-14

response to Question #5(a), the CPSC has always recognized that the FHSA requires labels on chronically hazardous consumer products. And, as in the past, it will continue to enforce the FHSA labeling requirements for chronic as well as acute hazards.

With regard to specific steps the CPSC plans to take, one will be to follow up on the statement of enforcement policy adopted by the Commission last fall calling for the chronic hazard labeling of products containing asbestos. Also, if the Commission promulgates a final rule declaring methylene chloride to be a hazardous substance by virtue of its carcinogenicity to humans, then the staff, under the CPSC's ongoing Chemical Hazards Enforcement Program, will take steps to ensure that products subject to the rule are properly labeled. In addition, the CPSC staff is working with art and craft trade groups in an effort to communicate to all manufacturers and distributors of art and craft materials their responsibilities for both chronic and acute hazard labeling under the FHSA. Nor will the effort stop there. A consumer alert on art and craft materials is planned for dissemination to parents and teachers, and an art materials handbook will be developed to provide guidance on the safe use, handling, storage and disposal of those materials.

It should also be noted that the CPSC staff is currently reviewing a proposed voluntary standard on precautionary labels for hazardous industrial chemicals. This draft standard was developed by a leading chemical trade association and has been submitted to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for consideration as a consensus standard. The CPSC input into this process is likely to be facilitated by the fact that the Commission has its own FHSA labeling project underway in FY '87. A description of that project is contained in the response to Question 5(a).

6. Question: Under the Commission's FHSA regulations, the term "banned hazardous substance" does not apply to educational materials, such as art materials, provided the articles "bear labeling giving adequate directions and warnings for safe use." Under the Commission's interpretation, how does this exemption apply to children who may not be old enough to understand such warnings, such as children in elementary school?

Answer: The exemption (from classification as a banned hazardous substance) for educational materials, including art materials [found at 16 CFR 1500.85(a)(4)], would not apply to products intended for children too young to comprehend written warnings. A limitation on this exemption is written into Section 2(g)(1) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), giving authority to grant exemptions only on the condition that the materials "... are intended for use by children who have attained sufficient maturity, and may reasonably be expected, to read and heed such directions and warnings...".

STATEMENTS OF NANCY HARVEY STEORTS, PRESIDENT, NANCY HARVEY STEORTS AND ASSOCIATES; R. DAVID PITTLE, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, CONSUMERS UNION; AND BARBARA HACKMAN FRANKLIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES

Ms. STEORTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to come back to Washington and accept your invitation to testify at this reauthorization hearing for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, because of my ongoing interest in the safety of American con

sumers.

As Chairman of the Commission from 1981 to 1984, I witnessed firsthand what can be achieved when business, government and the American citizens join forces and move toward a common goal.

CPSC was founded, as we all know, in the early 1970's in response to an urgent national need for safer products in the marketplace and the safer use of products by consumers.

In the intervening 16 years, the American marketplace has changed and many product safety problems have been solved and many new ones now have emerged. But what has not changed are the purposes for the existence of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I feel we have come a long way from the early, contentious days of the Commission when American business and government were too often characterized as national enemies.

During my years at the Commission, I was gratified to both observe and foster a new spirit of voluntary action by industry and cooperative problem solving by government, industry and consum

ers.

When I became Chairman of the Commission in 1981, the Commission's clear and effective agenda for product safety had been well established by dedicated and knowledgeable chairmen whose primary emphasis was the achievement of a safer marketplace for the American consumer.

Commissioners who served as a part of this Commission at that time, prior to my coming on board, shared this goal, regardless of their political philosophy or affiliation.

During my administration, most Commissioners carried on this tradition of concern for the consumer. This was also true of the knowledgeable and hard working Commission staff which served during my Chairmanship.

As I look back over the past 16 years, I am pleased to have played a role in the life of this young but dynamic and enormously effective Agency.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has had a short but enviable history during which millions of Americans have been spared needless injury and even death as a result of the work of the Commission.

During those years, the United States of America assumed a world leadership role in consumer product safety. To this day, as I travel from Nation to Nation, government leaders remind me that they are still looking to the United States for guidance and leadership in product safety.

Inherent in America's concern for safe products was a concern for quality products. It was assumed that an unsafe product could not be a quality product.

And now, in 1987, when there is a new call for a renewed commitment to quality in American products and for a restoration of American competitiveness in the world marketplace, we must be prepared to send the clear message on product safety to the rest of the world.

By our words, our deeds, our legislation and our products, we must once again make it clear that the United States is committed to the design and production of safe consumer products.

I bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the committee, this article that has come out in Business Week this week on quality. I would submit this to you for your reading, and I also think that this article really very clearly states the importance of quality in American products and the importance of quality in the American corporate mind. And I would also submit this for the record.

The evolution of product safety in this Nation has followed a clear path since 1971. When I became Chairman of the Commission, my goal was to accelerate and expand upon open communication between the Commission and those industries which we regulated. I chose to encourage the development and adoption of voluntary safety standards by industry as a more effective, efficient and cost effective way of bringing about greater product safety.

But if the voluntary standards were not forthcoming, I was adamant that we move to mandatory standards and even to the banning of a product, if we could not get the voluntary standard to work.

I am proud to report that that voluntary approach usually worked. Through open meetings with industry, both in Washington and around the United States, and through open discussions of product safety problems and their solutions, and an overall effort to achieve product safety cooperatively, we made progress quickly. During my 31⁄2 year term as Chairman, some 40 voluntary standards were adopted. Even more importantly, the compliance with those standards and others previously in effect was achieved time and time again through communication with the affected industries. And I have given several examples in my testimony, which I will not read at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I must be frank in stating, however, that I have a great fear that progress in product safety may now be in jeopardy. All that this Nation has achieved in product safety may be quickly eroded if we fail to place a continuing emphasis on consumer product safety.

The mission of the CPSC has become blurred in the past 2 years and the signal which is going out to American industry, the consumer and the world marketplace is that we just do not care about product safety as much as we have in the past.

The Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission must be a strong advocate of the American consumer. The very role of the Chairman is to serve as a leader in bringing about positive change and improvements in product safety. Quite frankly, that role has not been projected of late.

When we read of Commission economists who place a monetary value on human life in conducting a cost analysis of a product hazard, we must question the direction of the Commission and ask whether it has lost sight of its very reason for being.

When we hear statements to the effect that free market forces will solve product safety problems, we must wonder whether this Nation is willing to return to an era in which injuries and deaths from dangerous products were commonplace.

In my final report to the President of the United States when I left, which I have attached to this statement, I noted that the time may have come for the replacement of the current structure of five Commissioners with that of a single administrator. But this single administrator, if so appointed, should be an individual with both the technical expertise and the consumer orientation necessary to put this Agency back on course.

At this point in its history, the Commission needs both direction and sound management. The right person serving as administrator could provide these elements.

We cannot afford to allow product safety to get caught up in the web of political rhetoric, as now seems to have happened.

While there were differences of opinion and management style during my tenure as Chairman and before me, the Agency never lost sight of its mission. I fear that this is no longer the case.

We cannot afford backsliding in product safety after we have won the respect of the world for our achievements in this field.

The concept and mission of the CPSC are not obsolete. While it has met and conquered many problems during its short history, the challenges which remain before the Agency are both complex and

numerous.

I call upon Congress to strengthen this Nation's commitment to consumer product safety and to help determine the structure and means by which it can be most effectively restored.

Consumer product safety has been institutionalized in this Nation. We must build upon the accomplishments of the Consumer Product Safety Commission so that we can say with confidence to the American consumer that the marketplace is truly safe.

I have also included for the record, Mr. Chairman, a copy of some of the highlights of accomplishments when I served as a Commissioner and Chairman from 1981 to 1984.

Thank you.

[Testimony resumes on p. 110.]

[The prepared statement and attachments of Ms. Steorts follow:]

Statement of

NANCY HARVEY STEORTS

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to receive your invitation to testify at this reauthorization hearing for the Consumer Product Safety Commission because of my ongoing interest in the safety of American consumers. As Chairman of the Commission from 1981 to 1984, I witnessed first-hand what can be achieved when business, government and the American citizens join forces and move toward a common goal.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was founded in the early 1970s' in response to an urgent national need for safer products in the marketplace and the safer use of products by consumers. In the intervening 16 years, the American marketplace has changed and many product safety problems have been solved and many new ones have emerged. But what has not changed are the purposes for the existence of the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

We have come a long way from the early, contentious days of the Commission when American business and government were too often characterized as natural enemies. During my years at the Commission, I was gratified to both observe and foster a new spirit of voluntary action by industry and cooperative problem solving by government, industry and consumers. When I became Chairman of the Commission in 1981, the Commission's clear and effective agenda for product safety had been well established by dedicated and knowledgeable chairmen whose primary emphasis was the achievement of a safer marketplace for the American consumer. Commissioners who served with these chairmen shared this goal, regardless of their political philosophy or affiliation. During my administration, most commissioners carried on this tradition of concern for the consumer. This was also true of the knowledgeable and hard-working commission staff which served during my chairmanship.

And, as I look back over the past 16 years, I am pleased to have played a role in the life of this young, but dynamic and enormously effective, agency. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has a short but enviable history during which millions of Americans have been spared needless injury and even death as a result of the work of the Commission.

During those years, the United States of America assumed a world leadership role in consumer product safety. To this day, as I travel from nation to nation, government leaders remind me that they are still looking to the United States for guidance and leadership in product safety. It was during those active years of the Commission that we sent a message to the rest of the world. That message was: American products will be safe and those you wish to send to our shores must be safe also. We pointed to study after study which indicated that American consumers considered safety as the most important factor in choosing the products they purchase.

Inherent in America's concern for safe products was a concern for quality products. It was assumed that an unsafe product could not be a quality product.

And, now in 1987, when there is a new call for a renewed commitment to quality in American products and for a restoration of American competitiveness in the