Mr. FLORIO. Well, if you are really talking about a cost-benefit analysis that is undertaken in 5 hours, you really are almost sending out a signal that somebody arrived at the conclusion before the analysis was undertaken. Mr. SCANLON. What we are saying is that, for the cases that you are referencing, we have most of the data available. And what I am saying is for 5 hours more work by a Ph.D. economist, in many cases we can get the cost-benefit analysis. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I could cite a number of cases. We had a recall of a Johnson & Johnson product last year of approximately 1.6 million, over the crib toys known as Triplets. There may have been agreement or disagreement on the cost-benefit analysis, but the Commission voted to go ahead with that recall, despite the cost. On the proposed cigarette lighter project, we are Mr. FLORIO. How about the reclining chair situation? Mr. SCANLON. Could I just finish? On the cigarette lighter project, the economist told us that, for approximately 27 cents apiece, the industry might be able to design a safety mechanism that would preclude young kids from igniting lighters. In my opinion, 27 cents more per lighter is a good investment and it is one that I would prod industry to implement. Mr. FLORIO. The reclining chair situation? Mr. DEFIORE. I would be happy to address that, sir. There was an internal memorandum, as I recall, from one of our economists to another one of our staff members addressing the question of costbenefit analysis in the context of the possibility of rulemaking, at which time it indicated that the cost-benefit analysis would not be very supportive in a rulemaking context. That notwithstanding, the Commission staff and the industry got-the Commission staff urged the industry to address the entrapment hazard which the Commission was concerned about, and the industry went ahead and did that very expeditiously. In fact, I would say that would be an example of where the voluntary system worked very, very well. We could not have made a case for rulemaking to address the problem at hand, but when we brought that difficulty to the attention of industry, they got on the problem and made the improvement in recliner chairs which now results in production of a chair that makes the entrapment problem-I won't say nonexistent, but certainly they came up with fixes which made it very, very difficult for the entrapments in the past to reoccur. Mr. FLORIO. What you have also said is that if you listen to your economist, the rulemaking would not have been required if the industry had said they didn't want to do it, that your economist told you it was not cost effective to go forward with the regulations. The industry voluntarily decided to do what your cost analysis, your cost effective analysis did not say was appropriate. Mr. DEFIORE. But that is required under rulemaking. The law requires us to do a cost-benefit analysis under rulemaking. Mr. FLORIO. That is all the more reason, though, that in those areas where it is not required, not to get into that sort of questionable ground about coming up with a cost-benefit analysis for a recall or an imminent hazard, because there is a good example of where you made the determination that it was not cost effective, and the industry, in the context of rulemaking, decided that it was. Mr. DEFIORE. We don't know why they decided that it was. All we can say is, cost-benefit didn't support it. On the other hand, the cigarette lighter case is one where the cost-benefit analysis, if we do go rulemaking, will be a central piece in supporting it. So, I think cost-benefit analysis can, recognizing the limitations of the art, can help analyze options that are before the Commission, whether in rulemaking or in other areas, and it would be useful to keep that tool available to the Commissioners, just as we would keep the engineering analysis, medical science analysis, epidemiological analysis, all the others that we do, available to the Commission. They can decide what emphasis to put on what stud ies. But it seems to me not useful for the Government to determine that there is certain information that we don't want to know before we make decisions. It seems to me the more informed the Commissioners are, the better decisions they can make. Mr. FLORIO. Let me, first of all, thank the Commissioners for coming today. I will leave the last word as the word that I got from you not too long ago, that you do not at this point feel the need to incorporate in a mandatory way cost-benefit analysis into your section 12 and section 15 actions. And I think that is a good policy position to end up on. So, thank you very much. I appreciate your participation today. It has been an important part of our hearing to hear at some length from the Commissioners. We are now pleased to have as our next panel of witnesses the Honorable Nancy Harvey Steorts, former Chairperson of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Honorable David Pittle, former Commissioner, and the Honorable Barbara Hackman Franklin, former Commissioner, as well. The committee will come to order. We would ask those who are leaving to leave as expeditiously as they possibly can and to leave as quietly as they possibly can. We want to get to the balance of our witnesses. Therefore, we are pleased to welcome our next panel of witnesses. Ladies and gentleman, we are pleased to have you here today. We certainly look forward to hearing from you, from your perspective, as to the nature of the responsibilities of the Commission toward the end of assisting us as we try to reauthorize the Commission and its authority. We would be happy to hear from you. Your statements will be put into the record in their entirety, and you may feel free to proceed in a summary fashion, if you see fit to do so. [Testimony resumes on p. 86.] [The following questions and responses were submitted for the record:] CPSC RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN FLORIO 1. Question: As you know, the furniture industry agreed to voluntarily remedy a problem with reclining chairs which had resulted in head entrapment of small children. Has the Commission or its staff done any follow-up to examine the level of compliance with the industry's voluntary fix? Answer: The Commission staff identified the problem in 1985 and met with the American Furniture Manufacturers' Association (AFMA) in March of that year to discuss strategies to address the hazard. As a result, a Consumer Product Safety Alert was issued jointly with the AFMA in July 1985. Then, in November 1985, the AFMA announced adoption of industry-developed guidelines. The organization also said that, by April 1986, manufacturers would begin incorporating the safety guidelines into recliner chair designs and that, by October 1986, all products would be in conformance with these new guidelines. The Commission's Executive Director and Voluntary Standards Coordinator attended the Furniture Trade Show in High Point, North Carolina in April 1986 to view designs to eliminate the entrapment problem. The CPSC technical staff also attended the Furniture Trade Show in April 1987 to determine level of industry awareness of the guidelines and types of device used to correct the problem. It appears that all major manufacturers are in conformance with the guidelines, which suggest a mid-ottoman or other device between the seat cushion and foot-rest to restrict possibility of head entrapment. Although the Commission has not received any additional reports of incidents involving recliner chairs since 1985, staff has revised the jointly developed Safety Alert designed to inform consumers of safety improvements in recliner chairs. The final version has been forwarded to the AFMA for review and it is anticipated that the Alert will be reissued in July 1987. a. Question: Are there any current job vacancies in the compliance area? Answer (a): Yes. As of June 13, 1987 the Directorate for Compliance and Administrative Litigation (CAAL) had 31.7 full-time equivalents (FTE's) on board with an FY '87 ceiling of 38. Overall, the FY '87 budget allocates 181 FTE's to Compliance and Enforcement Activities, including field investigators. b. Question: If so, please describe the nature of these vacancies? Answer (b): Three vacancies are in the process of being recruited for. They are: a Trial Attorney, GS-09/13, and two Secretarial (typing) positions, GS-05/06. Another position, a Compliance Officer slot, will be filled by the reassignment of a field employee. The two remaining positions are being reviewed to determine the most practical way to fill them. c. d. Question: How long have there been vacancies? Answer (c): Dates for vacancies above are as follows: Question: (1) Attorney - since January, 1987 (4) Compliance Officer - since May, 1987 (6) Attorney - since June 20, 1987 When will they be filled? Answer (d): The Personnel Office has applications to review and interviews to arrange for two of the positions that have been vacant (attorney and secretary). Compliance may be able to fill both secretarial vacancies from the certificate they have been issued if they are satisfied with the qualifications of the two candidates. The Compliance Officer position is being filled by an employee currently in the Dallas Regional Office. That change is expected to take effect after July 19th. The other two vacancies will be posted soon. In addition to the vacancies noted, one CAAL attorney is on detail to the ATV project. In the interim, a general attorney from the Office of General Counsel (OGC) has been detailed to CAAL. Also, a supervisory attorney was detailed from the OGC to CAAL to act as Director, Division of Administrative Litigation. That attorney also serves on the ATV litigation team. e. Question: What are the Agency's plans regarding its field structure? Answer (e): By mid-July, the Commission will have realigned its field structure by reducing the number of regional offices from five to three. Beginning in FY 1988, the Commission will expand the size of several of its resident posts, open some resident posts in new locations and close some of its existing posts. Implementation of this second phase will occur over a two-to-four-year period. f. Question: What are the Agency's plans regarding its resident offices? -3 Answer (f): The Commission plans to increase the number of multi-person resident posts from ten to twenty-five, decrease the number of single-person posts from twenty-two to five, open resident posts in six cities and close resident posts in seven. total number of resident posts will decrease from thirty-one to thirty. The g. Question: Please specify the offices that would be affected by any changes. Answer (g): The Atlanta and Dallas Regional Offices will become multi-person resident posts. Their administrative functions will be transferred to the regional offices in Chicago and San Francisco respectively. In addition to Atlanta and Dallas, resident posts will be opened in the following locations: Charleston, South Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; Richmond, Virginia; and San Diego, California. The following resident posts will be closed: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Little Rock, Arkansas; Portland, Oregon; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Washington, D.C. Offices in the following locations will be expanded from single to multi-person resident posts: Baltimore, Maryland; Buffalo, New York; Charlotte, North Carolina; Cincinnati, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Houston, Texas; Indianapolis, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; New Orleans, Louisiana; Orlando, Florida; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Louis, Missouri. The following multi-person resident posts will gain one or more full-time-equivalent positions: Boston, Massachusetts; Miami, Florida; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The size of the resident posts in Cleveland, Ohio and St. Paul, Minnesota will each be decreased from four to three full-time-equivalent positions. The size of the three remaining regional offices (in Chicago, New York City and San Francisco) will each be increased by from seventeen to twenty-five full-time-equivalent positions. 3. Question: Please describe the current status of the Agency's investigation into the sale of lawn darts in light of the testimony at the Subcommittee's hearing. Has the Commission taken any enforcement action? Answer: Lawn darts are exempted from classification as a banned toy or other banned article for use by children under Federal |