>> Elliot Kaye: All right, welcome back to our final panel.
We are pleased to have with us for this panel Ms. Danielle Iverson for the American Apparel
and Footwear Association, Mr. Al Silberberg from SelectShops.com and I think SelectBlinds.com,
Mr. Ted Alcorn from Everytown for Gun Safety, Ms. Liz Hitchcock for Safer Chemicals,
Healthy Families, and Dr. Stephanie Fox-Rawlings from the National Center for Health Research.
Thank you, everyone for joining us.
Ms. Iverson, please, if you will.
>> Danielle Iverson: Good afternoon.
My name is Danielle Iverson and I'm manager of government relations with the American Apparel
and Footwear Association also known as AAFA.
On behalf of AAFA, thank you for the opportunity to comment
on the Commission's budget priorities for fiscal year 2017 and 2018.
AAFA is a national trade association representing apparel
and footwear industry including its suppliers, manufacturers, retailers, and service providers.
Our industry accounts for more than 4 million US employees and more
than 361 billion in retail sales each year.
Product safety is of the utmost importance for AAFA member companies.
To support our members, many of whom are engaged in the production and sale
of children's clothing and footwear, AAFA has taken the lead in educating the industry
on the development, interpretation, and implementation of product safety regulations.
Thank you to many of you as well as Commission staff who have shared your time and expertise
by attending a number of our AAFA product safety events.
AAFA offers the following recommendation
on the priorities the Commission should consider emphasizing and dedicating resources toward
in the fiscal year 2017 operating plan and the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget request:
international testing harmonization and mutual recognition of standards.
AAFA firmly believes in the need for international testing harmonization as well
as mutual recognition of testing to support product compliance and certification.
When testing for compliance with a particular regulation,
duplicative testing is counterproductive
and does not provide any greater assurance of compliance.
Presently the Commission has the opportunity for the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership negotiations between the European Union and the United States
to promote global harmonization and mutual recognition standards.
European negotiators have signaled their interest
in pursuing regulatory harmonization initiatives with respect to textiles and apparel
and the forthcoming TTIP trade agreement.
Such an initiative could provide provisions relating to labeling, safety,
market-driven standards, and bilateral collaboration.
AAFA has long recommended including regulatory harmonization for both footwear and apparel
and the TTIP most recently at a stakeholders' meeting during the 13 round of talks in New York
and echoed last week in a joint footwear statement
which I believe everyone on the Commission received.
We strongly support the intention to harmonize technical regulations and approaches
to guarantee product safety and consumer protection.
Ideally the US and EU shall work to remove unnecessary and redundant testing
by expanding acceptance of conformity assessment bodies
and moving toward a single international standard test method.
Lastly, we note that an amendment to the CPSC's fiscal year 2014 operating plan,
which passed 3-1, calls for guidance to be issued to the regulated community
to ease unnecessary, burdensome, duplicative testing and I quote.
"The Commission also directs staff to draft a statement of policy that sets forth a protocol
for the submission of request for determinations of equivalency between tests administered
and CPSC regulations and comparable tests administered and international standards.
Such protocol at minimum shall require requests for equivalency determinations to establish
that the testing requirements of any alternative tests administered
in an international standard will assure compliance
with all applicable children's products, safety rules, regulations, standards, or bans,
and are as stringent or more so including third-party testing were required,
as the current CPSC testing requirements."We urge the Commission
to revisit the aforementioned amendment.
Let me conclude by again urging the Commission to engage with the US negotiating team
so that the TTIP outcome has regulatory coherence without sacrificing product safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions.
AAFA looks forward to working with the Commission
and furthering our collaborative relationship of assuring product safety.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you Ms. Iverson.
Mr. Silverberg.
>> AI Silverberg: Good afternoon.
SelectBlinds is an online retailer of window coverings.
And I have made the trip from Phoenix to request for 2017 and '18 priorities to include
and emphasize the need for cord-free legislation in the window covering industry.
The reason is very simple.
Window blinds with cords have killed or seriously injured on average 20 children a year.
This is not new.
It has been going on and has been documented since 1983, 33 years.
There's no magic associated with that date.
It just happens to be when this preventable hazard began being tracked.
It's amazing to me that there are so many people that have no idea about these risks.
I didn't know about it for years myself.
A mandate to go cordless is only part of what we are requesting.
We urge you to allocate sufficient funds to create, launch,
and maintain a public awareness campaign.
SelectBlinds is a small business, and because of that it might be easier for us to make a move
to only cordless but it doesn't take decades.
We made the decision known to our suppliers in November of 2015.
At that time we had targeted January 2017 as the transition timing, but as soon as we announced
that I knew there was no way we could wait that long.
We cut the cords on March 31st of this year, five months from notice to implementation.
There are now three only cordless retailers: SelectBlinds.com, Target, and IKEA.
SelectBlinds is the only retailer that is 100% cordless including custom product.
Target and IKEA have limited their offering to stock
or what is referred to as cut-down product.
Either way, there is one simple reason why the three
of us were able to make the change, commitment.
SelectBlinds made the decision because we believe it to be the right decision.
While we cannot force another retailer or the manufacturing community to follow suit,
we feel with the right coordination of efforts, this issue can be resolved
to the satisfaction of all concerned parties.
Three more retailers will join the cord-free commitment: Home Depot, Lowes, and Wal-Mart.
The date that I heard was January 2018.
That's 19 kids, I mean months from now.
Although this is a significant move, it leaves all custom products out of the equation.
Upgrading to cordless is not a cost-prohibitive move.
First of all, there are three categories that have zero cost impact: shutters,
vertical blinds, and roller solar shades.
These three categories account for about 30% of online sales.
It's probably higher with in-home design consultants.
Beyond those three categories, every blind or shade category can readily be made
with a cordless lift or cord inaccessible lift.
The big guys already have the technology.
There are also products like the Fashion Wand from SafeTShade
that transforms a corded shade to a cord inaccessible shade.
Our most popular product is the cell shade or honeycomb shade.
It cannot be that expensive to make them cordless.
We buy a stock cordless cell shade for well under $40 on the most popular sizes.
The vendor from whom we source this product is making money, I'm sure.
So the real cost of an entire cordless shade, including freight, to get it delivered anywhere
in the Lower 48 States is less than $30.
That's a finished product, delivered.
So it can be done by every custom manufacturer.
SelectBlinds has made the move.
We are optimizing our product assortment daily.
We would be in a more competitive landscape if we had every product on our site
that our competition can offer, but even so, we are succeeding as a business entity
with 100% cordless self-imposed mandate.
I've been in the window covering business for almost 11 years.
Prior to that, I ran a company called the Uniden.
We were the number one market share brand in the cordless phone business.
I bring this up for a few reasons.
One, I understand the way to develop products.
I know how to communicate with the engineers, whether electrical, mechanical, or other.
Two, I have been able to get products
that product development teams don't believe can be brought to market from concept
to mass production dozens of times.
Three, new products are the lifeblood of any organization.
They give the consuming public a reason to buy.
This is a beautiful thing.
It adds jobs in the industry.
The time for discussion is over.
The hope for industry self-regulation has come and gone.
A mandate is needed and that's what we are here to ask for.
The industry is capable of doing this.
Perhaps they just need to approach it in a new way.
I'd like to suggest a mandate for all product to be cord free by January 1, 2018.
I'd like to suggest that the mandate include corroboration between retailers
and manufacturers and a committee be formed by September 1, 2016, to oversee the progress.
This is needed in order to get the focus where it should be.
Put my name in the mix.
I'm glad to be part of it.
Let's quit playing Russian roulette with the lives of our kids.
Issue a mandate.
Do it now.
Do it before this tragedy touches one of you, one of our congressional members,
or one of the key executives at the helm of a window covering company
because that eventuality is very real and then it will be too late for you to say
that the reason you are issuing a mandate is because it's the right thing to do.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Mr. Silverberg.
Mr. Alcorn.
>> Ted Alcorn: Good afternoon, Chair Kaye,
and thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony today.
My name is Ted Alcorn and I'm the research director for Everytown for Gun Safety.
Everytown is the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country with more
than 3 million supporters and more than 100,000 donors, including moms, mayors, survivors,
and everyday Americans who are fighting for public safety measures
that respect the Second Amendment and help save lives.
I'm here today to address the burden of injuries inflicted by children who gain access to
and unintentionally discharge firearms, an area of great concern to the public
and one that the Commission has the authority to address, and to urge the Commission
to use its authority to enhance the surveillance of unintentional shootings of children.
In 2013, consistent with the Commission's authority to regulate safe storage devices,
such as trigger locks and gun safes,
the president of the United States asked the Commission to review and enhance the standards
for those devices, a process I understand is now underway.
We know that effective evidence-based interventions rely on a comprehensive
and detailed understanding of the problem they are addressing.
Unfortunately, current surveillance of unintentional shootings
by children is woefully inadequate.
In 2013, employing press reports in the media, Everytown identified 100 children, 14 and under,
who died due to unintentional firearm injuries, nearly 50% more than the best national data
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reflect.
Furthermore, even our count was limited, since it did not capture incidents
in which a child fire gun but harmed someone older nor incidents
in which the victim was injured but did not die.
So last year, again using just press reports, Everytown created
and has since maintained an open source index of all incidents
which a minor unintentionally fired a gun and harmed or killed someone.
We consult with local law enforcement to confirm the details as necessary
and the data we collect are publicly available on our website, everytownresearch.org,
and the patterns they illustrate could inform further approaches to reducing these injuries.
In 2015, Everytown identified 278 unintentional child shootings,
which resulted in 88 deaths and 194 injuries.
As of June 1st this year, we already identified 100,
and as of today we've identified over 110 further shootings.
Three-year-olds pull the trigger more than children of any other age.
And unlike shootings involving older children who typically harm another child,
the vast majority of these incidents involving toddler's, the toddler shoots themselves.
We observe enormous variation across states and the rates of unintentional child shootings.
Controlling for population, Alaska experienced these tragedies 30 times more frequently
than California.
Most important from the standpoint of prevention, which is our goal,
was the apparent role played by the responsible storage of firearms, whereas fewer than 15%
of gun owning households with children reports storing there firearms unlocked and loaded
or with ammunition, those households accounted for more than two thirds
of the unintentional child shootings we observed.
Now the public sometimes refers to shootings like these as accidents,
a word that suggests they occur by chance, unforeseen, without reason.
Everytown is very deliberate in describing these as not an accident
because these tragedies are eminently preventable,
if our society increasingly adopts norms of storing guns responsibly
and evaluates our success at doing so.
To promote that change in behavior,
Everytown has developed public education campaign called Be SMART, which gives gun owners
and non-gun owners alike a way to share information
about responsible firearm storage in their communities.
And organizations across the spectrum run similar programs
from the Brady Center's Ask Campaign to the firearm trade Industry's Project ChildSafe.
But to measure the effectiveness of any individual campaign from any other organization,
it's essential to have an accurate measure of the outcome of interest.
The Commission plays an important role at estimating rates of nonfatal injuries
of all types through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, NEISS.
But more accurate information about unintentional child shootings will be critical
for assessing the effect of current public health approaches.
The Commission should adopt measures to improve surveillance of unintentional child shootings
through the NEISS system and the Commission might also consider establishing an open source
measure of the shootings.
Everytown's index demonstrates the reach of online media for supporting these efforts,
and the Bureau of Justice statistics recently adopted similar tools
for tracking law enforcement involved shootings, which had been undercounted previously.
To be sure one agency alone cannot solve this complex problem,
other agencies must also play a role.
It's essential to measure how gun storage behavior has changed over time, state-by-state,
and the CDC ceased measuring this in 2004 when questions relating
to firearm storage were dropped
from their National Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, BRFSS.
The BRFSS coordinators should reintroduce those questions.
Unintentional child shootings account for just a fraction of the tens of thousands
of firearm related injuries in the United States each year,
but few cry out so strongly for prevention.
Even one preventable firearm injury or death of a child is one too many
and I believe the Commission has an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution
to addressing this problem and it will save lives.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Mr. Alcorn.
Ms. Hitchcock.
>> Liz Hitchcock: Good afternoon, Chairman Kaye and commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our thoughts regarding the Commission's agenda
and priorities for fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
My name is Liz Hitchcock and I'm the legislative director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
I'm providing testimony today on behalf of my organization and Safer States.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is a nationwide coalition representing more
than 450 organizations and businesses including parents, health professionals,
advocates for people with learning and developmental disabilities,
reproductive health advocates, environmentalists, organized labor
and businesses from across the nation, including some groups who have already testified today.
Safer States is a network of diverse environmental health coalitions
and organizations in states across the country that believe families, communities,
and the environment should be protected from the devastating impacts
of our society's heavy use of chemicals.
Our diverse coalitions are united by our common concern about toxic chemicals in our homes
and workplaces and in the products we use every day.
We work for reform of our outdated toxic chemical laws, work with retailers to phase
out hazardous chemicals from the marketplace, and educate the public about ways
to protect our families from toxic chemicals.
Over the remainder of FY 2017 and 2018, we urge the Commission to expand its oversight
and regulation of consumer products containing harmful and environmentally harmful chemicals,
making full use of its authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act,
the Consumer Products Safety Act, and the other statutes enforced by the Commission.
In addition, we urge the Commission to make it a priority to move forward
with rulemaking banning consumer products containing a class
of toxic flame retardant chemicals as requested in the petition submitted in June 2015
by groups including Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Earthjustice,
and the International Association of Firefighters.
While we appreciate the Commission's work over the past several years
to implement the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act's regulation of toxic lead
and phthalates in children's products, the work shouldn't in there.
American families are more aware than ever that toxic chemicals can be found in products
in our children's playrooms, in our living rooms, and kitchens, in hospitals
and healthcare facilities, and in our workplaces with ongoing
and irreparable harm to our family's health.
The presence of toxic chemicals in childcare products and children's products is one
of many exposures to hazardous chemicals that our families face as a result
of contact with consumer products.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission should broaden the scope
of consumer products it reviews for the presence of and health risks from hazardous chemicals
and then taking necessary action to protect public health accounting
for the increased vulnerability of certain populations,
including children and pregnant women.
Thanks to state chemical reporting requirements in Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state,
our state partners have and will continue to produce reports identifying toxics
in consumer products that we urge the Commission to take note of and to begin
to use its authority to protect the public from these dangerous chemicals.
In 2008, the Maine legislature passed one of the first
and strongest state-based chemical policy reform laws known as the Kid Safe Products Act.
Under Maine's law, manufacturers must disclose their use of high priority chemicals of concern
in consumer products sold in the state.
In 2014, the law was expanded to require the reporting of phthalates by some manufacturers.
The report linked to my written testimony, What Stinks, prepared by our partners
at the Environmental Health Strategy Center analyzes the results of that public reporting,
including data on use of phthalates showing that hormone-disrupting chemicals are used
in a broader range of household products than previously known.
In addition to phthalates in clothing and footwear, toys and games,
a total of 130 products containing four types of phthalates were reported by 14 manufacturers
in household paints and primers, in cleansers, in disinfectants and deodorizers.
In 2008, Washington state passed the Children Safe Products Act setting requirements
for makers of children's products being sold in Washington to report to the state
if these products contain chemicals on a list of 66 chemicals of high concern to children.
Manufacturer reporting began phasing in, in 2012.
And in 2014 an analysis of that reporting by our partners
at the Washington Toxics Coalition called What's On Your List summarized the chemicals
in products reported over a six-month period in 2013.
Overall, there were 4605 reports of such chemicals reported in children's products
such as toys, clothing, baby safety products, and bedding.
A total of 78 companies such as Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, Walgreens,
and Toys R Us reported products containing hazardous chemicals.
A total of 49 chemicals such as formaldehyde, bisphenol A, parabens, phthalates, heavy metals,
and industrial solvents were reported with health effects that include carcinogenicity,
endocrine disruption, and developmental or reproductive toxicity.
We anticipate that manufacturer reported data required
by the 2014 Vermont law will become available later this year.
Manufacturers of products for children under 12 are required to report the presence
of 66 chemicals of concern down to the individual product level.
And this new level of data will provide valuable information that will help prioritize products
and categories of products for review.
The Commission should use the data generated by these state programs as a roadmap
to additional products that require further evaluation and potential action
to protect the health of children from these dangerous chemicals.
In addition, we urge the Commission to exercise its authority
under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
to ban products containing toxic chemical flame retardants.
In spite of the fact that these chemicals have been associated
with serious human health problems including cancer, reduced sperm count,
increased time to pregnancy, impaired memory, learning deficits, hormone disruption,
lowered immunity, they continue to be used at high levels in consumer products.
The comments and testimony previously submitted to the Commission
by our partners provide a strong basis for moving forward with the requested rulemaking.
These chemicals migrate continuously out from everyday household products into the air
and dust when we sit on a sofa or put a baby to sleep on a crib's mattress.
As a result, more than 97% of US residents have measurable quantities
of toxic organohalogen flame retardants in their blood.
Children are particularly at risk because they come
into greater contact with household dust than adults.
Studies show that children whose developing brains
and reproductive organs are the most vulnerable have three
to five times higher levels than their parents.
In conclusion, we urge you to act on the petition
to regulate products containing toxic chemical flame retardants and to consider action
to reduce, to restrict dangerous chemical exposures from other consumer products.
We again thank the Commission for this opportunity to comment on your future activities
and priorities, and we look forward to continuing to work
with you on your important mission.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Ms. Hitchcock.
Dr. Fox-Rawlings.
>> Stephanie Fox-Rawlings: Thank you for the opportunity, Chairman and commissioners.
I'm speaking today on behalf of our president, Dr. Diana Zuckerman who could not be here today.
The National Center for Health Research is a nonprofit research center staffed by scientists,
medical professionals and health experts who analysis
and review research on a range of health issues.
We respect the essential role that the CPSC has as well as the challenges that you face
in selecting the most important priorities.
Phthalates and flame retardants need to be among your top priorities because they are in all
of our homes and they migrate from products into our daily environment.
Multiple phthalate metabolites
and flame retardants are detectable in nearly all people in the US.
And scientists agree that their impact on health can be dangerous and long lasting.
First, so these two topics have been discussed very many times today,
so I'm going to be very brief in our comments.
So first I want to talk about the additional bans on phthalates
in children's toys and care products.
We applaud the current permanent and temporary bans on six phthalates in children's toys
and childcare articles; however, these bans need to be extended.
The previous rule proposed last year, last spring in 2015,
following the CHAP recommendations would provide additional protections against children.
We support the permanent bans on four additional phthalates, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP,
and making permanent the interim ban on DINP.
However, the CHAP report also recommended an interim ban on DIOP,
which should also be included in the rule.
We strongly disagree with the proposal to lift the interim bans on DnOP and DIDP.
While they may not be associated with anti-androgenicity, they are associated
with organ toxicity and altered development.
The CHAP report also recommended additional studies on three other phthalates, DMP, DPHP,
and DEP, and six phthalate alternatives and the final rule should include a timeline
for the completion of these studies.
In summary, we strongly urge the CPSC to finalize the proposed rule on phthalates
in children's toys and childcare articles including consideration of our safety concerns.
It is also important for the CPSC to expand this work on phthalates
to include safeguards for older children.
There's increasing evidence for the impact of these chemicals on early puberty,
which itself is associated with drug abuse, sexual exploitation, and suicide.
Next, bans on flame retardants.
The CPSC has the responsibility and the ability to protect consumers from toxic flame retardants
under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act.
We agree with other groups commenting today that the CPSC should propose and finalize regulations
that would ban additive non-polymeric organohalogen flame retardants
in four categories of household products as proposed in petition number HP15-1.
Like phthalates, these chemicals move from products into our daily environment
and from there into consumers' bodies where they can cause irreparable harm.
All of the organohalogen flame retardants studied have been associated
with chronic health effects.
The most well studied organohalogen flame retardants are the PBDEs, which have been phased
out due in part to their effects on human health.
The alternatives in the same class are proving to have similar problems.
These alternatives are found in a large percentage
of people tested in various communities.
They have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems, neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity,
endocrine disrupter, and behavioral changes in models and/or humans.
And we strongly urge the CPSC to develop and finalize a ban on these chemicals
in proposed residential products to protect consumers from their toxic effects.
In conclusion, we urge the CPSC to prioritize the research and rulemaking to limit exposure
of consumers and especially children from phthalates and flame retardants
that have been found to negatively impact health and development.
We look forward to working with you on these issues.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our views.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Dr. Fox-Rawlings.
I'll just start my round of questioning with you and Ms. Hitchcock.
And I don't know if you were here earlier when Mr. Panchena [assumed spelling]
from the Breast Cancer Fund was speaking.
I'll reiterate my concern at a public policy level.
Before I came to the Commission, I remember when our first child was born the scare about BPA.
And Ms. Hitchcock, you mentioned BPA on the list, and so everybody scrambled
to take BPA out of their products.
And as parents, you started looking for BPA-free labels and I remember going around looking
and you would have these sense of relief if you saw something that didn't say BPA on it.
You're like, we're safe.
And that's really the key is that parents think
if a chemical is taken out, then everything's okay.
And then of course low and behold, not surprisingly, BPS apparently was substituted
and there were concerns about what BPS means.
And that's really at the root of my dilemma in this position
and the way I approach it is I want to make sure whatever I'm participating
in is definitively making people safer when it comes to chemical exposure.
And again, I'd like to avoid TSCA reform because I think that's a separate issue to some extent.
Just as we consider whether it's issues that are currently in front of us
or new chemical-related issues, how do we have assurance from a scientific perspective
that if we take action against a chemical or a class of chemicals
that we are definitively making people safer as opposed
to just definitively acting against that chemical.
>> Liz Hitchcock: I think that's the $64,000 question although with inflation,
who know how big a question you've just asked.
>> Elliot Kaye: More than that.
>> Liz Hitchcock: You're absolutely right to be concerned
about regrettable substitutions of the next chemical in line.
And BPA and BPS are a very good example.
We have lacked a comprehensive chemicals policy.
We have -- The congress has just passed and the president has on his desk a reform
of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which you've said you're avoiding.
So I won't dive any farther in.
But we do have concern about substitutions and we have concern about rational substitutions.
There are though chemicals that we have a large body
of scientific evidence that they cause harm.
And we need to take action and I move us into the flame retardants world,
where we have a large volume of scientific evidence to act upon these chemicals.
Let's do the thing that we know is the right thing to do.
Let's guard against regrettable substitutions and let's remain attentive and vigilant
about the next thing coming down and hopefully we will begin to review new chemicals coming
onto the market more carefully, but we ask the Commission to act under its authorities
to take action on the things that we already know and take action to remove these chemicals
that we know are causing harm from everyday consumer products
that our children are coming into contact with.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you.
Doctor, do you want to add anything?
>> Stephanie Fox-Rawlings: I pretty much would say the same thing.
I think as much as we would like to avoid regrettable substitution,
in some ways there's not much we can do unless we can specify testing before chemicals go
on the market.
So just saying replacing this bad chemical,
we may get another bad chemical is a very big problem.
And so even though we might get something else that's bad, we have to stay on top of it,
we have to study it, but we can't keep allowing that to allow bad chemicals
that are causing harm in the marketplace.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you for that.
I just find it, just the whole public policy apparatus very frustrating
because for the children that are harmed by whatever this generation's wave
of chemicals are, they're harmed and that harm is very unlikely to be undone and we learn
at their expense and there has to be a better way to do it.
Mr. Alcorn, thank you for coming in.
I just have to ask briefly, since we've not had your presence before
or your organization's presence before, I'm just curious how you even heard
that we're having a priorities hearing.
>> Ted Alcorn: Well, we have been working on this issue
for almost ten years now as an organization.
But as I said, we began tracking the intentional child shootings most closely in 2013.
And as it's become an issue of greater concern amongst the volunteers that we have
around the country, a volunteer indicated that this is a hearing that would be important
to communicate some of our findings in.
>> Elliot Kaye: Got it.
That's good to know.
And as we mentioned in the beginning this morning, you know,
we're eager to have more robust participation.
So it's good to know that the word is getting out.
On the issue of gun containers and gun locks, as you mentioned, the vice-president did reach out
and ask the Commission to take a role in it, and so we did and we engaged experts
and we asked the ASTM leadership to reopen the standards, which they did.
And what ended up happening, I don't know if you participated in it at all,
it turns out there's really, as far as we could tell, basically only one or two people
in the entire country who can truly figure out how to defeat these devices in such a way
as to show how much the standard has to improve,
they participated for a while in the standards process.
Everybody came together.
CPSC staff was there.
They promised to offer suggestions and then they just sort of disappeared.
And the frustration is that we didn't have anyone else with the technical expertise
who could look at these two standards and say this is what needs to happen.
And what was fascinating about these two individuals, and I went out and met with them
in South Dakota a few years ago, was that they still retained the innocence
and the creativity the way a child can look at a product in a way to defeat it
and they would see a product and a mechanism, a way into that item
in a way that I wouldn't think about.
We put limitations on our way of thinking.
We have, most of us or some of us hopefully have, reality imposing some type of burden on us
and these guys somehow still had that childlike approach
and so they just had a unique way of doing it.
And that's a very long-winded way of saying if you know anyone else who has expertise
in gun locks and gun safes who can participate in the ASTM process that would be very helpful.
I think that the map forward from my perspective was to update those two standards and then go
to California and engage the state of California and see if they were willing
to actually adopt the ASTM standards as well, which would de facto make it nationwide
and I'm sure as I mentioned that, Commissioner Mohorovic is going to ask
about upholstered furniture during his time.
But I do think that that would be a critical step to updating those two standards,
because having done the work on it, they are inadequate from a technical standpoint.
They just don't provide the level of protection that I think is needed.
So please reach out to my office if you have technical experts who can participate in that.
I'd appreciate that.
>> Ted Alcorn: I'd be happy to do so.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you.
Mr. Silverberg, thank you so much for coming.
What's the secret?
You know, we've been hearing for decades and I have not been alive that long,
at least in this capacity, but the agency has been hearing
for decades this is an unsolvable problem.
It can't happen and even for those who are willing to switch over, it's going to take years
and years and this is very technically difficult and impossible to provide consumer choice,
yet somehow you had these magical conversations with your suppliers
who I assume are available to other companies as suppliers.
What did you do that made a difference that others have not been able to figure out?
>> AI Silverberg: I drew a line in the sand.
There's not a house in the United States that cannot be covered
with window coverings cordless, period.
>> Elliot Kaye: And still maintain consumer choice and do it so in an economical way?
>> AI Silverberg: Absolutely.
There's stock product right now that's cordless available.
There's custom product right now that's cordless available.
And I'm not sure what the reasoning is to talk about stock product only.
Custom product is more easily configured by the manufacturer here in the US
or the fabricator here in the US.
And so it's not a cost issue.
If all the engineering resources of the manufacturers were put
to this challenge, it would be solved so quickly.
There are products that are available today, as I said, that have no cost impact whatsoever
to the consumer that are available cordless or corded at the same price.
Engineers can do amazing things.
They really can.
You give them -- In fact, they prefer to be challenged on a daily basis.
It is fulfilling for them in their career.
And to continue to build the same product with only changing colors or changing sizes,
it can't be self fulfilling for an engineer.
I don't get it, Chairman, I just don't get it.
It can be done.
It should be done and it's not a cost-prohibitive venture.
>> Elliot Kaye: Well, I share your belief in the ingenuity and the creativity of industry
and I'm optimistic that, like you said, with the right mindset we can get there.
This has been one of the highest priorities that I've brought to this position
from my perspective because it is solvable and has been going
on so long and I think enough is enough.
Are you available if the industry does reopen the standards
to participate in that and lend your expertise?
>> AI Silverberg: Absolutely.
I'd be glad to do it.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you.
And Ms. Iverson, with my last few seconds, I was just curious
to know how large a statue do you remember is erect in honor of Commissioner Mohorovic
for his GCC proposal that he put through?
>> Danielle Iverson: And I was here turning off people's microphones and I forgot to turn my on.
We just had Commissioner Mohorovic at our product safety [inaudible] conference
in New York and that was really a great opportunity, as I mentioned before,
for the Commission really to convey the mission to our members and hear feedback.
So obviously, we welcome everyone here to participate in further events with AAFA.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
Thank you for that.
Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta Robinson: Thank you.
Mr. Alcorn, I'm going to start with you and just focus
on something different in your presentation.
I know I'm not alone in being thoroughly disgusted at the gun deaths in this country
and the graph yesterday in the "New York Times" that brought home what we all sort of know
but I don't know if you saw it or not, but literally the US is 500% higher
than the next closest country in terms of gun deaths in this country.
And I know your organization as I understand is focused on gun violence
and obviously this agency is more focused on what can be done.
We have very limited jurisdiction.
But obviously the only thing we could ever, no matter what, do is address accidental deaths.
It doesn't take very long in government to appreciate how outrageous the ways are
in which the hands of government agencies have been tied with respect to making guns safer.
Even with gathering data about gun deaths, our hands are tied.
As one commentator recently said, we regulate toys, so why not guns.
Our restriction from congress comes first in defining a consumer product
which does not include firearms or ammunitions and then we're specifically directed
that we shall make no ruling or order that restricts the manufacture or sale of firearms,
firearms' ammunition, or components of firearms' ammunition including black powder or gun powder
for firearms and we're the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
But it is what it is.
But I thank you for what you're doing and I agree with you
that the data are absolutely critical and they're tough to find.
And I know you're using press reports.
I know a couple years ago, I guess it was back in 2013, the "New York Times,"
again I'm sure you saw it, did the study of kids involved in deaths with guns that were labeled
as homicides rather than accidents so that the numbers that were being used by associations
like the NRA to argue that wasn't a problem were half what the real numbers were
because of this misnomer of what happens when even an infant shoots a baby,
they were labeling it as homicide.
So the focus of your presentation as I read it was on our NEISS system.
So I just wanted to tell you a couple things.
First of all, all of us here appreciate that the NEISS system is the gold standard
but it's still less than 100 emergency departments at hospitals in the United States.
But our NEISS coding manual does include separate codes for gun locks and gun safes
and we collect product information that's publically available and searchable
on those products; however, we also collect incident data
that involves unintentional shootings through NEISS but we don't make it public
because of our restriction in consumer products not including firearms.
So we do gather that data.
And we gather both for intentional and unintentional shootings for the CDC
and we've been doing that since 1993 per an interagency agreement.
And as I understand it, we receive about 3500 reports a year.
And the CPSC cannot release that; however, the CDC releases it
on the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
So if you haven't heard of that, which I hadn't
until I read your presentation and checked out what we gather.
You might want to check that out because I'm told that 22%
of the firearm cases collected are classified as unintentional.
So that may be something that your organization might be able to use and anything that you get
by way of data that might be useful for us,
we would appreciate you sharing that with us as well.
Mr. Silverberg, thank you, thank you, thank you for going 100% cordless.
Certainly I think all of us appreciate that the technology is there, that it's not expensive.
We could do it but it's been decades that we've been trying
to get industry to adopt a voluntary standard.
You asked for a mandate.
I'm sure you know that for us to do a mandatory standard is a herculean task,
particularly in this area where there are so many cords.
And I am delighted to hear that you responded to the Chair's question that you would participate
if we were to open the standard again.
Have you done so in the past, have you participated in any voluntary standard?
>> AI Silverberg: I have not.
>> Marietta Robinson: Good.
Okay.
>> AI Silverberg: But I'll grow my hair --
>> Marietta Robinson: I don't mean good that you haven't.
I mean good that you will.
>> AI Silverberg: I'll grow my hair to take on that herculean effort.
>> Marietta Robinson: So I'm delighted that you will do that,
particularly with respect to a hidden hazard like this.
Ms. Hitchcock, I know you know that we're going to be receiving a package on phthalates
and the non-polymeric additive organohalogens petition that was
and we should be receiving that shortly.
You have said that you think the Commission should broaden the scope of consumer products
that it reviews for the presence and risk of hazardous chemicals.
And I'm just curious as to whether you know of any specific products or product categories
that you think that we should be reviewing that we're not reviewing.
>> Liz Hitchcock: In my testimony I linked to two reports from our state partners in Maine
and in Washington State, where they are reviewing the results of the reporting
under their state laws and I'm looking at a chart here where they found chemicals of concern
in children's clothing and footwear, in toys, which obviously you're obviously focused on.
We also found tableware, in personal care products
and in cleansers, in items found in the kitchen.
So we would look to those reports to find the additional products that aren't covered
as children's products or for a child under the age of 12.
>> Marietta Robinson: Those are product categories.
Are you aware of chemical categories that we are not considering that we should be considering?
>> Liz Hitchcock: I'm happy to hear that you're considering the flame retardants petition.
There are additional chemical categories like formaldehyde, parabens, other flame retardants
and other phthalates beyond those covered under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.
>> Marietta Robinson: In the category of phthalates?
>> Liz Hitchcock: Yeah.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
And I'd be interested in both yours and Dr. Fox-Rawlings comments on whether --
I hope that you reviewed our very robust hearing on the group,
on the petition for the non-polymeric organohalogens that are additive
and in four product categories, as I'm sure you know.
But I guess I'd be interested in your comment since you were not at that hearing
on whether you think that that's an appropriate categorization because this is new for us
to look at a whole category of flame retardants.
>> Stephanie Fox-Rawlings: It seems fairly reasonable to me.
Yeah, it's a very big category in some cases but from what's been studied in the characteristics
of those chemicals, it looks like there is a very reasonable chance
that the characteristics seen in a good portion
of these are going to expand to the rest of them.
And by being able to look at a whole category like this,
we can avoid the regrettable substitution like we're seeing with some
of the phthalates and with the BPAs and the BPS.
So I think it is reasonable.
>> Marietta Robinson: But let me follow up with it.
If we limit this to the four categories that are in the petition, which are durable infant
and toddler products, residential upholstered furniture, mattresses and mattress pads,
and plastic casings of electronic devices, my question is are either of you aware
in those four product categories of any safe non-polymeric additive organohalogens?
>> Liz Hitchcock: I'm deferring.
She's the scientist.
>> Marietta Robinson: And if you don't know, that's fine.
I just --
>> Stephanie Fox-Rawlings: I can't go into any of the details right now.
I can definitely look into the research and let you know, but I know there are alternatives
for flame retardants that are safer for, as far as I've been able to understand,
most categories of consumer products and a lot
of the standards can still be met with even non-flame retardants.
So I'm not sure for specifics on which ones require those types of flame retardants.
>> Marietta Robinson: Okay.
Thank you.
And Ms. Iverson, nice to see you again.
I'm sure you know that we're not participating in TTIP and we have no intention of doing so,
because unlike some of our sister agencies, we don't have any mission related to trade.
So that's the reason we're not participating.
But my question of you is have you approached any of our European Union counterparts
to see their attitude about harmonizing, because we would love to harmonize
but we're not going to harmonize down, as you know?
>> Danielle Iverson: Yes, I do know that.
So I've read some of the Commission's work and I know that that's a major concern
in the area of watering down standards.
So we are working with our European partners and I know that this is going
to be a really important task and I know that it's going to be difficult.
I know the Commission has already looked into this.
So we continue to work on both sides.
But I can say that, as I mentioned in my testimony, European regulators are signaling
that there's going to be a textile provision in the next round.
So I understand that the CPSC has no intention of working in this area but there are areas
of regulatory coherence that we think you can be a part of.
So --
>> Marietta Robinson: Good.
And I just -- All of us supported Commissioner Mohorovic's proposal, as you know,
with respect to the enforcement policy and I thank you for your work
with him on this common sense proposal.
>> Danielle Iverson: Thank you and I thank the Commission for that as well.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.
Commissioner Buerkle.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of our panelists
for being here today and for taking the time out to provide your insights
into these very important issues.
Dr. Fox-Rawlings, in your testimony, well, it's actually Diana, Dr. Zuckerman,
on the bottom of the first page it says, "It's important for CPSC to expand its work
on phthalates to include safeguards for older children.
There is increasing evidence of the impact of these chemicals on early puberty,
which itself is associated with drug abuse, sexual exploitation, and suicide."
Can you provide us with that research that's been done
and those numbers that you're referring to here?
>> Stephanie Fox-Rawlings: I cannot but I can talk to Diana and have that sent to you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Very good.
Okay. Appreciate that.
Thank you.
We did hear in the comments with regards to phthalates of the regrettable substituents
and the concerns for substituting one known entity and one known chemical with another one
that we don't know anything about.
But as you well know that the phthalates package is being worked on by our staff.
It is extremely complex.
There were several of, as you know, many, many comments on it.
They're working through those comments and it's a process and we expect to see
that package hopefully by the end of this fiscal year.
So, thank you for your concerns and your thoughts on the phthalate issue.
Mr. Silverberg, before I have a couple of questions for you, I do want to say something
because both of my colleagues have said this and I want to make sure
that the information out there is accurate.
So we may have heard that it can't be done.
But I don't think we're hearing that now.
I think that industry has made it clear to the agency that the technology exists,
it's available, consumers have a choice, and it can be done.
And the question is, how do we find a way forward.
So that may have been the issue a few years ago, but now the issue I think there's no dispute
that the technology is available.
And this isn't directed at you.
This is directed at my colleagues that we hear of that in the past, but since I've been here,
I've heard from industry and, as I mentioned this morning,
I've been to the three major manufacturers of them and they are willing, interested,
and able to produce cordless products and certainly products with inaccessible cords.
And that's very important to what we're talking about here today.
When you made the change, can you talk to us about what happened to the price of the blind?
>> AI Silverberg: Absolutely.
It went up.
It costs more.
In some cases it costs a little more.
And in some cases it costs not much more than a little more but based on the price
of the product to begin with, the ratio of the up charge was
such that it put us in an uncompetitive position.
That's easily rectified by mass production of cordless blinds.
With volume comes efficiencies and cost reduction.
And so if the manufacturers have to make them all cordless,
you will see the cost come down dramatically, very quickly.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Okay.
I mean that is certainly an acceptable theory, right, that when we do things
in mass production, the price comes down.
But I think the difference, and Commissioner Robinson continues to say this,
that we for Section IX rulemaking have extremely difficult obstacles to overcome.
And I think what's key here in your testimony and your being here
and the decision you made is a business decision that you made, a commendable one,
but you made the decision and that's different than having it be imposed on you.
And so I think you should be commended for making that decision
and it was a business decision you made.
So I just want to point that out.
I do want to emphasize that the technology is available.
I don't think there's any dispute.
Major manufacturers have made that clear.
And now the question is how do we find a way forward to get
to a voluntary standard that addresses this issue.
So that's all I have.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Commissioner Buerkle.
Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, panelists, for appearing today, especially new participants.
It's always good to see other associations with interests that recognize
that it's important to visit with the CPSC.
Mr. Silverberg, thank you for your long travel.
If you could engage me, I don't -- I'm not as --
Forgive me, I'm not as familiar with SelectBlinds.com.
You mentioned you're an online retailer.
Have you always been an online retailer?
>> AI Silverberg: Yes.
>> Joe Mohorovic: You have for 11 years I think you've been in business?
>> AI Silverberg: Yes.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Do you sell to subcontractors and contractors
or is it a direct-to-consumer business?
>> AI Silverberg: It's primarily direct to consumer but we do have a dealer division,
which is suffering more than the general part of the business.
>> Joe Mohorovic: What percent of your business do you think is direct
to consumer, if you had to guess?
>> AI Silverberg: Ninety-five percent.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Ninety-five percent direct to consumers, writing you, selecting,
credit card information, and you cut a PO and you send product out?
>> AI Silverberg: Yes.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Excellent.
Now you made the decision to go cordless in November of 2015.
Tell me about that decision-making.
Was it -- Did you -- Was it your team?
Is it -- Tell me a little bit about that moment that you decided, look,
we're going to make a business decision and we're going to go completely cordless.
>> AI Silverberg: I drove at 100%.
I have understood that window blind cords were killing kids
when I heard the first recall or the retrofit on Roman shades.
And coming from an industry where I was cutting the cords previously in consumer electronics
with telephones, right, I've been cutting cords my whole life.
But I don't know what the trigger was that hit me so hard but it just really impacted me
that we were selling a product that is dangerous to kids.
CPSC compliant product is killing kids still and I just couldn't get up in the morning,
look myself in the eye in the mirror, and go to work knowing
that we were selling a product that's dangerous to kids.
These are innocents.
It's our responsibility to give them the most safe environment that we possibly can.
And to cut the cord is not cost prohibitive.
And what parent would pay 20 or 30 or $40 more a window
to make sure they have a safe product for their children.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Right.
After they're aware of the hazard, too, right, and appreciate it.
>> AI Silverberg: And that's why I say an education program is also necessary to go hand
in hand with this because even if we decided today
that not another corded blind would be sold, there's 140 million households in the US,
150 million households in the US.
It's going to take a long time to cycle through all those products.
But we have to start somewhere and we have to start some day and we just made the decision
that we're not going to wait any longer and we started March 31st
because April 1st was April Fool's day and I didn't want any confusion
in the industry that we were playing a joke.
And April was a tough month for us.
I'll admit it.
But in May, we actually had a higher revenue number than we did in May last year.
So it's not 100% detrimental to any business.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Yeah, you mentioned that it does put you at a competitive disadvantage
but you've been able to thrive still in a cordless environment.
>> AI Silverberg: Absolutely.
And the one category that we've been the most successful in which is honeycomb
or cellular shades, we have been working with our manufacturers on making them cordless for us
for years and we have a very small surcharge for the cordless solution on those.
But the reality is there are additional solutions necessary
to make every window cordless accessible because some are hard to reach,
some are behind furniture, some people are not able to reach high enough
to get the window shade all the way open.
And motorization is an example of a technology that will address any window but it's going
to take more work to get the motorization cost down.
That is an expensive proposition today but it doesn't have to be.
Motorization is a radio.
We make radio frequency products available at reasonable prices and many categories
of products including cordless phones, which nobody buys them anymore
because everyone has a cell phone.
But remote control for your TV, remote control for your lights,
remote control for your thermostat, we remote control everything.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Just watch out for those button cell batteries there, right.
>> AI Silverberg: Exactly.
>> Marietta Robinson: So in November of 2015, did you come to the conclusion
that all corded window blinds present an unreasonable risk of injury or death?
>> AI Silverberg: I came to the conclusion that it is not possible to determine
from our side what is or is not reasonable to expect from a cordless
or corded product in the home use.
And the only way to be sure that the expectation is met
that the blind will be safe is to sell it without a cord.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And you've got with 95% of your sales, you've got direct ability
to contact all of your, everybody who has purchased corded blinds from you?
>> AI Silverberg: Over a million customers.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Have you -- What kind of information have you subsequently sent
out to those customers of yours who you've made and sold to them corded blinds?
>> AI Silverberg: We email them on a weekly basis.
We have educated them as much as we can.
We have implemented a Go Cordless initiative where we have committed
to completely retrofit one home a month for any family that submits a story that is going
to give us the feeling that they're the most deserving of anybody
who submits their request to make their home all cordless.
>> Joe Mohorovic: A previous customer?
>> AI Silverberg: Previous -- No -- And new customer.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Any new customer too.
>> AI Silverberg: And we take this very seriously.
Before we went all cordless, we offered every consumer, any consumer that wanted a cord cleat
for every window in their house, we sent them out for free.
But cord cleats are not the answer.
Cord cleats are -- Just earlier this year, a kid was strangled by a cord cleat blind
that was properly wrapped and it didn't prevent the tragedy.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Have you plans to recall your corded product
with CPSC through a fast track recall?
>> AI Silverberg: No.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Why not in terms of commitment?
I mean, I recognize some of your language and I know it's rhetoric to be, you know,
to have the best possible impact.
And let me ask you one quick question first.
Did I hear you correctly when you said, "19 deaths, I mean months,"
was that purposeful or was that truly a slip?
>> AI Silverberg: It was intentional.
>> Joe Mohorovic: It was intentional.
Okay, I thought so.
It wasn't missed on me.
But you did mention that we're playing Russian roulette with children
and you've sold corded product to family.
You have the ability to reach them and to offer them a repair or recall or refund
and I'm just curious how you can make that commitment and yet not want to offer them
without charge your cordless product.
>> AI Silverberg: Well, you know, I could do that but I would be
out of business pretty quickly, right, if I gave everybody free blinds.
But I appreciate the comment and I do take it to heart and it is something that we've thought
about and we are actually working very hard to come up with what is the right financial model
where we can offer a discount to such a degree
that anybody can replace their corded blind with a cordless blind.
I'm not sure what the answer is yet but I'm trying to think of a way, cut your cord,
send us your cord, we'll give you a 50% discount on a cordless blind.
I don't know if that will work.
We have to run the models.
But we also have to stay in business.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I recognize that.
Right and we don't want to put the American consumer out of business and I think one
of the things that's missed in a lot
of regulatory consideration is how regressive regulation is.
It disproportionally impacts low-income folks in terms of price points, whether it's table saws
or cordless products in terms of price point increases.
And if you believe that we should mandate only cordless blinds by regulation,
do you also think that we should tolerate corded blind in the marketplace or should we
in fact along the same rationale recall all corded blinds in the United States?
How could we -- How could one tolerate corded blinds in the marketplace that present a risk
if one believes that risk is there and yet at the same time justify a mandatory standard?
>> AI Silverberg: It's been done for decades.
Look at the auto industry.
Seat belts.
We didn't recall cars.
We didn't retrofit cars.
They worked their way through.
What about the third brake light in the window?
We didn't recall all the cars back in.
We didn't say you had to retrofit your cars.
It just happens to take time and eventually what you see on the street is a car
that is meeting the standards and not seeing cars that don't meet the standards.
And the same thing has to happen in window blinds.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
Thank you for your candor.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
>> AI Silverberg: Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Commissioner Mohorovic.
Thank you to the panel, Dr. Fox-Rawlings, Ms. Hitchcock,
Mr. Alcorn, Mr. Silverberg, Ms. Iverson.
We appreciate your testimony, coming here today.
Just a few other items as we wrap up.
I do want to remind folks who may be paying attention online or of course who were here
that we will keep the record open for one week.
So for any of the information that may have been requested or any additional information
that folks would like to provide the agency, please do so.
I do want to acknowledge for the record, we did receive additional written comments
from folks who were not able to testify.
I do want to mention who they are.
The Iowa ATV Injury Prevention Taskforce, Earthjustice and a coalition
of organizations along with them, Public Citizen,
the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Zippo Manufacturing,
the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Outdoor Industry Association,
the National Retail Federation, the Toy Industry Association,
and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
We all did go through their testimony very closely
and we're pleased to have them submit that.
And finally, I do want to acknowledge our executive director
and her staff, Office of the Secretary.
Thank you, Todd for the work that you did and for facilities office
and everybody for making this happen.
We very much appreciate everything that goes into it.
It was seamless and that is because of the staff worked behind the scenes that made it all work.
So thank you very much for those who attended, who submitted testimony, who watched online.
This concludes this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.
For more infomation >> Pacquiao-Horn Bout Set for July 2 in Australia - Duration: 1:01. 
For more infomation >> Confidential Paper Shredding, Document dispoasl & Paper Recycling Services by Highlander EK Glasgow - Duration: 5:01. 
For more infomation >> Robert Lockley Promo for Pros and Cons program with Nancy Grace - Duration: 9:37. 
For more infomation >> Christians Near Mosul Celebrate Palm Sunday for First Time in Years - Duration: 0:55. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét