dant steps. Under such a procedure, the Commission's administrative burden would be reduced and manufacturers could ensure that their point of view was known.

Mr. NIELSON. Let me ask another question about State and local governments. I got the impression from what the previous-the one that took your place, Mr. Lacy, I have forgotten his name right now-said that working with the local and State, we are supposed to work with the local and State.

The Chairman made a suggestion, which I am not wholly in agreement with, that we ought to maybe empower the States to sort of take over their section of the area.

How would you feel about that? Would that dilute it so neither of you could do it, or what?

Mr. LACY. Well, if I can clarify, I think that the Chairman's comment in connection with that was that we would consider the comment that the Chairman had made. The States already have some enforcement authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

The fact of the matter is, though, that in our relationship with our State contacts and in certain contracts that we have with State consumer and health agencies, we use this relationship to augment our existing structure of regional offices and regional investigators to, in essence, try and expand the potential scope of marketplace monitoring or other efforts to enforce consumer product safety rules.

Mr. NIELSON. How would you characterize—and I ask the Chairman and the Commissioners-how would you characterize the working relationship between the Federal and the State agencies? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it improving or is it going downhill? Mr. SCANLON. It is very good, Mr. Nielson.

Mr. NIELSON. Which direction is it going, improving or decreasing?

Mr. SCANLON. Improving. It could improve more if the Commission, in my opinion, allocated more money to these very small grants that we have with State and local agencies.

Mr. NIELSON. Any comments on that?

Mr. LACY. Could I clarify my comment just for a second? I apologize for jumping in. Just to clarify a comment that I made, States don't have authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act specifically, but States certainly can step in in situations where the Federal Hazardous Substances Act or the Consumer Product Safety Act might not fulfill the role, and in fact States have.

Mr. NIELSON. Such as fixed site amusement parks, for example? Mr. LACY. Yes.

Mr. NIELSON. The other Commissioners, please?

Ms. DAWSON. I just wanted to comment on a couple of observations that have already been made.

I believe that we have a good relationship with most of the States that we work with, both through our State designees and through our own resident post investigators, who are CPSC staff

ers.

I also support the State contract arrangement that we have where States do recall effectiveness checks or indepth investigations for us.

But I would like to point out, in relation to what Chairman Florio had mentioned earlier, we already have a potential area of cooperation, another area of cooperation with the States. We are working now to get a memorandum of understanding with the State boards of pharmacies to assist the Commission in enforcing the Poison Prevention Packaging Act.

That is a big job, and if we can enlist the State boards of pharmacies in helping us with that, I think that will have served the public well.

Mr. NIELSON. Back to my question. Is your relationship with the States good, and is it improving? Would you concur with the Chairman on those two statements?

Ms. DAWSON. I think it is very good, yes.

Mr. NIELSON. And is it improving?

Ms. GRAHAM. I agree.

Mr. NIELSON. Then why do you, Commissioners Dawson and Graham, why do you support a cutback in the State and local programs?

Ms. DAWSON. You are referring to our 1988 budget?

Mr. NIELSON. The small dollar amounts in the State and local-

Ms. DAWSON. Yes.

Mr. NIELSON. How come you support the cutbacks, then?

Ms. DAWSON. I am quite prepared to-—

Mr. NIELSON. If we are starting to move and we are getting a little better cooperation, are we going to cripple that and reverse it if we cut back, or not?

Ms. DAWSON. Certainly we would like to be able to provide as much help as we can in that area. But we do have to look at balancing considerations, other priorities of the Commission that are important. And I think the record will show I have always supported our enforcement capabilities and will continue to do so.

I am awaiting a briefing that we are expected to have on evaluation of how those contracts have been handled and what the benefits are to the Commission and to the public. Pending that evaluation, we can, in coming budget considerations, improve on our State and local contract funding.

Mr. NIELSON. Commissioner Graham, same question to you. Are the State programs working well with you and are they improving? And second, if so, why do you support the cutbacks in the State and local programs?

Ms. GRAHAM. I think they are working, I think they are very important. I think we have a limited budget at the CPSC, and we have to deal fairly with all our different divisions and contracts.

Mr. NIELSON. What are you expanding, if you are cutting back here?

Ms. GRAHAM. Well, in this case we would have had to cut our Hazard Programs in order to expand the State and local, and I just felt that wasn't a responsible action.

Mr. NIELSON. OK. I will go back to ATV's. I get the impression from comments made by the Chairman and Mr. Lacy that the Commission is hoping that the Justice will take the case, but you are not really convinced they are going to, and you may feel that

maybe you don't have a good case, or you may feel that they don't think you have got a very good case.

Could that be the reason for their reluctance, that they don't think you have presented a very good case for it?

Mr. LACY. That has not been a reason that they have given to us, Congressman.

Mr. NIELSON. Is it a possible reason?

Mr. LACY. Well, I think that in any litigation that is referred to the Justice Department, the attorneys at the Justice Department will consider what they believe to be the proof that is necessary to be brought forward and points and authorities in support or in opposition to the case.

Mr. NIELSON. Could the Chairman, in fact, be right in saying the case is not that strong, that is why they are reluctant?

Mr. LACY. Well, I would prefer not to comment on that because of

Mr. NIELSON. The nature of your position, of course. I am just probing for a possible reason why Justice would drag their heels, and the only thing I can come up with is that they must not think you have either they don't think it is a very urgent situation or they don't think you have made a good enough case. And the fact that the Commission is divided on the issue may reinforce either or both of those points.

Is that a fair statement?

Mr. LACY. Well, I understand the question. I just can't comment. Mr. NIELSON. Would you like rebuttal for that supposition?

Ms. DAWSON. I can't speak for them. I see no indication that there is any reluctance based on the strength of the case.

Mr. NIELSON. But they are dragging their heels, you will admit that?

Ms. GRAHAM. I don't believe that they are dragging their heels. I think that we are caught in bureaucracy here. And I, for one, think we have a very good case, but unfortunately we can't go into details at this time.

Mr. NIELSON. OK. Let me ask another question about voluntary standards.

In 1981 the direction was changed in the CPSC to go to more voluntary standards. The Chairman, in his opening statement, indicated that voluntary standards are working very well, saves time, and only in a case such as ATV, where they won't come up with their own standard, do you have to go in for the mandatory statement. Do you Commissioners concur with the Chairman in his analysis of voluntary versus mandatory, and suggesting only when they can't do it themselves you jump in? Do you concur with his statement, basically?

Ms. DAWSON. Well, under the statute, that is our responsibility. We have to defer to a voluntary standard. I think that frustration or vagueness develops when the Commission defers to a standard before it exists. I think we have to look carefully at that process. A couple of years ago, when we were considering issues on voluntary standards, I made the suggestion, the Commission ought to consider issuing ANPR notices in an effort really to get industries to work faster on their voluntary standards. And then, at that

point, once the voluntary standard is in effect and we are satisfied that it is an adequate standard, we could withdraw that ANPR.

Mr. NIELSON. On that point, how patient are you customarily in the industry? How long do you give the industry to react and propose a standard? Do you give them sufficient time? Or do you keep their feet to the fire? Or are you sort of relaxed about it and just when they get around to it?

Ms. DAWSON. It depends on the severity of the problem, and that presents another issue that we ought to look at carefully. We ought not to be involved in so many voluntary standards at one time that our staff isn't able to really focus on the areas of severe injuries.

It has been my feeling that we should keep their feet to the fire, as you say, but only in those industries where there are products which, under our statute, are severe threats to the health and safety of the public.

Mr. NIELSON. When you announce you are going to develop a standard, what happens during that time? Is there usually some improvement in safety by the manufacturers during that period of time? Do they tend to react rather swiftly to correct the problems as soon as you announce you are going to ask them for their own standard or develop one yourself?

Ms. DAWSON. In my tenure on the Commission, I think that the case that is probably the most widely known is the case of the chain saw industry, and they did indeed work very closely with the engineers at the Agency to come up with an excellent remedy for that problem. But it did take a number of years. It took a long time.

Mr. NIELSON. The Chairman indicated that voluntary standards are faster than mandatory. How can that be? Mandatory, it just takes one meeting and you have got it done. How can a voluntary be faster than that?

Ms. DAWSON. Well, mandatory rulemaking is quite lengthy.
Mr. NIELSON. Why?

Ms. DAWSON. Because of the statutory requirements for notice and

Mr. NIELSON. Have we put too much red tape in your regulations?

Ms. DAWSON. It could possibly be something you would want to look at, in terms of tightening it up.

Mr. NIELSON. Ms. Graham, would you like to comment on that? Ms. GRAHAM. Well, I think there are many instances when voluntary standards are a good fix, but I think we need to remember that they are generally the lowest common denominator and that the Commission has a responsibility to make sure that industry adheres to them, when we choose to go that route.

Mr. NIELSON. Who pays for much of the cost on the mandatory approach? Is it the taxpayer or the industry?

Mr. SCANLON. The industry, Mr. Nielson.

Mr. NIELSON. And on the voluntary?

Mr. SCANLON. Oh, on the mandatory? I am sorry.

Mr. NIELSON. On the mandatory. On the voluntary, who pays the cost? Who pays there?

Mr. SCANLON. The industry.

Mr. NIELSON. Mandatory is the taxpayer and the voluntary is the industry?

Ms. DAWSON. Well, I would like to point out, though, in our budget we have a considerable amount of funds devoted to working with voluntary standards. So, I think it is unfair to say that there is no cost to the public with voluntary standards, because we do devote a lot of time and resources to it in the Commission.

Mr. NIELSON. Let me hark back to an issue which was very alive in 1983 and 1985 again, with the Chairman's permission. That had to do with fixed site amusement parks, and Mr. Eckart and Mr. Luken and others were involved in this particular issue.

This did not pass, but there was a strong sense from the members of this committee that something ought to be done in that area. What have you done in that area?

I realized that this is assigned to the States, you have the mobile amusement parks but you don't have the fixed site amusement parks.

What has been the attitude of the Commission on this issue? Any change in your view, Mr. Scanlon?

Mr. SCANLON. My opinion, Mr. Nielson, is that the States and local governments should regulate fixed site amusement parks. I did support Senator Danforth's proposal for a study under the aegis of the National Bureau of Standards. That bill passed the Senate but did not pass the House.

Mr. NIELSON. But it gave you a hint, though, didn't it, as to the direction you might look?

Mr. SCANLON. Yes.

Mr. NIELSON. The other Commissioners, do you have a feeling for the fixed site amusement park, which has been a real problem in some areas? And our committee is divided on that issue, as your Commission seems to be. But what have you done in relation to the direction both given by the House in 1983 and by the Senate in 1985, neither of which passed both Houses? Is this ever discussed in Commission meetings? Or are you just sort of waiting until we tell you you have to do it or tell you you can't do it?

I am being a little facetious here, but I want to go back to history. We have been on this subject for 3 or 4 years and I am wondering to what extent you have picked up on some of the ideas of the members of the committee and the bills that have been proposed. Ms. DAWSON. Well, clearly we don't have at this point jurisdiction over the fixed site.

Mr. NIELSON. Do you want jurisdiction on this?

Ms. DAWSON. I think that given the limitations of what this Agency can do, that would be probably beyond what we can accomplish.

We do, however, as I understand it, have some participation with some State agencies in trying to augment the training of some of their own State officials, so that they are able to better inspect the amusement rides in their own States.

Mr. NIELSON. Ms. Graham, you have been on the Commission throughout this period. What is your view on the fixed site amusement parks?

Ms. GRAHAM. I agree with both the Chairman and Commissioner Dawson on this.