During the past year I have had three respiratory infections that lasted each for 3-4 weeks, one of which occured shortly after a very light exposure to clay dust. This past spring I had a pounding headache for two weeks which I finally connected with my exposure to heated asphalt during that entire period.

Since last year I have drastically changed my life style in order to avoid respiratory irritants. I have tried to avoid all dusts, smoke of any kind, auto exhaust, any strong smelling detergents, perfumes, solvents, etc. An exposure to any of these now to varying degrees causes me respiratory problems. It is completely out of the question for me now to work in any art medium that produces dust, fumes, or smoke of any kind.

The following is a list of materials normally present in ceramic studios. I have been exposed to them all under poorly ventilated conditions on a regular basis from 1973 to 1985.

TESTIMONY OF DENNIS C. DIX

ON BEHALF OF OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE, INC.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I very much appreciate the opportunity to present this statement in connection with these hearings.

My name is Dennis C. Dix. I am the Executive Director of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Inc. ("OPEI"). OPEI is a trade association of manufacturers of outdoor power equipment, including lawnmowers, garden tractors, leaf blowers, commercial turfcare machinery, logsplitters and snowblowers. OPEI was organized for the purpose of stimulating and advancing the general welfare of the outdoor power equipment industry and its consumers.

OPEI, its members and their customers, have a long history of involvement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and are concerned about the structure and direction of the Agency. We believe that an efficient CPSC that has the trust of the consuming public and those it regulates is important to maintain a marketplace in which safe goods are sold. The outdoor power industry is one of the industries for which both CPSC and voluntary safety standards have been developed. The CPSC's mandatory safety standard for walk-behind power lawnmowers was promulgated nearly 10 years ago. The standard applies to power mowers with rigid or semi-rigid rotary blades as well as reel-type mowers. The standard prescribes safety requirements, including labeling and performance requirements, for walk-behind power mowers.

The industry has also worked closely with the CPSC to develop several voluntary standards, including standards for walk-behind and riding mowers, commercial turfcare equipment, snow throwers, shredders and grinders, edgers and trimmers, log splitters, and rotary tillers. OPEI has sponsored these voluntary standards through procedures of the American National Standards Institute ("ANSI"). The CPSC participated on the ANSI canvas list for these voluntary standards and submitted

comments on several standards.

The partnership of the CPSC, the outdoor power equipment industry and the public, has helped to produce safe, high quality products for the American consumer. Nevertheless, organizational fractures within the CPSC have produced an agency which has a limited the ability for decisive action and direction. This situation has resulted in a loss of confidence in the CPSC by both consumers and manufacturers and creates a climate of planning uncertainty for the manufacturing sector. OPEI has chosen to testify in these proceedings in the belief that a CPSC reorganization can result in restoring confidence, efficiency and accountability to the agency.

At the direction of Congress, the GAO has prepared a report on whether the organization structure of the CPSC could and should be changed. The GAO concluded that the CPSC could benefit from changing its current structure of five commissioners to one in which the Agency would be organized under a single administrator. OPEI supports this conclusion of the GAO and encourages this Subcommittee to consider implementing the recommendation. Although it is true that an agency headed by five commissioners may benefit from the diversity of those individuals, the CPSC does not function as a truly collegial body. As the GAO report indicates, CPSC votes are frequently unanimous. Moreover, two of the five commission seats have now been vacant for several months. The inability, or the refusal, of the Administration to fill those vacant seats further undermines the credibility of the Agency. Without a unified voice, the Agency lacks accountability and leadership.

In addition, the single administrator proposal would streamline the Agency and provide a more efficient manner of conducting CPSC business. For example, the mandatory lawnmower standard was nearly a decade in the making. During this rulemaking process, OPEI and its member were required to expend substantial resources explaining the workings of complex machinery to each successive chairman, his staff and appointees, as well as each Commissioner and their staff. The high turnover in CPSC

leadership rsulted in needless duplication of effort and cost. As GAO reports, through 1986 the CPSC has had nine chairmen and an additional thirteen commissioners. Finally, the budgetary savings from CPSC commission salary and expenses would, as the GAO report explains, become available for other programmatic activities including research. For example, OPEI and its Riding Mower Working Group are currently involved closely with CPSC staff in conducting safety-related research with respect to the design of riding mowers. The extent of this research is obviously circumscribed to a degree by the constraints of CPSC's budget. We have no doubt that this project, as well as many others currently being conducted by CPSC, would benefit from the increased budget available through the elimination of four Commission offices. The GAO has estimated this budgetary saving to exceed $1 million dollars annually.

It is based on our long experience working with the Agency, therefore, that we urge adoption of the single administrator proposal. On behalf of the OPEI and its members, I thank you once again for considering these comments.

Thank you.

Submitted by

The Humane Society of the United States

Martin L. Stephens, Ph.D.

Director

Laboratory Animal Welfare

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) appreciates this opportunity to express its concerns about the policies of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The HSUS is the nation's largest animal-protection organization, with over 660,000 members and constituents.

Because The HSUS's mandate is animal protection, we are concerned about the toxicity testing conducted on animals to satisfy CPSC's regulations. Three types of animal tests are conducted under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), the primary act administered by CPSC. In an acute toxicity test, animals are forced to ingest or inhale test substances, or these substances are applied to the animals' shaved skin. The number of deaths serves as a crude measure of poison potential.

In a second test

the infamous Draize eye-irritancy test

substances are instilled directly into the eyes of animals, typically rabbits. Signs of pain and suffering include

inflammation of the eye and surrounding membranes, and a clouding of the cornea. Appendix A illustrates this damage with a copy of an actual photo from CPSC's files.

In the third test

one for skin irritancy potentially

irritating substances are placed on the animals' shaved skin. Signs of pain and suffering include inflammation, tissue death, and bleeding.