226

a hannot Is th

Mr . CRAIG . What is the difference ?

Mr . STATLER . The difference is that a knife is an inherently dan gerous product . A chain saw is an inherently dangerous product no matter what features it has . And similarly , an automobile is an in herently dangerous product ; it can cause serious injury and death . The question is whether its design , or in the case of the ATV by its hand characteristics and stability or instabil

roduct unreasonably dangerous such that users are subjected to a degree of risk that they should not otherwise be subjected to .

Now , if I can explain that by example , we will go back to chain saws .

Mr . CRAIG . Um hum .

Mr . STATLER . The chain saw is an inherently dangerous product . We , as a Commission , ruled or determined in connection with the early regulatory proceeding that we thought it was unreasonably dangerous in terms of the kickback phenomena , not by virtue of anything else . It could fall on you , it could get out of control , but it was the kickback , the unexpected coming back into the user ; that 20 , 000 cases , but not the other 100 , 000 cases . And so it was in that respect that it was unreasonably dangerous , and that is what we dealt with .

In the case of ATV ' s , the issue that we will have to decide , basi cally , whether it is a regulation , recall or a ban — the tests are somewhat different under the law if we choose to go that route but basically it goes to the notion of whether the facts of the design , whether the circumstances of use , whether given the bene fits and the costs involved , given the exposure , given the anticipat ed use and misuse and abuse , whether all those come together to render this an unreasonable risk of injury .

Mr . CRAIG . Thank you . Mr . Scanlon , do you agree with that ? Mr . TERRENCE SCANLON . In part , Mr . Craig . I think Commission er Statler is making this a little more simplistic than it is . We don ' t have the data today to justify declaring this a substantial product hazard . We would be kidding ourselves if we thought we did . That is why we embarked on this seven - point project that the four Commissioners agreed to . What will happen 6 , 8 , and 10 months down the line , I don ' t know .

Mr . STATLER . If I can just correct the record . There was an impli cation that I have labeled this a substantial product hazard in the technical sense of our statute which would then , in effect . demand a recall or some other corrective action . I have not . Nor have I urged the Commission to recall the product , as I believe might have been said in your opening statement . I have urged the manu facturers to recall it on their own .

Mr . BARNARD . Can I ask a question to that point ? Mr . CRAIG . Sure , Mr . Chairman . Mr . BARNARD . If the gentleman would vield .

Let me ask you this question . Why should the manufacturers recall a product if there is not enough evidence to satisfy the Con sumer Product Safety Act ?

Mr . STATLER . Let me deal with that . It is kind of interesting . Just take the first 2 months of 1985 and look at the shipment figures which interpolate over time to sales figures . You know that 47 per