on multiple fronts on this.
And I certainly think the Anchor It
campaign has been and is very effective.
But there are so many other fronts
on which we should be working.
Nothing further.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I just want to emphasize my point.
And that is that if we are pushing
for an ANPR or we are pushing
for a more stringent voluntary
standard, it's incumbent upon us
to have the data that justifies that.
And until and unless I see this briefing package
with the IDI's, with the information, the injury
and death information, and whether or not
those dressers complied with the standard,
I can't make that judgement call.
And so I just believe we are data-driven
and that should be our emphasis.
I just want to talk briefly
about upholstered furniture.
In the package we started the discussion,
and I appreciated the opportunity
yesterday with regards to now what.
So we are going to get a briefing package,
or we did get a briefing package on TB117.
And whether or not to adopt it as a standard.
And also with a recommendation from the staff
that we terminate the flammability
rule making standard.
And I appreciate all the work that went
into that and found it very useful.
We talked about this a little bit
yesterday but I want to hear from you today.
How will the termination of the rule making
on the flammability affect the resources
that are allocated with regards to this hazard?
>> George Borlase: So for 17, I appreciate
the question because it does highlight a point
that staff wanted to make sure it
was clear in the TB117 package.
While staff is recommending terminating the
mandatory rule making, that's not the same
as staff not wanting to work
to address the hazard anymore.
Staff recognizes that when
it comes to residential fires
and especially deadly residential
fires that upholstered furniture,
the fuel load in furniture is a
contributor to these large fires.
And we want to address that risk.
What staff is saying is we want
to take a couple other approaches
that don't include mandatory rule making.
The other risk management approaches.
So in the 17 operating plan we've put the
resources towards voluntary standards work,
put the resources towards research.
And then you know, other work with what's
available perhaps with Scott Wolfson and OCM.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Can you talk a little bit
about the briefing package that we're expecting
with regards to terminating the rule making?
Will that include all of the testing
that's been done, all of the chairs
and all of the research that's
been done out at the lab?
From time to time we've seen the
contracts coming across and being posted.
But the in-depth information that
was gleaned from all of those studies
and all of those tests that were done.
Will that be included in the briefing package?
>> George Borlase: Yes.
And guess I'll turn to GC to talk about what are
the requirements for terminating the package.
And what it comes down to is from EXHR
we provide all the technical information
to support those requirements.
>> Patricia Adkins: Without going into a
legal analysis that I would provide to you
in closed session, the process
requirements that were referred to earlier
in terms of ROV's would be the same.
Staff would present to the commission a
briefing package recommending termination
and the reasons why they recommend termination.
With that recommendation for the commission
to then make the ultimate decision.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I think my question is more technical in that --
all of the testing that's been done to lead us
to the point where staff is recommending
we terminate that rule making,
will that be included in the briefing package?
>> George Borlase: Yes.
If it's not already published and referred to
in another place we would include that as part
of the body of justifying our recommendation.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
And will the briefing package
present us with supporting data
as to why TB117 was inadequate
to address the smolder standard?
>> George Borlase: For the FY 17
plan work, staff's not planning
on doing any additional analysis
of TB117 beyond what we presented
in the briefing package last week.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
One of the reasons for terminating the rule
making is that staff can't make a connection
between the small bench scale test results and
compare that to the flammability performance.
So if that's a problem, and
it's been an ongoing problem --
and the reason why they're advising
us to terminate the rule making.
When staff is in the voluntary
standards process, isn't that a problem
that will translate to the
voluntary standards committees?
I mean, that same being able
to find a connection
between the small bench tests,
how do you address that?
>> George Borlase: It is.
And it's a recognized problem and
staff's been working for years
on providing recommendations
to the voluntary standards.
I know from my time in engineering sciences
I think back in 2011 we sent a letter to ASTM
with recommendations no how to
improve their voluntary standards.
So staff has recognized it as a problem and
we've worked with the voluntary standards before
and we plan to keep working
with them on addressing it.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: One of my concerns,
and I think I alluded to this yesterday,
but I'll say it publicly, because
we're now in the process of determining
which way to go on flammability issue.
And so we are going to get this
briefing package from staff
that recommends we terminate
rule making on flammability.
It seems to me it would make sense that
we would pause and give us time to absorb
and to read and review that information.
And then say to staff policy wise,
this is where we think we should go.
If we don't do that, how will staff
determine which direction to go?
And my understanding is NFPA
deals with large open flames.
It seems like we've already made the
determination that that's not the way to go.
So I'm trying to understand, how will
staff be directed in this endeavor?
And how will they focus their efforts?
>> George Borlase: So in the 17 op plan,
our recommended efforts in 17 are aligned
with the way we've put forward in the op plan.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So then it would be
incumbent upon the commission if we wanted
to change directions or we could do
that before we vote on the ops plan?
>> George Borlase: Correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
All right.
We talked a little bit yesterday about NFPA, and
I think you're going to get us the information
about the standards committees and
what the makeup of the committees are,
who's at the table and how they reach decisions.
So we'd appreciate that.
>> George Borlase: Correct.
We're working on that.
We weren't able to get it turned
around before this morning.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: That's
all I have for today.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And just to stay with upholstered furniture
for a moment, I know you have in front of me
because I distributed it to you as a reminder,
the VSTAR report from the midyear FY 16 to get
into a level of granularity in terms
of what we're going to fund staff
to resource towards a voluntary standard.
Now NFPA 277, you mentioned the extent
to which upholstered furniture
adds to the fuel load of a fire.
So is that voluntary standards work to
mitigate or create a voluntary standard
so that upholstered furniture
can withstand large open flame?
Is that a transition from small open
flame, which might be from matches
or cigarette lighters, where upholstered
furniture is the first item ignited.
To moving towards a different kind of hazard
scenario where there's already a fire started
and upholstered furniture is, as you
said, contributing to the fuel load.
Is that correct?
>> George Borlase: I'll have to get back to
you on that, whether it's a small open flame
or a large open flame with NFPA 277.
In that just to confirm, because as
we've gone though it over the years,
there's been different definitions of what's
a small open flame versus a large open flame.
So I just want to make sure I can
get correct for you NFPA's approach
on how they're defining the
different flame sizes
and the flame types and what it's simulating.
Because it's been changed over the years.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
In your own words you said
contributing to the fuel load.
What is envisioned behind
contributing to the fuel load?
That wouldn't be first item ignited, right?
Because fuel load assumes
that there's already a fire.
>> George Borlase: You are correct that
it expands it beyond first item ignited.
So if it was something in the
trash can that ignited first,
you know, and then the furniture ignites.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And that limits EGRAS
and then we can find additional fatalities,
property damage associated with, whereas
if we mitigated it we could reduce that.
Right?
>> George Borlase: Correct.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Yeah.
I think we're on the same page.
Nobody foresees barrier technology at
all being a potential effective mitigator
for large open flames.
Is that correct?
I mean I've heard of barrier
technology and its limited potential
with regards to small open flame.
But is there any reasonable minds that
think in the fire protection arena
that barrier technology could
help mitigate large open flame?
>> George Borlase: I know
we're still looking at that.
We've just finished and poste
last year's rounds of research.
We're still looking at it.
I think it's fair to say that we don't think
it's at a point where we can point to --
you know, there's still a lot of applied
research that needs to go on in that area.
To your point on barriers, we know there's a
difference between a barrier for smoldering
versus a barrier for open
flame, kind of independent
of the size, and trying to resolve those two.
Because one, sometimes one
propagates the growth of the other.
So if you have a good smoldering barrier, it may
not work well for open flame, and vice versa.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ray, I have two questions in compliance.
To page 26 project number 34352 is
interesting to me in terms of a suggestion
that with our import surveillance activities
we'll be able to start focusing on defects.
And I know that's come up
at the commission level.
And so I think there's a shared appreciation and
understanding of what we hope to gain by that.
Can you provide some clarity in how
we propose to go about that at import?
I think many are very familiar as I am with
our successful efforts with regulated products.
But in terms of defect analysis at the port
of entry is one that piques my interest.
>> DeWane Ray: So I'll talk
very generically without getting
into specific techniques we'll be using.
You know, I think we've highlighted how the RAM
and the targeting system has helped us identify
potential violations on a regulated side.
And we realize that on the
defect side, it's a challenge.
But what I would say is that we are
looking at ways that we could do
that and work with the import team.
Working with the compliance team
to help in those situations.
And some of that is as simple as using
the data to understand where things
that we've identified the
defects are coming from, sources.
Trying to identify potential sources where
products that are defective are coming from
and trying to target on that basis.
But without getting too much more specific,
we're looking at different ways to try
to use the targeting systems to improve
it beyond just the regulated time.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Well thank you.
I applaud those efforts.
I'm encouraged by them and excited about it.
And I'll be continuing to work with you,
and the extent to which we're
successful moving in that direction.
I think that's a wonderful turn.
The last point that I have for the
meeting today is with regards to page 20
in the compliance priorities, I did notice a
prioritization with regards to tracking labels.
And tracking labels and their
effectiveness with regard to --
I have never seen them pointed to as anything
that is improving recall effectiveness.
I recognize that it's a congressional mandate
and therefore we had to promulgate a statute.
And my research has found out where that came
from, from a set of recommendations that came
from Commissioner Moore, and
Congress took their word for it.
What are we doing with tracking labels in
terms of a priority for compliance in FY 17?
>> DeWane Ray: So I won't get into the
specifics of the enforcement policy
that we're talking about,
but I would characterize this
as this is really probably more of an
internal efficiency exercise that the Office
of Compliance and import safety team has
identified as a way to make the current process
that we are using to enforce tracking label
violations, to make it a more efficient process.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Well I would hope in looking
at the limited resources you have available
to you, considering it a risk based
decision making consideration,
the extent to which greater compliance
with our tracking label regulation
will help safety in any essence at all.
I'm not suggesting enforcement
guidance or something other than that.
But there is a lot of different violations
that we can direct attention towards.
And I'm just wondering what the yield, to
use a term that the chairman used earlier,
in ramping up compliance
with the tracking label.
As I have still yet to hear anybody
finding from what was expected
through CPSIA the mandatory tracking
labels for children's products.
And in fact I researched many of our recalls and
none of them even mentioned the tracking labels.
So I don't know how it is
also as the statute intends.
It's going to help consumers understand
better whether or not a recall is associated
with a product that they do or don't have.
So we can follow up on that and maybe
I can get a better understanding
on why that's considered a
compliance priority for 2017.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you to the commission,
to the staff, including our special assistants.
We are due to vote on October
19th in a public setting.
There will be a lot of work.