 Good morning. Welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Before we begin, I think it's important to recognize, at least for those of us who are Nats fans, and still basking in the warm glow of victory, the wonderful game that we all watched last night. So let's hear it for the Nats. So this morning I would like to begin by thanking everybody for their support as I'm transitioning to the role of Acting Chair of the Agency. Ann Marie, I want to thank you for all the years of effort and leadership and guidance that you've given us and certainly wish you well for the future. I look forward to continuing the work, the important work of protecting consumers with the help of my colleagues, my fellow commissioners, as well as the outstanding staff here at CPSC. We have one item on the agenda this morning, and that is a decisional matter on the fiscal year 2020 operating plan. We have a staff member sitting at the table, Mr. Dwayne Ray, who is the Deputy Executive Director for Safety Operations, but lurking in the audience behind is Jay Hoffman, who's the Director of Financial Management and James Baker, who is our budget officer. And I want to thank you all for being here. So we will begin with questions for the staff. Each commissioner will have five minutes for questions. We can go multiple rounds if necessary. Following questions for staff, we will then turn to consideration of the operating plan in any amendments, which I suspect there are a whole bunch, for consideration. I will begin and I hope to set a very good example. I have no questions. Commissioner Burkle? I have no questions. Thank you. Commissioner Kaye. I have a couple of questions. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Ray, in 2017, when the commission declined to terminate the recreational off-highway vehicle package and instead adopted an amendment that would require a retrospective review of the existing voluntary standard, it had four items to that retrospective review. Are you familiar with those four items? Yes. And in the proposed operating plan that staff sent up, there's a termination package. Is it staff's intention to cover all four of those items in the package that comes to the commission? Yes, it is. Okay, great. Thank you. And then if the commission were to change the allocation in EXHR on burden reduction and increase work associated with burden reduction, where in EXHR does that work come from? So for every staff month that is moved to burden reduction, how can we understand what staff work will not get done? It's a little specific on the particular project. So depending on the kind of work that was in the burden reduction, if it was heavily on let's say engineering, we would have to look at shifting staff months out of another engineering project that to support that work. But without the specific, you know, breakout, we'd, but in general, we'd find other projects that are planned and we'd have to take resources away from those to fund any new project like that. Okay, so if it were fiber related, spandex, for instance, fiber, you know, primarily got the, you know, our lab folks, some, some project management support within EXHR. So I take some testing resources away, I would guess on that front. Okay, great. No other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Biacco. No questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman. I have no questions at this time. Okay, having heard no further questions, staff is excused from the table. Thank you for your work and the work of all the other staff on this operating plan. We really appreciate it. We'll now turn to the FY 2020 operating plan as proposed by staff and any amendments to the plan as it was proposed. By my latest count, we have over 20 amendments to consider while we will take as long as necessary to fully consider each one. I encourage everyone here to be cognizant of the time and to reserve debate for your highest priority items. I don't have any amendments to introduce, but I do have a brief statement. As my colleagues know, I had planned to introduce an amendment calling for an annual report on senior safety to identify those products that disproportionately cause fatalities, injuries, and losses for older consumers. When I checked the staff, I realized to my chagrin that the resource implications for such a project would probably displace one of the other reports already scheduled and designated in the operating plan. So again, trying to set a good example and stay within existing resources, I've withdrawn my amendment and I'm instead calling for a public meeting that will focus on senior hazards and I will share my thoughts with my colleagues as they develop. I just want to go on record as saying my interest in concerns for seniors have not gone away and I certainly plan to introduce this proposal at a future date and I hope staff will continue to look at other opportunities to highlight the risks faced by this vulnerable population of which I am a proud member. I now turn to consideration of amendments for the operating plan in commissioner Burkle. If you have an amendment, may we ask you to distribute that and describe it for up to three minutes and then after the conclusion of your description of your amendment, I will call for a second. Thank you. As staff is distributing my amendment to this ops plan, I'll just describe and I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself as well as a commissioner Biacco. This amendment is in FY 2020 or on page 17 under 23259 chemical hazards rulemaking activity under the subcategory OFRs, add the following at the end. In FY 2020, staff will present a staff, excuse me, a draft federal register notice to withdraw quote the guidance document on hazardous additive non polymeric organohalogen flame retardants in certain consumer products. If withdrawal is approved by the commission, the corresponding frequently asked questions on CPSC's website will also be removed. I offer this amendment this morning and I will make a few comments and then defer to my colleague as well to offer any thoughts she might have. Because first of all, this was commissioned driven this guidance document, so I believe that the federal register document would not require any significant staff resources and it would require an approval by the commission. I think it's safe to say that in recent years there has been opposition to the use of guidance documents by the federal government. Just this past month, the president issued an executive order addressing the inappropriate use of guidance and directing agencies to reform their approaches to issuing guidance. Whether or not that executive order applies to us, which we debate on a daily basis, I think our OFR guidance exemplifies the type of guidance that is inappropriate and has attracted great criticism. It's not just a mere interpretation of our laws or our regulations. Instead, it is telling manufacturers, retailers and consumers to stop making, selling or buying this entire class of organohalogen flame retardants before we have gone through the process that our statutes specify. This is backdoor rulemaking that is creating such a backlash against guidance. At the very least, this should have gone out for notice and comment. As the executive order says, it isn't enough to include a disclaimer that the guidance is not binding. The simple fact is people assume that the federal government would not be telling us not to use certain chemicals if we didn't have a sound scientific basis for doing so. Now we talk a little bit about the National Academy of Science and what we have just received from them. The guidance document was clearly based upon the premise of the commission, not staff recommended, that we would look at this entire class of OFRs as a class and not in subclasses as the NSAS has suggested. But beyond this, this guidance was premature. It should have never gone up. And it really, I believe, is an end run about rulemaking and should be taken down. And I'll ask Commissioner Bianco if she has anything to add? Just a few things. Thank you, Commissioner Buerkle. And thank you for working with me to present this amendment. It's my understanding that the guidance was issued before I came to the commission. And I do understand that it was not a staff document. It was issued despite the staff's recommendation. And it was a guidance that was issued without going through the statutory process, which I don't support generally. This is not, from my perspective, something that takes away something that was put into place properly. And in addition to that, it does not take away from any other work that the agency plans to do with regard to OFRs, as described in this plan and as we've discussed. Most importantly, it's incorrect. The National Academy of Sciences, of course, completed and shared the report this summer. And there are new findings and recommendations that are not consistent with the information contained in the guidance document. I see no reason to keep something like that on our website for public view when it is inconsistent with something we paid and waited for quite some time to have done. So I would support the amendment. Thank you. And thank you. And now we turn to questions about the amendment. I think we need a second. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a second? Okay. Jumping the gun, as it were. Okay. So commissioners Berkel and Biakko, but let me turn the question to Commissioner Berkel, at least, to start. I assume you agree that one of the main purposes of the Consumer Product Safety Act is to give stakeholders, especially consumers, information and advice on the safety of products they purchase. That's a statutory mandate. As I read your amendment, it would withdraw any guidance or advice from the commission regarding the safety of OFRs with no clarification, no substitute advice, no nothing. So I guess my first question, and I would like to make it somewhat personal, if you had a next door neighbor or a good friend who came to you and said, I'm going to purchase a product and it looks like it's got OFRs in it, what advice would you give them and where would you turn, ask them to turn for advice? Well, first of all, this amendment only suggests that we take down the actual guidance document. And if it's approved, the questions, the frequently asked questions, it doesn't say we won't talk about OFRs, it doesn't say we wouldn't provide any information about OFRs. But my concern with this information that we have up is we do not know if it's accurate or not. We had a tech-to-tech meeting where we heard from the industry and the electronics industry that the removal of OFRs in the electronic casings, we don't know whether or not that is going to affect the safety. And so while we want to also be concerned about OFRs and exposure to them, we also want to be concerned that the not using OFRs could create and could create more dangerous situations and increase the number of fires, particularly with electronics. And that has been my concern consistently since this guidance went up. Beyond that, I would say staff recommended we deny this petition, they deny, they suggest we deny this package. And the commission went out prematurely, I believe, prematurely with, I'll just say, pre-judgment as to whether or not these OFRs are safe. And I think we need to be concerned as an agency regarding that point. And I appreciate the thought, but I'll ask it in a different way. If I were a retailer and I'm about to buy products for this holiday season and I'm told that those products have OFRs, where should they look for advice to whom should they turn for a purchasing decision? In other words, if they've got to make a decision today about whether they're buying products that have OFRs, what should they do? Where should they go for advice? I would argue that to have inaccurate information up, which I believe the OFR guidance is, we don't have the facts and yet we go up as if we do. Taking that position is more dangerous than holding back until we do have the specific information we need in a subclass setting, as NAS has talked about and the work will continue on these organohalagen flame retardants as to which ones are and which ones are not. But to make a blanket statement, I think affects safety, especially when it comes to the electronic casings. Yeah, but I don't notice that anything in your amendment says withdraw it and ask staff to provide a more appropriate assessment of any advice that we should give. But people have to make decisions immediately about whether they're going to purchase products with OFRs. And I'm afraid the signal that we send to the world is we take it back. We don't think that there's a serious safety hazard, which is absolutely contrary to what the NAS report assesses. And so what we're stuck with is we either go through incredibly lengthy and detailed formal rulemaking, which is going to take years or we're just left with a big hole. And I guess that's what concerns me about this amendment. And if you have any response that I'd appreciate it. Just once again, I think it's incumbent upon the agency to have the facts before we put out guidance. Guidance can be misleading. And I'll just say it again because I feel so strongly about it. The use of OFRs in electronic casings where there is minimal exposure to the consumer, but a very, very high benefit, I'll call it, to the use of OFRs and electronics. I think it's irresponsible for the commission, despite staff recommendation, to put up this guidance without having the facts. It's an end-run around rulemaking that needs to be taken down. I notice that your amendment takes all the advice down, not just for the electronic plastic casings. And so Commissioner Biacco, if you have anything to add, if not, then I will turn to Commissioner Kaye for any comments he has. Just one comment, two actually. I agree with Chairman Burkle's assessment. I couldn't Commissioner Burkle's assessment and I couldn't state it betterly, frankly. So I will just second the comments that she made and add one more. I don't believe this is CPSC should be making any safety claims based on the absence of evidence. So we just throwing some stuff up on a website and giving guidance willy-nilly that doesn't support it, isn't supported by our staff, is inconsistent with what our staff recommends, and is inconsistent with the very report that we commission I don't think is a responsible position to take. Thank you Commissioner Kaye. Thank you Chairman Adler and thank you to the amendment sponsors for offering this. I certainly understand the philosophical views behind it and I'm not going to in any way try to talk you out of a dislike of the process of guidance is because I don't think that would be effective. I would like to address some procedural issues as well as some of the substance and I guess I'll start with the substance. I don't think there's I just have a different view Commissioner Biacco that there's no evidence I think actually we've heard overwhelming evidence that of those of ours that there is data on they have been shown to be highly toxic and that we have the chief toxic colleges at the time for the United States government come in from NIH and testify to that fact and not only did she testify to the fact that there was abundant data of the toxicity of many of the OFRs she also gave in her judgment the view that if the commission were to address any chemicals in the question that I think then Commissioner Adler put to her was if you had our small budget and our resources and you had to prioritize these chemicals of all the chemicals you're aware of what would you go after first and she said OFRs and if anything the NAS study confirmed that there is significant data about many OFRs and significant concern about them so I would gently push back on the idea that there is no data I think at that point it becomes a risk tolerance and a judgment call based on the amount of data that I think is indisputably out there and if we have to make the decision to let's just say we're going to make a mistake and our choices are to make a mistake by warning people about a hazard that turns out not to exist or not warning people about a hazard that turns out to exist I would every time turn choose warning people about a hazard based on some data that turns out not to exist I don't think that's going to end up being the case I think what the most that might happen is some OFRs at the end of the day either there might never be enough data on or there might be some way at a mall molecular level to exclude those based on some computer projections or some exposure surveys or whatever you would have you but I do think that there's enough data I do think that we can make that judgment I think we made the right call it is it does only say encourages and recommends it's not a it doesn't dictate any action on the casings I guess I heard it a little bit differently from the menu from the electronic folks I think what they're saying is that it would be too expensive to go up come up with other ways of doing it not that they couldn't do it and that OFRs are the cheapest way and I think what is unfortunately one of the most under discussed aspects of all this is how much data has also been out there about how ineffective OFRs apparently even are from a fire prevention standpoint and so what a shame it is if they don't even work to continue to expose children in particular and pregnant women to chemicals that they don't need to be exposed to so I do think there's enough data I think that the commission has made a reason decision to warn based on that and I think it would be a massive step back for safety to take it down based on the reasons that were articulated I also do want to just address one process concern that I have and that is the lack of transparency associated with how this came about I might be informed about my understanding is that this came about from phone calls from the chemical industry into the commission and I'm not aware of any public record of that I'm not aware of it of a petition that was filed which is the opposite of how this issue came to us where it was filed in a petition by certain public health organizations for us to take action and so I would I think the public deserves to have a fuller understanding of how this came about and why the commission would be doing this and what would be the base of that if there is I might be mistaken if there is some public record of how this came about then I would like to see that as well thank you no further questions or comments. Thank you very much commissioner Bianco since you are co-sponsor of this amendment I'm going to turn to commissioner Feldman you certainly have a chance to make additional comments commissioner Feldman. Thank you the guidance that's the subject of the amendment that's before us right now preceded and predated my tenure at the agency so looking at it retrospectively I think I'm listening to the conversation here today I think there are some legitimate questions about the factual basis for the 2017 guidance and I think that in my view the guidance has regrettably and inappropriately driven the consumer product manufacturers to veer away from OFRs to commissioner Kay's point about whether there's questions about the efficacy of OFRs as a class of chemicals and the fire retardant properties of the OFRs if in fact these chemicals don't work for that purpose presumably the market would take care of that issue itself and manufacturers would opt for replacements and alternatives that function better that said I appreciate the amendment sponsors for bringing it forward and and and look forward to voting on the amendment. Commissioner Birkel it looked like you had a quick comment to what commissioner Kay said so I'm going to yield a few minutes to you to respond. I appreciate that thank you very much I just wanted to comment on a couple of things and that lack of transparency issue that commissioner Kay just raised this is not something new I went on record when we when not I but the rest of the commission voted in favor of granting the petition and went against staff's advice and then beyond that put up the guidance document I've been opposed to that since day one since 2017 and so I don't think there's a lack of transparency on that front that this is something that I've been vocally opposed to and thought it was the wrong move for the agency and the commission since 2017. Thank you. Reclaiming my time I just had one or two additional comments first of all with respect to the hazards associated with the OFR's I think all of the evidence we've heard indicates every time we carefully and thoroughly study an OFR it turns out to be toxic. I remember very well the hearing that we had on that in which I ask everybody there including representatives of the industry do they know of an OFR that has been thoroughly studied where the conclusion has been reached that they don't represent a toxic risk and to the best of my recollection nobody could come up with a single one so I do think there's tremendous evidence of toxicity and again I rely on Dr. Birnbaum's testimony from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences on that point and I think she is the leading toxicologist in the government. The big issue for some is that there are some OFR's where we have no data but I do want to or little data I want to reiterate what the National Academy said about that they said you can't draw a conclusion that because there's no data there's no risk in fact they said one of the advantages of adopting a class approach to assessing OFR's is that where you have those circumstances in which there's not necessarily sufficient data to draw a strong conclusion they said at least those who are making decisions about manufacturing and those who are making decisions about distributing, retailing and purchasing will have that information and it should give people greater incentives to generate data to demonstrate safety which has not occurred today. So I just want to reiterate first of all I think we have information I think we should share it that's the guiding philosophy of a lot of folks. If you don't have 100% data you give them the assessment of the data that you have which is what I think the guidance document does and I simply want to say I oppose this strongly today and I will oppose it strongly if and when staff brings back a federal register notice if this gets approved. Commissioner Birkel anything to add? Just to add to that I think that the blanket statement that every OFR is toxic I think that that reflects just it's not good science and that even NAS and you agree you seem to be agreeing with a lot of what they have said to us they said you got to divide this into subclasses you can't the 14 subclasses you just can't look at these as a broad class of chemicals but beyond that we haven't talked at all about exposure and that's the piece we're missing I mean we need oxygen to breathe but too much oxygen is going to kill us we need water to live too much water could kill you so it's this exposure piece of OFRs is extremely critical and really relevant to this discussion and just to make this blanket statement I think is where we get to the confusion and really the misinformation being put out by the agency. Thank you commissioner Kay additional comments. Well I didn't I think commissioner Bayakko missed her turn to I'm sorry you're right and I just have a note please call on commissioner Bayakko. Thank you thank you commissioner Kay as well because I do want to respond to a couple of the points that you raise and you raise some very very good points on the transparency issue first of all I can at least from my office shortly after we had the presentation from NIS my staff raised this issue independently and pointed out that the guidance that was on the internet was inconsistent. We did however also receive a call and I believe we have a meeting log whether it was filed or not I have not I can't represent that yet if it hasn't been it certainly will be because it was it's still within the time for posting but I also point out that we had a very public meeting that was noticed in the public calendar it was OFRs have been discussed quite a bit in with this agency and there was a lot of activity surrounding that meeting with regard to the to the report and I think that one thing that you said is extremely important and that is there are many OFRs and many different variations of the data and there's a sliding scale if you will of the risks that we have been or the NIS has been able to determine exist or don't exist and as commissioner Adler pointed out I mean his position is if you know you have no data that doesn't mean that there isn't a risk but the same is also true if you have no data that doesn't mean there is a risk or more importantly for our charge and unreasonable risk and in some regards I do think that OFRs provide a safety benefit which is you know one of their main purposes and that's to limit fire and I do agree that at least in casings for electronics I think they're important and to follow up on commissioner Adler's hypothetical I would tell my next door neighbor hey you know what the data is not conclusive in some regards there have been findings and other regards there have not and that is still being studied and I don't think that it is responsible to say they're all bad or they're all good this is a guidance document that we put up on the internet ourselves and I think we can certainly take it down ourselves when it contains information that is incorrect or inconsistent. Thank you very much I would note that taking it down creates a just a hole in any advice or thoughts and I see nothing in any motion that would say let's do an additional assessment of risk and provide additional guidance. Are there additional comments on this? Commissioner Kay. Thanks Chairman Adler. So just in response to Commissioner Bayako's comments I'd be curious you mentioned a few times there's inconsistencies and could you spell out what those inconsistencies are please with the NAS study. It's my understanding that there are some classes of chemicals that we have been or we the NAS has been able to establish have more risk than others and as commissioner Feldman adequately points out those types of chemicals some have been banned and some the market doesn't bear using them but NIS also indicated that they had different classes that either had no data or that had some data that suggested there could be risks and the level of those risks and in what application have not been discovered. So I think that there's a lot of inconsistencies. So I guess I would push back only in that the guidance just said based on the scientific evidence available the commission believes that these could present a risk. And so I'm having a hard time understanding has that inconsistent with what NAS said. In fact if anything I feel like what NAS said is entirely consistent with the guidance. It reaffirmed what most of the toxicologists came in and testified to which is there are as a range of OFRs. Some have been studied some have not been studied. Those that have been studied to commissioner Adler's point have all been shown to be highly toxic. And so I'm still missing. I'm open to their being inconsistencies. I guess I'm just not seeing that they're inconsistent. So my understanding is that our guidance is sweeping across the entire class. And as you point out the NAS did say there's a range. Some have been studied some haven't been so we have different pieces of information. Some will continue to be studied. That is inconsistent with taking a position of the blanket statement that they all are bad. I don't believe that's what the NAS said at all. Yeah and I agree and I don't think that guidance actually says they're all bad. I just think it just says if you can avoid these based on what we know now we would recommend that you avoid them. But again I understand the philosophical motivations and I do very much appreciate by the way the further comments on the transparency. I think that that's very helpful to know. I guess at the end of the day my sense of having been at the commission and working with the four of you is that for any of us and this goes back to what Commissioner Adler was talking about if we were home with a we're almost some of us could be grandparents some of us are grandparents child a grandchild and we were aware of a very dangerous children's product a sleep product but staff had not concluded yet that there is a substantial product hazard but there we knew about a number of deaths a number of incidents and that family member went to go use that product with their infant. My guess is even in the absence of staff conclusively having made a defect finding we would all figure out some way without revealing inside information to not allow them to use that product because of our concern about the risk posed to that child based on what we knew at the time. And I guess I don't if I'm correct and I believe that because I know all of you would step in in an appropriate way to protect a child based on incomplete information but alarming enough information and I guess for me the distinction I can't figure out what the distinction is here when there's enough alarming evidence about of ours that we wouldn't apply the same principle and what is different about that and no one needs to comment about that. It just seems to me that knowing all of you that you would step in in one circumstance I I'm having a hard time understanding why that wouldn't apply. I have no more questions. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman any comments or questions? I have no further questions. Thank you. Commissioner Burkle. Yes I wanted to just one point about this philosophical this isn't philosophical this is guidance that went up prematurely when the commission didn't have the information it needed to put out this guidance. I concur with Commissioner Villaco this is far more sweeping than what what NAS mentioned to us and talked to us about and I take all of that very seriously but I do think the exposure piece is important and I think it's also important for us as an agency to ask the question why are OFRs used? They have a purpose and if you're looking at UL standards and you're looking at some of the electronic standards they require the use of OFRs and so before we go off in a direction and we shouldn't have done this in 2017 and we only add to the confusion now by taking this position CPSC and I said this for seven years roughly we're a small agency we can be nimble this this should come down and we should be looking at this issue as we go we've got recommendations from NAS we're pursuing other avenues as an agency the petition was granted which begins rulemaking and so so many steps are being taken this guidance should come down it's not accurate it was based on the granting of the petition was that all classes all OFRs are hazardous we don't have the exposure material and we know that not every OFR is hazardous and to your point yes we would step in but I also would step in if I knew that there was whether it's a device or something else that would prevent injury or harm and I do believe that there is a well thought out well the benefit of the use of OFRs is something that we have disregarded and the unintended consequences and the regrettable substitution could be something that this agency will have to deal with and they're used to prevent fires which is another issue that this agency is focused on it is dealing with and has tried to mitigate certainly since I've been here but since the beginning of the agency thank you very much just one additional comment first of all I think you said that UL requires the use of OFRs I think they require the use of flame retardants am I correct in that statement the other thing is when you say we know that some of the OFRs are not hazardous I'm not aware of any OFR that's been declared not hazardous I'm aware of OFRs that have been declared where we don't have data but if you know of any OFRs that have been declared not hazardous I would love to know which ones those are. I will look back and rewatch that hearing. Okay that sounds fine are there any additional questions? I unfortunately have to belabor it a little bit longer and just say that I think that the science has not in any way shown that these have been effective any of the science that we've seen has shown that they've not been effective but more importantly the folks who are on the front lines the first responders and the firefighters have been leading the call for us to take action and to get rid of these and so I would think that if anybody were concerned about fighting fire it would be the firefighters and I've never heard a firefighter ever defend an OFR I've only heard firefighters beg us to get rid of them. That's the final comment thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Berkel. Just a quick comment in response to that and that is for I don't even know how many years we've been begged to buy not only the first responders but industry and the consumer groups to adopt TB 117 and to not use organohelage and flame retardants in furniture and consistently this body this commission has said no way know how it doesn't address fire hazards so you cannot have it both ways. When I hear the words TB 117 the children through the crowd and so I think I will leave that are there additional questions or comments. If not hearing no further questions or comments we're now going to move to vote on Commissioner Berkel's amendment. Commissioner Berkel how do you vote? I vote aye. Commissioner Kay. No. Commissioner Biakko. Aye. Commissioner Feldman. Aye. And I vote no. The ayes are three and the noes are no the amendment is agreed to. Commissioner Berkel do you have additional amendments? I do not have any further amendments thank you. Commissioner Kay do you have amendments? I do. Shall I begin? Yes I recognize you for your first amendment I ask you to describe it for up to three minutes and then after the conclusion I hope I remember to ask for a second. Okay thank you I think at this point we're ready to be done but now we get going on more amendments. So my first amendment has to do with window coverings I very much appreciate that they're appeared in the package in this draft package for the commission an effort to try to deal with window coverings by proposing to lock part of the voluntary standard in via what we call section 15J or 15J which is pursuant to section 15J the consumer product safety act which in essence means that if there's a voluntary standard that we deem to adequately address the hazard and it's substantially complied with we can enforce it. I appreciate that there was that that was put in the operating plan. I don't want to get into the specifics of that but my understanding is that was not something that came from the technical staff and I think that's important because we're all trying to figure out how to finish this off and this off meaning address finally address all the hazards. And my amendment goes to trying to shift the work in the operating plan from the 15J to getting staff to publish a report on what remains undone in the voluntary standards capacity and what needs to happen. And one of my objections to the 15J approach is that it would lock in an arbitrary distinction between what are called stock window blinds and custom window blinds. So the difference between going on to a website or walking into a retailer and just saying I'll take that one in the box versus designing your own is how I see it roughly. I think it's more complicated than that but that's roughly how I see it. And we don't say for instance that and by the way all the window blinds present the same strangulation hazard. We don't say with cribs if your crib is made out of less expensive wood we're going to regulate it one way and if it's made out of more expensive wood we're going to regulate it the other way. We just don't ever distinguish products like that as far as I can recall and I don't know why we would do this. The staff never agreed to segregate by stock versus custom. They always wanted to do it differently and address the hazards at the same time and so I want to get back. I think we should get back on that road and use the limited resources that we have and so my amendment would push us back in the direction of addressing the remaining hazards. Thank you. Is there a second to this amendment? Second. Thank you. We'll now engage in questions and comments and I will begin. I support this amendment. I see some benefit in doing a 15J rule but I think the confounds that Commissioner Kaye has described make it very difficult to proceed in that direction and I just want to thank Commissioner Kaye for his many, many years of leadership on pushing safety for window cords including pushing me a lot. I only have one small concern that I would like to raise with you and that is the public understanding of moving from an NPR designation to a DATR data analysis does not in any way suggest to me and I hope to you that there is a lessening of the agency's commitment to safety for window cords. So I just ask for a word of reassurance to our stakeholders that this changed designation carries no such lessening of safety. Well to the extent that I can provide that assurance sure the intent here is to actually refocus the resources on solving the rest of the hazards as opposed to sort of going over ground that's already been covered in the voluntary standard. Thank you very much Commissioner Buerkle. Thank you. I just have a lot of questions about this because this approach I think fails to give recognition to staff and to the industry as to how far we've come since I've been at this agency and the distinction between custom and stock products I think occurred while you were well Commissioner Kay was chairman so I'm concerned about trying to understand the desire now to move away from that distinction. But I guess my first question would be how does taking this out of a 15J advance safety? It seems to me we now go back to just this. We have come so far with the voluntary standard and when we first looked at addressing stock versus custom products it was look if we can get through the stock product first we are going to be addressing a significant portion of the hazard here and so let's start there. It's kind of analogous to my TB 117 where we would at least take care of the smolder standard and then move on to the open flame at least we're advancing in the correct direction and so so much progress has been made on this issue and staff deserve so much credit on this that I'm just concerned and confused quite frankly why we wouldn't embrace the 15J because that levels of playing field that any products coming into this country will have a clear marking as to whether or not it's customer stock and readily observable whether there's a cord. I mean the ANSI standard and what's improved in that standard really it's I think that most importantly to your point about looking as to whether it's customer stock one of the provisions of the new standard and I met with WCMA I think that many of us did in the last few weeks and asked them provide me with a list because this standard doesn't just address stock this new standard which is in effect since December of 2018 also affects custom products. Now I think this is important. Manufacturers are now required pursuant to the new standard to mark either stock or custom product in the headrail so the consumer will know and understand but beyond that the custom product in the current standard that's in effect right now there's a default length for operating cords to 40% of the blind height default to tilt one instead of tilt cords new requirements for cord joiners new requirements for test for rigid shrouds new more explicit warning labels enhanced testing for tension devices it seems to me we're like setting that all aside and we're going to go down this path 15J is a concrete way for us to know whether or not this first voluntary standard is working how effective it is and then we can move on to see whether or not and I believe we will and we will open the custom standard and we will get there but as we're doing this and we're taking this time the market is shifting there's probably when we started talking about this 10% of the market were custom cordless products that now has shifted to 40% and so this problem I think will help and resolve itself as well but I'll give commissioner k-time to respond just so I'm clear what specific question am I responding to please I didn't know if you had any comments to my to my profound remarks there but they were very profound I guess I don't see this setting aside anything in fact I think it accepts the progress that was made and it says let's now finish it off and so yeah great progress was made Canada has now passed regulation has not gone into effect that would not delineate between stock and custom it would cover all products I think that was is a wise approach to your point the more that custom products you said it went from 10% to 40% I think you said so the more the custom products are out there the more the marketplace that's unaddressed in terms of the actual strangulation hazard and so yeah I don't think not doing a 15j in any way is either disregarding the progress that has been made or not acknowledging anything I think what I'm trying to do is just keep us focused on finishing the finishing the job and I don't think that the 15j with the limited resources that we have if we're going to spend that time over 2020 I think that I'd rather finish the job on custom than sort of relook at stock and compare stock and custom I'd rather just be done with it I just to clarify the custom or cordless so that move to cordless products is significant and certainly affects safety I just and my time is winding down here but most importantly I just think that we've made tremendous progress 15j is yet another step in the right direction and I'm just confused as to why other than some ulterior motive that I expect is what we're getting at here is why we would disregard 15j a concrete way to approach safety another step in the right direction and then just disregard that and proceed in another direction Commissioner Biaquo just like maybe a point of clarification it's my understanding that the intent of this amendment is not to undo and that this does not undo what's already in place correct correct and this is my understanding that you guys have been working on or the commission has been working on window coverings along these lines for about 10 years correct correct and they're still correct okay and am I correct that there's still a piece out there in that the agency has already agreed to commence working on custom products and not only agency agreed to do it the industry originally agreed to do it and has recently declined to move forward at this time based on what has happened in Canada but there was an agreement to address this and they would have already reopened it okay and does does your amendment is it intended to move that portion forward I mean is that's how I read the amendment yes it is intended to move forward and address the unaddressed portions of this product category I see no reason not to support it I think we need to move forward with what has already been what is still on the agenda to get finished and if that's what the intent of this amendment would do then I would support it thank you Commissioner Felbin thank you I think listening to the conversation and the discussion here on the dais it's important to give credit to the industry for the progress that it has made on a voluntary standard for stock product but at the same time I am disappointed that the progress appears to have stalled with respect to custom product and the commitments that industry made to agency staff in those discussions if we had a statutory basis to move forward with the mandatory safety standard for custom products I think that's something that might be appropriate and something that I would support I appreciate what you're trying to do here via 15J I think that's a preliminary step in a process often times what we see in terms of moving forward with mandatory standards is that sometimes is the sufficient pressure to apply to break through log jams in the voluntary standards discussion I'm not sure the amendment as you're proposing it right now applies pressure in that way and therefore would support that outcome but I appreciate your attention to the issue and the leadership that you've demonstrated on window covering safety over the years and for offering the amendment thank you. Commissioner Kay response. Thank you Chairman Adler I guess I want to reassure Commissioner Birkel that there is no ulterior motive I think that the I think I've been very clear the entire time that I've been at the agency and worked on the issue that the goal is to address all the hazards and I just I don't I see 15 J potentially after there's if the voluntary standard ends up addressing custom as well as stock then maybe that point 15 J would make sense from an enforcement standpoint but at this point to me based on where we are it's just a judgment call that would see the resources more appropriately used toward as commissioner Bayako did a great job stating addressing the remaining portions as opposed to sort of locking in just the stock part. Thank you commissioner Birkel additional comments or questions I do have just a couple of additional comments number one I just want to again emphasize that the health Canada standard is purely theoretical at this point we are so far ahead of what our staff has done to get us beyond so far beyond what health Canada is proposing I think they deserve a tremendous amount of credit for that work and forgetting us and now they want to move us yet further in it in the direction of safety with this 15 J that I I again I'm confused so holding health Canada up to me is apples and oranges that is not a standard that's in place and they have an election this year and who knows what will happen to that to that standard and since when do we try to emulate other country standards we have staff here who identified the issue and the best way forward was to segment and that's how we got to the stock and now we need to continue in the right direction the other thing I want to just make sure I'm clear about and perhaps have a conversation about this you use the phrase recently declined with regards to customs I don't that is not what I heard my WCMA meeting they're trying to assess they're trying to understand the implications if and when the health Canada standard goes into effect how that whether or not it does affect safety some of the provisions in that in that rule what they're proposing what it would how it would impact their manufacturer the price of the product so I don't think I heard declined I think it was a pause was the word I heard and then we will begin opening this up again but I guess my question to commissioner K is how does what you're proposing make consumers safe more safe than a 15 J rule would do well it would identify the areas that staff believes have not been addressed in custom and it would provide a roadmap for industry when it is ready to resume whether it's a decline or a pause on I can't speak for them clearly commissioner Feldman got some impressions similar to mine that industry is not moving at the pace that it had been moving at inconsistent with its commitments but putting that aside I think it's more important to develop a roadmap going forward for what remains unaddressed than to not have that roadmap that gives us clarity that gives put staff on the record it can accelerate the process because staff can redline the voluntary standard and provide any proposed changes to the standard that would address the custom issues and the process can move that much faster and so just to follow up what would preclude us from enacting the 15 J and still having staff you know create this roadmap that you're talking about to identify what other hazards need to be addressed that I think staff would have to address that from a resource perspective well I think staff put it in the ops plan so I think it would be up to you to decide where you would offset if if you were willing to do both it would be somebody's time has expired and I'm not sure who's it is so I don't know what I think it's commissioner Birkel and I realize that is my first time back in the acting chairman I'm being somewhat flexible about the use of time if that bothers anybody please let me know but otherwise I like the idea of trying to be fairly flexible about time so if you want to respond please thank you so I really am uncomfortable digging too far into how this ended up in the operating plan because I don't think that that is a wise thing to do but I can say that I had discussions with technical staff and this was not their idea so I don't want the public to be left with the impression that our safety experts got together in a room and they sat around the table and said what is the most effective thing that we can do on window coverings and this idea popped out and that's why it's an operating plan my understanding is that's not what happened that's all I want to say on that part of it but I do believe based on staff's work the technical staff's work in the past the ex hr staff and the compliance staff that have attended these meetings and that have put in all the work I do think that this finishing off the custom having a roadmap would be more effective to address the remaining work and more consistent with what staff's approach has been than the 15 J. Thank you commissioner Bianco commissioner Feldman I have no further questions any closing thoughts or comments if not then we will turn to vote on commissioner K's amendment commissioner burkle how do you vote no commissioner K yes commissioner Bianco yes commissioner Feldman no and I vote yes the yes's are three the no's are two the amendment passes commissioner K do you have additional amendments I do I have an amendment on the ROV termination may I proceed yes please thank you chairman other so my next amendment is consistent with the Q and A that I engaged in the beginning with Mr. Ray our deputy executive director of safety operations who is in the room his name card is on the table but he's not at the table based on that conversation my understanding is he confirmed that when the commission passed in January of 2017 a retrospective analysis of the recreational off highway vehicle voluntary standard that staff was given a direction to do four different parts of an assessment I'm not going to read all four of them they're they're publicly available and Mr. Ray confirmed that those four items will be considered in the staff termination package if the commission were to approve the off plan as and with that package in it so all my amendment does and I know that there were different versions of this floating around but I want to make clear that the version that I'm offering does not change the name of the project all it does is codify those four areas it makes it clear that staff will do what Mr. Ray said it will do it doesn't change any resources it doesn't change the scope of the project it just makes the operating plan if the amendment is adopted more accurate and more transparent is there a second to the amendment second thank you we'll now have a round of questions and comments I want to thank commissioner Kaye for introducing this amendment I supported in particular his reference to the retrospective review of the voluntary standards is directed by the commission in January 2017 as I recall I was instrumental in drafting that amendment so I'm hardly disposed to vote against that which I had proposed and was approved by the commission so I commend commissioner Kaye for this amendment and I fully plan to support it commissioner burkle thank you I should look at commissioner other because he's our cinephile but I think this is analogous to groundhog day I cannot believe we still two years later are talking about our OV termination that package came up staff recommended to us and again the commission disregarded staff's advice that we should terminate our OV rulemaking when it came to the lateral stability issue and at that hearing and it is true we talked about a retrospective review but that is not contingent upon the ROV termination and although and I know Mr. Ray mentioned that the four parts will be in the package that comes up I don't think they need to be I think that the ROV termination is two years past termination we said to our staff and industry if you get to this point we will terminate the rulemaking and they operated in good faith both parties did our agency and industry and they got to that point and we moved the gold post we then got into hang tags and then we got into retrospective review and we've got writers in every one of our appropriations bills about not working on this issue this is absurd that we haven't terminated this rulemaking it really goes to the credibility of the commission and how when we talk to the stakeholders and we say we will do certain things if we get to this point and then we continue to move that goal post I think it is disingenuous and I think it is a problem for the agency we now are on to and we are developing standards and working with industry and all of the stakeholders with regards to debris penetration and the thermal issues and we are now have gone on to working on those standards to do a retrospective review I have no problem with that looking to see whether or not it's it's but to tie that to terminating the rulemaking I think is is incorrect this should have been done two years ago and we failed to do it then and we shouldn't prolong this any further thank you commissioner Biacco I have no questions thank you mission Feldman thank you I'm a little surprised to hear commissioner Burkle complain about how long this determination process is taking here this summer commissioner Biacco and I supported a poll to accelerate determination process consistent with staff's recommendation that it be terminated which she opposed at the time I think it's important that we follow staff's guidance move as quickly as possible to terminate this rule which is why I would oppose the amendment but thank you thank you commissioner K for the comments would you like to respond sorry commissioner Bercow commissioner Bercow thank you the only comment I have to commissioner Feldman is the appropriate way to bring this package up was through the ops plan which staff is done Mr. K I have no further comments but I'm happy to yield if anyone needs time okay I did want to make one comment or two comments I don't recall personally ever promising that if the industry came up with the voluntary standard that I would automatically terminate and I don't feel I've moved the goalposts there may have been an implicit notion in the air but I also want to remind all of us that as far as I'm concerned when the industry didn't like the NPR that the staff had come up with they ran screaming to the hill and got an appropriations writer that stalled any further work that the commission was undertaking so I find it hard to attribute a lot of good faith to the industry at least in that respect so I think this is an appropriate amendment that commissioner K has put forward and again I strongly support it additional comments or questions if not we will move to vote on commissioner K second amendment commissioner burkle how do you vote no commissioner K yes commissioner Bianco no commissioner Feldman no and I vote yes the nose are three the amendment is defeated commissioner K do you have additional amendments I do thank you may proceed on my crib bumpers please do thank you my next amendment also goes to transparency in the operating plan and this has to do with the crib bumper package which right now as staff proposed it is would be a final rule on the current fiscal year 2020 recently the commission has signaled an intent to have a hearing I believe that hearing will be in late January of 2020 if that has not been publicly that is correct now publicly making that available thank you for that I think that that will likely have a material impact on the timing of the work that could happen afterward because I'm guessing that there will be a comment period associated with that remaining open after the hearing usually we do that and so just based on normal timing of how long it takes us to do work and the fact that this particular package has areas that at least some of us on the dais might believe need more technical work I'm not sure it's realistic that this will be a final rule so the only point of this amendment is to just try to be more accurate in the operating plan and move it to GATR which stands for data analysis and technical review which I think is a more accurate reflection of the work that will occur in 2020 thank you is there a second second thank you now we will begin a round of questions and comments I don't have much of a question or comment simply to say that I strongly approve of commissioner case amendment I just want to make sure that our stakeholders are not misreading the move from putting it as an FR and replacing that with DATR I think you've more than adequately explained why we're doing that as far as I'm concerned I have looked at the staff package for an NPR and before we begin to address that I think there's serious questions about the analytics that are contained in that and this is one of those where I think in the interest of transparency and openness the commission ought to hear from stakeholders and from public health experts who may have strong disagreements with what's contained in the staff briefing package so I strongly support this amendment commissioner berkel thank you I had a couple of questions for commissioner came out what is the purpose of this and where does this get us but I think he explained that in its introduction so I have no further questions thank you thank you commissioner be alco just a comment in light of the hearing I think that I would not support this in the same way that it was different in a different amendment I look forward to the hearing and I want to be able to proceed with a final rule if and when that hearing I yields that direction thank you commissioner felbin any comments I have no objections to this amendment no questions thank you other questions or comments on this if not I'll call the vote commissioner berkel how do you vote hi commissioner be alco how do you vote no commissioner thank God I've got people here helping me get through this commissioner k how do you vote yes and commissioner felbin I vote yes and I vote yes and I wasn't recording that but if I understand it was a four to one okay and so the amendment passes commissioner k do you have additional amendments I do thank you we're getting there my next amendment has to do with a TV action plans the commission has different authorities to enforce safety associated with all train vehicles one of them based on the consumer robotic safety improvement act codifying a settlement on the lawsuit has to do with so called a TV action plans which in essence means that firms cannot import or sell ATVs in the absence of the commission approving an ATV action plan this has become I have a prior statement on this issue and a lot of concerns with it this has become he wrote exercise in my opinion at the agency and has become unmoored from its original safety purpose but putting aside those concerns I think my larger concern is we've been presented with enough evidence that in my opinion we are not actually enforcing our ATV action plans and so I think that they are not only ineffective on their face but they're probably toothless and I'm concerned about that and I'm not going to get into the specific instances that have been referred to us of non-compliance with ATV action plans specifically with children's ATVs which I think should be the most disconcerting with all of us I will say though that I think we've been presented with enough evidence to have significant concerns about the about whether or not parties are living up to their end of the deal with these ATV action plans and so all my amendment would do would have staff brief the commission in a closed setting on the status of enforcement and compliance with ATV action plans. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. I again thank Commissioner Kay for this amendment. I like the fact that he has changed the requirement for report to a briefing which I think is perfectly appropriate and I appreciate that and so I fully plan to support it. Commissioner Buerkle any questions or comments? I have no questions. Thank you. Commissioner Biakko? Just a short one. Commissioner Kay this amendment doesn't add any additional requirements to what the staff is already doing or required to do it just asks for a briefing correct? Correct. Okay thank you. Commissioner Feldman? I think more transparency from staff is always a good thing and therefore I'm inclined to support this. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Not after that definitely. Okay well let's see if I get the vote count right this time. Commissioner Buerkle how do you vote? I? Commissioner Kay how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Biakko? Yes. Commissioner Feldman? Yes. And I vote yes that's easy it was unanimous and the amendment is approved. Commissioner Kay do you have additional amendments? I do I have one more thank you and this has to do with residential elevators. I think the commission again I have a statement on this as well I think the commission has been presented with more than enough information about the hazards associated with these products and I believe that the operating plan should include the reflection of our work to address these hazards and so my amendment would only in my understanding reflect existing work and include a reference to residential elevators amongst the projects that we were working on. Thank you is there a second? Second. Thank you I just want to say that I strongly support this I do think residential elevators are a point of serious concern I'm glad to see that the commission is undertaking steps to investigate and to address the issues related to residential elevators so I strongly support this. Commissioner Birkel any questions or comments? Just a comment I will support this amendment I think it's just identifying a hazard in the ops plan is a good thing but I do think it's important to recognize this is not a new issue this has been around for a very long time the agency has heard about this issue we've talked with many of the manufacturers over the years this is not something that just is rearing its ugly head it's been around and I think the agency it's good that we're identifying it in our hazards and listening as a mechanical hazard but it is not anything new that we haven't dealt with before. Thank you Commissioner Bianco. No questions. Commissioner Feldman. No questions. Any additional questions or comments if not then I will call the vote. Commissioner Birkel how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kay. Yes. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote yes the amendment is passed and now I want to ask my colleagues for some advice we've I believe reached the end of Commissioner Kay's amendments and we are about to embark on Commissioner Bianco's amendments am I correct on that I think you have somewhere between 10 or 12 I was wondering if folks would want to take a break for lunch and then come back after that okay why don't we take 45 minutes for lunch so that means we will be back at somebody do the math but 1230 thank you so the commission is adjourned until 1230 thank you welcome back to a continuation of the meeting of the commission's deliberation regarding the 2020 operating plan we now move to further amendments but before we do that I want to welcome back John McGuggan who is our AV specialist for one day he's pinch hitting for rock grant who sadly is home ill but we love having John back and we are thrilled to have him here okay at this point I will turn to Commissioner Bianco and ask you if you have amendments I do thank you my first amendment seeks to on page two of the operating plan the budget table to delete footnote two and the footnote reads includes one FTE for a consumer on buds position I move to strike this this footnote for several reasons first the all plan does contemplate the approval of an additional full-time equivalent in the office of the executive director and I do not object to adding any FTE to the office of the executive director generally but the it's the accompanying footnote to this proposed FTE that raises for me multiple procedural and substantive issues that I cannot ignore and I cannot ratify it is my understanding that this footnote is intended to signify that if the all plan is adopted the agency will create higher and empower an FTE to serve as a consumer on buds men a new position at the CPSC and that consumer on buds men will be housed in the office of the executive director no where in the all plan however is there any further explanation of this position there's no written job description no qualifications required of the candidate no policy basis and no enabling authority for the creation of this new position and there has been no notice of the public of what this position involves now I address these issues at the briefing of on this all plan on September 24th and I believe that at the time acting committee acting chair Adler referred me to a packet of information that he circulated in May that described his vision for the position of a consumer on buds men that packet contained a cover memo entitled proposal to create a consumer on buds men at the CPSC in six attachments some of which were still in draft form including a draft motion to add a consumer on buds men which has not to this day been presented and a draft mission statement for the consumer on buds men position and other attachments which I believe commissioner Adler intended to be support for his proposal and none of the contents of the packet have been deliberated by the commission and I can say that while I might not object in concept I do object to many of the points contained in the packet in fact I have not been given a chance to provide input regarding this consumer on buds men position today it is my understanding that no motion will be presented and the contents of that packet will not be deliberate deliberated or even disclosed rather the intent is that if the plan as a whole is adopted then this new agency position as described in this packet would be approved as part of the op plan I do not agree that can be done a position such as this must be created pursuant to the procedure set forth in the administrative procedure act the commission may not skip over critical and fundamental steps required to issue an agency rule which is exactly what is required here to create higher and empower a consumer on buds men who will presumably carry out new policy as described in acting chair Adler's draft packet rather the commission must set forth explicitly the policies to be advanced by this position and provide a description of the position which needs to be then codified and the consumer on buds men position is to be in because it's in intended to be included within the office of the executive director there is a regulation that governs that office which is sixteen CFR one zero zero zero point one eight and that will need to be properly amended because as it is currently written it does not contemplate in any way shape or form a consumer on but buds men and certainly not one is described in this packet finally object to the creation of any new agency position without proper notice to the public the ought plan contains nothing to provide the public with an understanding of what the agency plans to implement vis-a-vis the newly designed position this is contrary to our most fundamental policy to involve the public in activities to the fullest extent possible to ensure public often confidence in the integrity of commission decision-making and we for the commission to sixteen CFR section ten eleven point one eight through C which provides the commissions and I'll quote general provisions concerning public notice for various types of agency activities necessary to carry out its mandate to the extent that the ombudsman position referenced in this footnote is based on a packet of information circulated in draft form by a single commissioner at another time and for another purpose and which is not tied to or incorporated in any way into the ought plan it is just not proper and therefore I must move to strike footnote to on page two of the out plan thank you very much is there a second thank you and we will now have questions and comments and I will begin so if I'm understanding correctly commissioner biakko your main objection is procedural and not necessarily substantive with respect to the position I would say procedural but if we're going to be referring to the packet I don't agree with all the contents of the packet substantively and could you give me an example of some of the objections you have to the description of the consumer ombudsman I can one that jumps out into my mind right away is that the consumer ombudsman the proposal is that the consumer ombudsman would serve as a liaison between families or as it's described victims of who have suffered death or injury from a defective product I do not believe that that is the agency's role at all and I don't believe that the enabling statute contemplated that we would be getting involved or have anybody that's qualified excuse me to deal with with families in that nature there is nothing that the consumer product safety commission can do with regard to victims and their families another example is that it was proposed that the ombudsman would link families together who have suffered different injuries and harms related to a consumer product I think that that is designed to create a basis for what I just don't think that that is is appropriate under these circumstances I also think it violates we're going to have a run into 6b problems I don't think the way this was proposed it was proposed to be a sister program to the agency's small business ombudsman and I think there was an attempt to draw similar concepts but they're not similar at all the small business ombudsman was put in place pursuant to actually an act and several things that the consumer product safety commission was doing at the time to promote the small business policies we don't have policies like promoting relationships between consumers and the inter workings I believe is the phrase the agency we also don't have a reason to have consumers to have somebody and generally an ombudsman works out resolutions and we don't have situations where staff and consumers need to have somebody interface with them to come up with resolutions I do believe that as commissioners we act in some ways as a consumer ombudsman and indeed I have experienced this I know we all have where we've worked with parents who have problems relating their issues I just don't see many of the things that are listed in the packet as appropriate for this position but again I think that's the point we haven't discussed this at all and maybe we could come up with something but it's not the same as the consumer or the small business ombudsman we would be putting in place an ombudsman that favors one group of our stakeholders to make sure that's just okay reclaiming my time may I say that I understand many of your objections and I do want to add a couple of points first of all there are no no legal requirements of the sort that you are addressing there is nothing in the administrative procedure act and nothing in the consumer product safety act or its regulations that would anyway borrow us from adding as part of this and I'm fully prepared to support commissioner Feldman's recommendations for adding FTEs for a technologist and an analytics officer with respect to input on this this is I'm delighted to say the description that I have in for the consumer ombudsman is something that I would be delighted and eager to sit down and discuss with all of my colleagues and get as much information as possible as we have reached out to many outside organizations to get their input in crafting this proposal and I do disagree strongly that there this is not analogous to the small business ombudsman I think it's exactly analogous we have some really strong unmet needs at the agency when people file complaints in the database the vast majority of those never get posted reports of harm consumer ombudsman can help people fill out those reports of harm we have an office that need we need an office that can explain our rules and regulations to consumers in the way that the small business ombudsman does for companies people call us and they ask for details on agency recalls this is a great repository for staff to be able to explain to consumers what their duties are with respect to recalls we don't get very many petitions from consumers we get some from consumer groups but one of the things that we set when we first began the agency was the whole idea of asking members of the public to file petitions with us and this would be a perfect office to help consumers do that and finally and I think terribly important one of the great things is we simply don't get enough consumer participants and this would be an office that would reach out in addition to working with our voluntary standards coordinator to try to recruit consumers to join in voluntary standards proceedings so I strongly strongly support retaining this and I strongly disagree with Commissioner Bianco my time is up I turn to Commissioner Berkel. Any other questions? My first question is would actually it's probably more to Acting Chair Edler. Fire away. Just in terms of this justification memo I'll call it that's not the PD for the position that was just sort of encapsulating a concept rather than the specifics. Absolutely correct. PD would be a separate document that would be something I would I'm sorry to interrupt. That would be something I would go out of my way to consult with my colleagues to help craft a very good position description as we've heard it described. It's aspirational. It's the view that we have regarding the need for this but there may be some concrete things that we put in that we shouldn't have and some things that we didn't put in that we shouldn't have. Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to say I strongly support the position. And I it was interesting listening Commissioner Bayako to one of the areas that you were talking about with regard to the justification for the position and I think actually one of the most compelling reasons that have to do with the idea that we do already have people who interact with victims whoever they are when there's a consumer product associated hazard and we've certainly heard feedback from some families that those are very challenging interactions despite the best intentions of our investigators who are trained on how to conduct those interactions and if there's some way to make that necessary communication and it is a necessary communication if we're going to do an in depth investigation we have to contact the victims and have access to information if we are going to do that I do think that if we have somebody who is a specialist in that skill set I do think that that could help harmonize how we engage with victims and hopefully lead to an easier emotional situation in those understandably difficult circumstances I do agree with you though that from a process standpoint this is not ideal and to demonstrate the awkwardness I actually have to ask a question out of you as the sponsor of the amendment but as Commissioner Virgo did of acting chair Adler if that's okay because this has not been put in front of us to actually discuss on the merits we're sort of back dooring it to your amendment so I appreciate that process concern I would just ask of acting chair Adler the hesitation and I've articulated this to him before the hesitation that I've had and it's a small one with this position is that it's human nature that if somebody understands that somebody else has a specific job responsibility that they might pay attention to that issue less that basically their view is that's getting covered by somebody else how can you reassure me that the agency generally is not just going to assume that consumer issues are all this one person's responsibility and nobody else on staff we are the consumer product safety commission so presumably everybody on staff is supposed to be considering consumer issues I just need some assurance that this won't just unintentionally lead people to assume somebody else is covering the consumer angle and they don't have to be concerned about that I think that's a great question and I think we have a terrific role model in terms of the SBO the SBO works intimately closely with other offices within the agency I think people are stakeholders definitely understand that a good starting point might be the small business ombudsman but the small business ombudsman serves as liaison within the agency but it does seem to me that other people to contact the consumer ombudsman and if the consumer ombudsman is as effective as the small business ombudsman the agency at large will understand those concerns and there will be tremendous coordination among the offices in particular between the office of small business ombudsman and the office of consumer ombudsman. Thank you for that answer and to Commissioner Bayako's point I do wonder if there is any way to have some type of procedure in place where we can have a greater sense of how this will roll out I'm not necessarily in agreement with her that all these things are required but to your earlier point in terms of the roll out and the understanding of how this position fits in and what the responsibilities are I hope that we can have more of an agreement on what the role of the commission may or may not be and what our understanding of how that's a fair comment and I certainly would be open to any suggestions and any improvements in the process and I thank you for that. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you and acting chairman I just want to take a moment to thank you for your leadership on the matter I know that this is something that you've been discussing for some time and if in fact the position carries in the underlying operations plan I hope this is a view that I'm hearing expressed across the dais that will have an opportunity to work with you to shape it in the appropriate way I'm less concerned about some of the procedural concerns that have been raised but do you have a couple questions for Commissioner Biacco about whether she thinks that this role as has been described is redundant of other CPSC positions or agency functions Yes I do actually and let me address a couple of them I think Commissioner Kay raised one that has been on my mind and that is the investigation team I've been pressing our investigators in the field to particularly when there is a death or a serious injury that we get the product so that we can actually look at that and we do have some people who handle that and interact with the families in that regard so that's I think already in that department if we wanted to expand that that's a different scenario I also think that we have a to the extent that we all interact with the consumers and we all have an opportunity to not just the commissioners but the staff to interact with questions I thought it was interesting that Commissioner Adler raised concerns about consumers not being able to fill out forms or what not well I have to be honest let's fix the website and make it user friendly let's not put in a brand new position designed to help a consumer fill out a report I don't think that's a necessary justification If your views that the position is redundant in those respects do you also believe that creating this position would be in any way contradictory to any of our statutory obligations including that we be neutral or that we enforce our laws without having to go over to one side or the other well I do and thank you for raising that because I do think I mean one of you I can't remember who said this but they used the word we need to recruit more people to participate in volunteers we have no business recruiting and facilitating one side against the other I don't think that's the proper use and that I guess begs the question we have a footnote in an OPLAN that is designed we are all disagreeing in different ways and it is not enough for me to say we'll work with you later because I don't know what I'm voting on and I'm not willing to vote on something in the dark I don't know how Commissioner Adler can assure anyone that there won't be some issue as Commissioner Kay raised that nobody will think that working with consumers is their responsibility anymore because we have an OPLAN we don't even have a PD I also think that we have some problems with regard to our regulations and how this is designed to be put in okay I appreciate that that's very helpful thank you you have additional comments I do I want to respond to a couple things and I think it's interesting that you've relied on the agency's small business ombudsman program to support the creation of this one in fact I know that there are some and I know you believe that there are multiple similarities between the consumer ombudsman and the small business ombudsman but what's interesting to me is this footnote approach and what we're dealing with here ignores the very process by which the small business ombudsman was created it's a process that should have been applied here the small business ombudsman is one of the procedures set forth in the administrative procedure act the commission small business policies and a description of the small business ombudsman they're codified at 16 CFR 1020 we went through a series of analysis with that and none of that was done here all we have before the commission right now is an OPLAN with a consumer ombudsman reference in a footnote and a detached draft packet describing a single commissioners concept that does not in my opinion satisfy the administrative procedure act or constitute an appropriate way to create such a program especially one that we all have views on I also think that you have another procedural problem that I don't think you can get past and that is if this is going to be housed in the way it's presented in the OPLAN in the office of the executive director that regulation that governs that office must be amended you cannot backdoor amend something by sticking a footnote and I think if we start doing that we are going down a slippery slope of you know ignoring the procedures that are so important to this agency if I might respond several points again I think the concern that commissioner Kay raised about can we make this a fuller process I'm sympathetic to the notion that there's any violation of the administrative procedure act or of any statutory requirements or any rules or regulations that the commission has to me is just flat out wrong we add positions all the time to the agency and we don't go through this elaborate process that you've described and I would love to say let's fix the problems of filing reports of harm by changing our website but that's not the problem the problem is the statutory requirements for filing reports of harm are very extensive and that's where consumers stumble and that's where they need help I would also object to your notion that we can only deal with things in a neutral fashion when we're recruiting consumers to participate in the process we're not telling them what positions to take we're just saying you're an incredible stakeholder and interest group that needs to be involved in the same way that we go out and we try to recruit small businesses to participate as far as I know nobody's telling them what position to take we're just telling them that it's important that they join with the agency and I would also point out once again that I will point out that our own regulations which set forth requirements for participating in voluntary standards proceedings require us to guarantee or to ensure that consumer voices are heard that's exactly what this office should be doing and I see nothing improper about that whatsoever I think the entire thing that the agency does we are the consumer product safety commission we are charged with protecting the consumer we start with the premise that this agency represents consumers and the interest of consumers and promotes their interest recruiting and I I don't think you can assure me what is being done if we're recruiting a particular person or business to participate in a particular standard the other question I have for you Chair Adler is can you give me an example of a position we created here without going through the proper rules I can't give you one because we've always gone through the proper rules what I'm saying is and we've done it and this is doing it in precisely the same manner as we've added other positions and we're about to add some additional positions that commission Feldman is recommended to let's stay with this one because I think this one is a little bit different and I guess I don't but the fact is there's a difference between a legal requirement which does not exist in terms of adding a position like this and a good practice and procedure and to the extent that we should take steps to consult with our colleagues I think that's a great suggestion and I think and I certainly would follow up on that but in terms of consulting with outside interest groups we have done that extensively I can assure you so if we've always followed the process and the procedure why aren't we doing it here I think there is a requirement there absolutely is a requirement well we disagree on that and since that's a legal issue we can sit down and debate it ourselves but let me suggest that we move on to additional comments Mr. Bercow I do concur with some of Commissioner Biacco's concerns and I think they're legitimate ones but I think that there when we put a placeholder or a footnote into the ops plan it really is just the starting point for the discussion it only acknowledges and if the ops plan is voted on and approved then we begin from there we don't begin from a memo an underlying justification memo or anywhere else it is then gives the staff along with the commission the authority to now move forward and to fill this position so I think there's a lot of room and later on in some of the amendments that we're going to be talking about again the staff has a I won't say a tremendous amount but a certain amount of authority to proceed but certainly with the input from the commissioners and I think that this is just the starting point and the office could be crafted however the commissioners in working with staff feel it could be to really provide the best benefit that it could so I just think this is the starting point nothing else beyond that has been decided Thank you Commissioner Kay Thank you Mr. Chairman I want to restate my strong support for the position and the creation of it and the value I see in it I do want to follow up on something Commissioner Perkel said which I agree with and I want to expand upon and this goes to seeking additional clarification from your much appreciated commitment to have a fuller process I would like to see as part of that process some specific opportunity for staff to weigh in with staff's views of how this would all work because I feel like maybe it's assumed in here that that would happen but I didn't see anything explicit of how this would roll out that we would be the beneficiaries of staff's thoughts on how to make this work so I would seek clarification on that point May I adopting the majesty of this office give you my personal assurance that I will do so and that we will consult extensively with staff and in fact this is really part of what's happened with other positions that have been added we clearly turn to the office of the executive director and all of the office's direct reports to get good feedbacks and I promise that I will do that and I also promise that I will consult with each and every commissioner who's interested in discussing it fully before we move through And just to fill that triangle out from you to staff and from you to us I would just ask that we have access to staff too in their thinking Absolutely you have my guarantee on that I appreciate the invocation of the SBO as a justification for why I should not be concerned that everybody will not sort of assume somebody else is covering the consumer issues we've been blessed with two fantastic small business on Bud's people we just have they've both have hit the ball out of the park in that role but I do believe from my experience at least there have anecdotally been times where an issue has come up where somebody will say that's a small business issue the SBO is taking care of that that's the curse of them being so good at it is people assume they're taking care of it and they usually are and I think the where I would be a little concerned in your answer is you said that if the issue got raised with the small with the consumer on Bud's men they would then of course coordinate with the rest of the staff I think my concern is I wouldn't want the rest of the staff to have to wait until an issue is raised with the small on Bud's men that goes to the heart of my concern which is that staff is still charged with affirmatively addressing as commissioner Bayak of noted consumer issues at the front of their minds and so I would ask that however this rolls out that they're continued to be a reminder that just because we are creating this position if this up plan is approved with it that that doesn't in any way shift responsibility or mission charges to the rest of the staff first of all thank you for that comment and I take that as a reminder for us both in our dealings with the small business on Bud's men and with the consumer on Bud's men to make clear to staff that your concerns are legitimate and that just because something may fit within one office is jurisdiction that doesn't mean they're precluded from taking action or being involved I think it's a great reminder thank you you have no additional questions I do I think this whole discussion demonstrates one of my points it's a footnote we have a footnote with a title the way this is done violates the act we have no description we're up here debating this and your promise that you'll consult with us is not sufficient to provide me with enough information to vote on this whether I want to agree to it or not and who exactly has the final say here I mean you're going to consult with us on your idea and then if you don't agree with us you're going to do it anyway that's not acceptable to me which is why there are procedures in place that need to be followed a footnote in a not plan that basic that merely refers to an idea cannot be converted into a new substantive agency position that is going to be a position that requires policy decisions and policy implementation by merely adopting the plan in which the footnote is placed it's a pure violation of the APA well we fundamentally disagree with that commissioner Feldman do you have it oh I'm sorry I asked additional comments from anybody on the dais if not then we will move to a vote commissioner berkel how do you vote no commissioner k how do you vote no commissioner biako how do you vote yes and commissioner Feldman yes and I vote no so one two three the no's have it two yeses is that correct okay the motion is not agreed to okay commissioner biako number two this one's so much easier on page nine in the mandatory standard summary table I'm just asking that the line for the helmet petition be stricken because on September 17th the petitioner withdrew the helmet petition so this amendment is simply to align the operating plan to reflect that withdrawal thank you for that explanation is there a second to the amendment okay and so we'll have discussion of this and I only really had one question about this and that is removing that is an administrative acknowledgement that the petition has been withdrawn it is not your suggestion that we must stop all work on the safety of helmets like this oh of course not okay with that I have no further questions or comments commissioner berkel no questions just to thank you for picking up on this and I see this is a technical amendment and for cleaning this up thank you commissioner k I just want to support the amendment and any opportunities is reflected by my earlier amendments to make the outplan more accurate thank you commissioner felbin okay additional questions or comments if not then we will move to a vote commissioner berkel how do you vote yes commissioner k yes commissioner bianco yes commissioner felbin yes and I vote yes that's a five zero in favor commissioner bianco your next amendment next 14 under the heading emerging hazards with the code 13 3 27 I would move to strike the sentence that says the CPSC will begin exploratory efforts related to the use of artificial intelligence machine learning and consumer products and quote and replace that with the following language CPSC staff will collaborate with external partners and SDOs to begin exploratory efforts related to the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning and consumer products and identify areas where this technology is applicable to CPSC's mission and commence work in those areas we the language is intended to expand on the a shorter sentence that is already in the outplan and this agency often talks about modernization and the need for the agency to understand and apply technology and of course just last year we hosted a hearing on the Internet of Things and I've met with many external stakeholders to discuss how AI and machine learning could help us meet some of our missions and I'm pleased that we're considering it I just think that we ought to be moving this forward and perhaps you know some outside consultants or that we need to go further than just having a few hearings and then it dies on the vine so I would propose this language to accomplish that thank you we'll now move to questions and comments I mildly oppose this amendment I certainly support the idea of exploring artificial intelligence but my concerns are first of all I'm not quite sure what the resource implications of this are and also to me it jumps a step that I'm not prepared to make at this point because it moves from staff exploring the use of artificial intelligence to requiring us to collaborate with external partners before the staff has completed its exploratory efforts as I say I mildly oppose it it's not a bad idea it's just at this time in terms of timing it causes me concerns Commissioner Birkel thank you I have a couple of questions and I guess what I'm trying to understand because we currently are doing some AI we staff in epi and other portions of the agency are looking at epi we have talked about excuse me have looked at artificial intelligence how can we help develop patterns whether it's with our SAS or you know we've had meetings with some of the outside groups to talk about technology so I'm trying to understand what is this specifically getting at does that play into what the agency is already doing on this front and so maybe if you could I'm trying to get us to move beyond what we're already doing on this front let me give you an example just a few days ago on Twitter there was a someone who advertised hey look check this out look what we did and it was CPSC data that they went on to our site scraped and then processed to show you know different hazards of different products it's fascinating don't know if it's correct don't know if you know what the flaws are in that but we should be doing exactly that and if there are companies who are throwing this out there and able to do something like this that easily we should be exploring this and if we're not exploring this we're just sitting and circulating the same information I think this is designed to move forward and to start seeing what is out there I mean if the NFL can tell us on a commercial what the next play is likely to be we should be able to have technology that tells us what the next or most risky product hazard is and I guess I would just go back to what I think we're doing this already we've started doing this and I guess I'm understanding you want to fast track this yes of course and so but we don't know in terms of resource implications whether we offer money what that would take I think we already have that money from the mid-year we already have funding it's how the funding and what we're doing exploratory efforts in 2019 we should be doing more than just exploring this within our own apartments the mid-year the best of my understanding at least I haven't I haven't talked with Jay in the last couple weeks but I would assume at the end of the fiscal year all the money from the mid-year has been let it had to be because we can't we can't roll over funds from year to year and so I would guess the contracts and what we agreed to at mid-year have already been that money has been allocated based on the vote one of the things that comes to mind as we're just chatting here is you know I would be interested to know and I'm hoping and if they haven't and I'm hoping that this amendment would accomplish this that our teams who are looking at this have reached out and at least explored with vendors I know I have with vendors what it would take what it would cost and what options are out there to us and I haven't seen any of that so I'm hoping that we would get there instead of just exploring whatever that means thank you that's all I have thank you commissioner K I know I 100% support the concept here totally on board I just might need a little more information so do you have a deliverable in mind so does the op plant do you anticipate that by the end of the fiscal year if this is adopted that staff what do you envision staff will have accomplished and the reason I ask it that way I know you're ready to answer and I'm sorry the reason I ask it that way is only to make it easier for staff so they understood what their goal is what their objective is right now their goal is to begin exploratory efforts related to the use there's no deliverable in that so I don't know if it's any different I was just expanding that but I would accept us certainly a friendly amendment to put in here and deliver a reporter anything that you would suggest well this so I appreciate that in the second part of it is the resource implications on the resources I'd be right there with you and I don't know how to get that assurance I think that whatever we had proposed originally in the op plan those resources would apply to this and we're eventually going to get to a point where the resources run out and we're going to have to address it at that time but until then I'm just trying to expand what is already in the op plan would you be willing to have the language then reflect consistent with the dedicated resources in the staff if there's a chance to amend it along those lines and then we could revisit this maybe at mid-year I would be interested because if we could have this not change the resources that makes it a lot easier to support it wasn't intended but I'd be happy to include something like that I would move to amend the beackel amendment to reflect that the beackel amendment be resource neutral relative to this provision of the operating plan is there a second amendment second okay further discussion I assume we've heard the full discussion about that and are there any additional comments one way or the other with respect to this commission Feldman commission beackel I'm sorry we are going to vote as I understand we're going to vote on the amended amendment yeah okay and then I'd be given an opportunity to offer my thoughts on the underlying amendment yes I think that will see appropriate time okay well I think it's important that CPSC conduct this type of work now so that we're not caught flat footed if and when emerging technologies become emerging hazards I'm not sure that they will but I believe that there's the potential that they might may and therefore I'm fully supportive of the amendment as drafted to the extent that we're contemplating making this resource neutral to make this the resource impact be along the lines of that it not negatively impact our overall safety mission rather than to put this in such a way that it further constrained in terms of resources but if there's consensus to accept that kind of language by the amendment sponsor I'm open to that as well I don't know what that means won't negatively impact our safety mission that's just broad to me is assume that we would not negatively impact our safety mission I assume that it wouldn't and therefore it would open the door to devoting an adequate amount of resources to what you're trying to accomplish in the amendment I don't know if I agree with that do I take it that there is a potential amendment that's not being offered to Commissioner Fevelyn no I was just offering my thoughts on the underlying amendment and the second the secondary amendment okay well in that case I think we will move to vote on the amended amendment and we have to actually procedurally we have to move to adopt the amended amendment to the amendment and then we vote on I thought we did have and let me just clarify what the amendment to the amendment would be is that it would require that this provision be resource neutral relative to the resources staff already dedicated is planning to dedicate to this and that would be very conforming changes to the text to reflect that yeah and I actually thought that the words consistent with dedicated resources did that but if you want to elaborate on that that would be fine otherwise we've now heard the motion and we've had it seconded so now I will turn to the vote on the amended amendment Commissioner Burkle how do you vote yes Commissioner Kay I don't believe that this is on the amended amendment I believe this is on the amended amendment just to clarify can we start over on this yes we have to adopt and make sure we understand what your amendment is and I think it is insert the words remain resource neutral consistent with resources for this project however staff wants to write a conforming amendment I would leave it to them to do it so that it's consistent with the intent of not adding any additional resources to this dedicated project understood okay and so if I understand correctly and I'm willing to be corrected at once we have voted on the amendment to the amendment then because that is subsumed we will need to take a vote on the actual amendment correct yes okay alright so on the amendment to the amendment Commissioner Burkle how do you vote just for clarification sake I'm going to say Commissioner Kay's amendment I am voting yes okay that's fine Commissioner Kay yes Commissioner Bianco yes Commissioner Feldman yes and I vote yes so now we move to the the actual amendment as amended and now I ask Commissioner Burkle how do you vote yes and Commissioner Kay how do you vote yes and Commissioner Bianco yes and Commissioner Feldman yes and I vote yes the amendment is passed and Commissioner Bianco do you have additional amendments I do on page 14 under the heading data intake and clearing house code 13 330 add the sentence to further demonstrate CPSC's commitment as a data driven agency staff will identify research and evaluate other sources of data and data intake systems I propose this amendment because CPSC has long relied on these data as well as IDI reports and medical examiners reports and the information that we get from SaferProducts.gov which and the hotline and we know there are problems with SaferProducts.gov and I these all have purpose and they all are relevant and they accomplish some things but I need to I do believe that the agency needs to explore other sources of data intake we use the term data driven agency and my amendment seeks to expand our data resources and ultimately our analysis of data and data intake systems that we are not exploring because as you recall in mid-year and in the budget we have added exploring ideas such as urgent care and so I would just ask one question what specifics do you have in mind for other sources of data and data intake systems that we are not exploring because as you recall in mid-year and in the budget we have added such as urgent care facilities but what specifics do you have in mind that are not already included in our work plans? The urgent care stuff is just expanding on the needs data actually acting chair Adler that is exactly the reason for the amendment I don't know of the different sources of information out there and the scope of that that's what I'm asking the staff to do. So it's one specified undetermined set of data and data sources and I guess my reaction to that would be if there's one area where I think the staff has been extraordinarily conscientious it is in looking at other data and data sources so I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to the spirit of the amendment I fully concur with that my problem with it is that it's sending a signal that we're not already doing that and that is a proposition with that I disagree. Commissioner Birkel any additional questions or comments? No I intend to support the amendment and appreciate I think staff being and I agree with commissioner or acting chair Adler that this is not to say staff is in doing and looking for other sources of data this is something we've expanded the fields and nice data we're looking and certainly with retailer reporting and other there's a lot of other sources where we could be getting more information but this is just I think a puts a fine point on what staff should be doing and making sure we're not we're doing exhaustive research and paying attention to where we can source our data so I thank you for the amendment. Commissioner Kay. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Conceptually again I support everything that commissioner Birkel said as well about looking for certain data that it might not have access to I would just say from my perspective this has been done repeatedly in the time that I've been at the agency at least that's my understanding and I feel like we went through this cycle when we had our data hearing which preceded the two of you a few years ago where we heard from a bunch of stakeholders and we were told about all these data sources that we should be taking a look at that supposedly yielded a lot of promise I'm not sure how many ended up yielding a lot of promise and so I feel like what came out of that was actually this more refined approach by staff to look at certain targeted data sets such as urgent care centers and I wouldn't want to go back and start that process over again when I feel like they had already moved to this stage so what I would encourage though is that maybe we have staff brief us at some point about where they are on data sources and if we feel that there are unexplored areas or that there's a reason that this amendment should be adopted and later maybe mid-year would be an appropriate time after a briefing like that I just feel like based on the time that I've been here that this has already been done very recently and might be redundant I thank you Commissioner Feldman Thank you I support this amendment and view it as consistent with other efforts today to expand the sources of data that the agency processes and our processing capabilities be it through addressing skills gaps with respect to agency staff and ability to understand large data sets be that through individual expertise or through artificial intelligence but I think this is a good amendment and I'm prepared to vote yes Thank you Commissioner Biacco, any additional comments? I think Commissioner Kay's points actually support the amendment I'm glad to hear that before me this these exploratory efforts yielded additional data sources and since we're two years plus past I would think that we have even newer data sources out there so it seems to to me that we should continue those efforts and I just had one comment I think that Commissioner Kay made an excellent suggestion and what I'm committed to doing is to have more briefings before the commission on important issues this strikes me as one where it would be extremely useful to have an additional briefing from staff on data sources so if you all will remind me at some appropriate point I think that would be a good topic for discussion Are there additional questions or comments? If not then we will take a vote Commissioner Burkle, how do you vote? Yes and Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? Commissioner Feldman? Yes and I vote no the votes are 3 and 3 yes and 2 no the amendment is carried Commissioner Bianco additional amendments I do on page 17 I would like to I move to delete the nanotechnology program at code 23704 I'm not opposed to exploring nanotechnology I just understand that we've done it a few times other agencies are doing it and as you've heard today on every occasion we do discuss how limited our resources are and having having heard all the different amendments and the different projects that the various commissioners are interested in I don't think this one takes priority here Is there a second to this amendment? Second Thank you we'll now have comments and questions and let me say I seem to recall Commissioner Bianco that when you and I were at lunch and we were discussing various aspects of the agency and I was voicing some skepticism about the work that the agency does on nanotechnology I would not want those comments then to govern this amendment because I do think there are some important aspects to nanotechnology that only the consumer safety commission can do and that relates to the safety of consumer products and far from deploring the fact that we have really not discovered serious hazards that I know of with respect to nanotechnology we're really celebrating that fact so that nanotechnology has not become one of those clobber you from behind issues that we really weren't prepared to deal with so again this is one where I have a lot of sympathy for your amendment but it's one I'm going to oppose Commissioner Birkel Thank you I certainly understand the spirit of this amendment and it's something that I grappled with when I first came to the agency and in the period of time that I've been here this number has been significantly reduced over the years I think we are now talking about an amount of money that allows staff to be involved with other government agencies to be paying attention to and attending conferences to see what else is going on out there within the world of nanotechnology I do see it on some level as an emerging hazard potential to be an emerging hazard and something we should have our finger on the pulse of so I think we've gotten this number down to a very reasonable amount from I believe originally it was at 2 million this is significantly less I'm comfortable keeping it where it is I think it allows the agency and our staff and the experts on our staff to do what they need to do just to know what else is going on within the government to your point to avoid duplication and to make sure we have our finger on the pulse Thank you I'm not sure what happened at lunch but it seems that Commissioner Burke and I have the same talking points all of a sudden I'm right there with Commissioner Burke I actually think this is a tremendous success story of government coordination and we're going to talk later I think about IoT and government coordination and this is actually a model for how that can work back when the National Nanotechnology Initiative was created during the Clinton Administration billions of dollars have been dedicated by the federal government toward nanotechnology research but what's interesting about that is 93% of that money at least as up to a couple years ago was on the promotion of commercialization of nanotechnology and only 7% was to assessing the health and safety so if you take that smaller amount of money we are part of that tiny part of that pie and then the role that we have played is actually unique we're the only agency every because it's been such a big part of the organization the agencies have divvied up the responsibilities and there is not an overlap between what we do and what others do there's definitely coordination in terms of the information shared and the knowledge that's gained but we play a critical role in assessing the exposure from consumer products or from nanotechnology and consumer products and have played a critical role with the money that we've had in developing important test methods and so Commissioner Burkle is right on as chairman Adler there's no reason to allow this to sort of fade away and come up and bite us it is a very small amount of money relative to the payoff that we get and it was only a few years ago that we actually sought to really start a nanotechnology center with some universities because of the continued need for it and just from a health perspective it's not like OFRs where they present themselves through changes to the cells the difference is that with nanotechnology the concern is that they mirror asbestos fibers and that you can breed the technology in as it's released from the products and so I think there's unexplored areas the staff is serving a great part of a larger well coordinated United States government mission on health and safety and for those reasons I would prefer to see the money stay in there Thank you. Commissioner Feldman Thank you Nanotechnology did not pan out to be the emerging hazard bogeyman that it was initially made out to be and that's why you've seen agency resources over the years cut and cut and cut to the size that it is right now I think I'm generally agnostic on the amendment here I think that there are other resources within the agency if that's what the and within the operating plan as it's drafted if the intent here is to keep our finger on the pulse of emerging hazards in the spirit of compromise and because I believe that commissioners should have their priorities reflected in the operating plan I'm inclined to support this so thank you Commissioner Biacolini closing remarks I agree with Commissioner Feldman that this up to now has not turned out to be what we anticipated from a safety perspective it would be that does not mean to say it won't be applied in different situations my attempt here was not to dis nanotechnology projects I was looking for ways to tighten our off plan and move sources to areas where I thought they would be better spent we get a bigger return I was also concerned that we had taken this down to a point where we were just keeping our hand on the pulse of it and and from that perspective if that's what the goal here is is to just make sure we understand and and don't overlook something then I'm going to withdraw it okay feel free to do that and we will mark that off of the vote and do you have an additional amendment I do on page 18 under code 25727 I'm told that there is a procedural issue here and that is that you're withdrawing of the amendment requires a second I'm asking do we need to do we need a second to withdraw to withdraw yeah I don't I don't think so we can vote it because it's obviously going to get down it's not the same I think I think it's just fine to withdraw it so consider it withdrawn thank you I'm on page 18 under section code 25727 burden reduction paragraph of the first sentence after manufactured fiber I moved to add quote and a briefing package with final action recommendations for testing exemptions for Spandex fibers and quote the full sentence then will read in fiscal year 2020 CPSC staff will provide a briefing package with a final action recommendation for potential determinations for manufactured fibers and a briefing package with final action recommendations fibers for commission consideration and quote this amendment seeks to continue the work on burden reduction as it relates to Spandex and earlier this year we put out a request for comments that period has ended and I do believe that when the commission can reduce costs of existing rules regulations or practices without increasing risks to consumers we have an obligation to do so and I think this is a prime example is there a second to this amendment thank you any questions or comments at this point I have none Commissioner Birkel I just want to commend my colleagues we have been remiss on burden reduction I hope this amendment will get passed and we can move forward in providing some relief and not jeopardizing safety I think we can do both of those things at the same time thank you Commissioner Kay thank you Mr. Chair if I can just ask of the sponsor there's two parts to this amendment one is to basically do a final role on fibers and the second part is to do a final role on Spandex correct and so briefing package final action so I want the staff to have some room to tell us whether we need anything additional I see so is there room in here for staff to come back and basically say anything in the RFI we've considered all the testing data that industry has provided we just don't agree that they qualify for an exemption is that within the room of this within the scope of this is that final action and I'll change it to final role okay so you do intend there to be a specific action I do are you making a motion to change it it's my mistake so I'm going to change the word action in the two parts to rule may I have a copy of what your final amendment yeah thank you very much Commissioner Feldman do you have comments in the meantime while you're making your comments you're asking any questions I'm going to read I just want to commend Commissioner Biakko you've been a leader on this issue in particular and I think that's a benefit both to the apparel industry and to consumers I think that there's more that canon should be done on burden reduction in this op plan and in general it tends to be supportive and thank you for offering it I'm a little little confused because in staff please correct me if I'm wrong when it comes to spandex we are not at the point of staff drafting a package for a final rule that the staff is working on a package if anything for a notice of proposed rulemaking am I correct in that we did put out a request for comments in the plan work this year we reviewed those comments and we do believe there may be additional technical work before we could get to a proposed rule stage at this point that's what was proposed in the operating plan so we've not reached the point even of drafting a briefing package for a notice of proposed rulemaking yet let alone one for a final rule okay with that information then I appreciate the discussion and I do want to commend first of all going back some point in time commissioner and then acting chair for being a relentless champion for burden reduction activities at the agency and that helped give us a much broader perspective on the workflow that we have and I think helped sensitize us to the concerns especially of small business with respect to burden reduction I'm all in favor of doing work on burden reduction but at this point my biggest objection is strictly procedural and that is we're we're jumping the gun to move to a final rule before we've even decided whether or not there's sufficient technical support for a notice of proposed rulemaking so Commissioner Biacco do you care to respond or I'll go around and ask for other comments no Commissioner Burkle no comments I guess I would ask if we have any sense of the resource implications of not only jumping an NPR but going to a final rule do we have any idea of the staff months that that would cause I was under the impression that this has been pending for some time and we were just waiting for the comment period to end and to move forward on it that was my understanding okay I'm sorry to have to ask Mr. Ray to come back up I apologize Mr. Ray just to see clarification so as I understand the amendment in front of us there's two parts to it one would do a final rule on manufactured fibers which I believe is already baked into the staff proposed operating plan so that part's resource neutral correct that's correct we've already we already have that okay so that part I'm fine with the second part as I understand it as it's been amended would we if it's passed and the operating class would require staff to include in its work a final rule so not only NPR but also a final rule do you have any sense of the staff months that it would take to do that it would be a guess at this point what I can say is we did not build that staff the staff resources in to do both the rules I think as I described it was to review the comments and any additional technical work that was needed we could come back to the commission with resource estimates on what that would take okay but yeah I don't have that right here in front of me okay I appreciate that I was under the impression that this was supposed to come up in 2019 I have been waiting for it to come up then I know there was some information on that I am surprised to hear that we're not ready I thought we were just waiting for additional comments and it was time to move forward on this I think that this is just my sense the fact that something might get done and something has resources allocated to actually get it done are two different things and so you are probably correct that a certain period of time has passed since the next step has been funded in essence but I don't I think what we're talking about now is how would we pay for doing that next step in terms of staff months and when we asked staff earlier I thought that they had said which was a question which was just for the NPR stage was 30 staff months obviously this is well beyond that because this is also a final rule and so that would just be my concern because that has to come from somewhere and so if there were a way to if this is already incorporated into staff's work which it sounds like it's not then that's a different story but I would oppose it in its current form based on the resource implications Commissioner Burkle did you have a comment or question? I did for Mr. Beakley. I wanted to ask a question if the language in Commissioner Beakley's amendment was changed back to a final action is that something with that language could we then contemplate maybe this is a legal question some sort of enforcement discretion and I think I did you're right I did have that in my mind now that you mentioned it I'm not completely tracking the question the original language of Commissioner Beakley's amendment is final action recommendations and so I think what was intended was not so much getting to a final rule but rather enforcement discretion as we've done in some other situations I think if the question was we would review the open comments and come with a recommendation to the commission on what that says we could put a package together I'm not sure at least my understanding on the early review is I'm not sure where the technical basis to support it fully and I think that's the challenge right now as I understand it I think we got some information from the request for comments I don't think we have the full information we were hoping to get through that that would help to provide the technical basis for any enforcement discretion okay thank you Commissioner Feldman additional questions comments? Commissioner Bianco? no I just want to thank Commissioner Berkel for pointing that out I knew there was a reason I had it written down I'm tired so thank you for pointing that out it was an action that I did want which is why I got so confused with the timing I was expecting that to come up so just for clarification what is the amendment you have before us is the amendment the original amendment okay I'm sorry look we're we're all struggling and no one more than yours truly Mr. Chairman may I will we have one more opportunity? I didn't know if Commissioner Berkel wanted to have anything else first though no I was just going to ask the same question what is the language of this final amendment and its final action and so again reluctantly as much as I support all efforts towards burden reduction the notion of final action is still sufficiently unclear to me so that I just don't understand what the resource implications of it are if we had the chance to sit down and do careful more careful drafting of it I might end up supporting it but at least as in its current incarnation I'm going to oppose it I'm sure mean like the consumer ombudsman? no no not at all like the consumer ombudsman that one's clear concrete Commissioner Berkel? in the eyes of the beholder Bob are you taking a vote? no I'm asking if you have additional comments because I think Commissioner Kay may well thank you Mr. Chairman the only additional comment I would make is it sounds like even beyond the resource issues that to Mr. Ray's point there's just additional technical work that staff is planning and so I would be happy to revisit this issue in mid-year maybe once that technical work is done and see if at that point there's a resource efficient way to execute whatever staff believes is consistent with safety and burden reduction thank you additional comments if not then we will move to a vote Commissioner Berkel how do you vote? yes Commissioner Kay how do you vote? no Commissioner Bianco? yes Commissioner Feldman? yes I vote no it's three in favor to oppose the amendment passed as Commissioner Bianco do you have additional amendments? I do just for the record I will not be presenting my amendment number eight it really was a technical amendment that would have gone with a previous amendment but I believe that it's taken care of by the language that was proposed my amendments nine and ten go together I would like to take them out of order because nine they are presented in the page number order but let's take them together substantively number ten on page 36 under summary of key performance measures O.C.M I'd like to strike I moved to strike control ID 2020 K.M. 4.3 .01 this sets for a number of collaboration activities initiated with stakeholders as 55 and delete the corresponding key performance measure statement on page 44 I fully support our office of communications collaborating with stakeholders to promote information and education safety campaigns but I can't support including a key performance measure of 55 first of all it's an increase of 26 activities from last year I don't know what the resource implications of that what that would be and I think we need to be more thoughtful and methodical in our collaborative activities and not merely trying to meet a quota that I don't know where this number comes from it's just a number and I don't want to see the agency looking to meet their quota by looking for things that maybe are not we're not getting critical safety information to consumers that we should be so I would just move to strike that number do I understand that you are combining your two amendments or do you are you taking the second amendment first and we're moving to the prior amendment well that my amendment number nine is would be on page 35 it goes together and I would just say to insert the third bullet collaboration with stakeholder groups for I&E activities approved by the commission before we ask for a second alas you had me on the first amendment but you don't have me on the second amendment separate them I was just trying to make it a little easy I certainly appreciate that we can listen let's go with the first one then I guess there's a second to that amendment number ten second it but which one are we doing first and okay thank you this is a point of clarification I think it's actually nine nine and ten because we removed the we combined our of our amendment so I think that gives you one last but I'm not sure that's even there and it's just as just after known as amendment nine even if it's not the ninth it's the 55 number how's that okay and so do we have a second on that yes second okay and so may I say that this is the one amendment that I don't support I think you have talked to the staff as though the quota was imposed upon them this is an internally generated quota that the staff came up with and if you recall during the briefing plan with raised eyebrows I asked whether this really was what the staff was contemplating in Mr. Mariek said yes it is and similarly and I'm surprised you don't have an amendment on this they also propose to increase the number of Twitter and other CPSC social media accounts from 30,000 to 85,000 and so God bless them for being aggressive but if staff says this is what they want to do then let's applaud and support their efforts let's not limit them so this is one that I hope we see that they actually live up to their internally generated goals but I really don't want to quash their ambitions so that would be my reason for opposing it Commissioner Birkel I will say that I contemplated taking the first amendment and I'm referring to is 8 but the information educational outreach campaign that amendment first and then depending on how the outcome of that amendment whether or not we would weigh in with the 55 to Commissioner or Acting Chairman Adler's point staff generally makes their own determination as to how many activities they want to accomplish in order that they can achieve their goals I think for me understanding how you're defining collaboration whether it's in either one of these amendments is important because I'm not sure it's consistent with how O.C.M is defining their collaboration that's part of my problem it's just so arbitrary and I don't know what this means I don't know what messages they could sit and say we're going to do 55 of these and we're going to collaborate with I don't know who and to what extent I just think it's arbitrary it's undefined and it could also be limiting so that's why I would that's why I've moved in both of these regards I do think for O.C.M I think they're not the only organization within CPSC that does collaborative activities but in this particular amendment we're talking about O.C.M I think that they wouldn't they have a good idea of how they're going to achieve this goal and they do have the specifics spelled out and I think there's that what they already intend to do but then beyond that there's going to be opportunities like we saw recently I will say with elevators or inclined sleepers or where the interaction and the collaboration and all of the those issues kind of percolate up out of nowhere they're not planned for and then they have to take those on as well but I think that probably if we asked O.C.M. they would be able to define how they got to that 55 pretty easily. Thank you Commissioner Kaye I have nothing to add thank you Commissioner Feldman I have nothing to add thank you okay Commissioner Biaccoli any closing comments if not we'll move to a vote Commissioner Berkel how do you vote yes we're voting on what we will hear now the removal of the 55 and you're voting to approve the removal of the 55 as a goal correct okay Commissioner Kaye how do you vote no Commissioner Biacco yes Commissioner Feldman yes and I vote no the amendment passes the amendment decided what we do in your what we now will know is amendment nine whether or not it's the ninth amendment on page 35 under code 42549 information in education IE outreach campaign just move to add the third as a third bullet the sentence collaboration with stakeholder groups for IE activities approved by the commission thank you discuss the amendment and it is an amendment that I support. As I read it, it calls for collaborative efforts with stakeholders for INE activities approved by the commission. I think that's a good idea. I support it. Let me add, I don't read the amendment as necessarily requiring INE outreach campaigns to be approved by the commission. And I don't read it as precluding outreach on INE outreach, outreach on INE campaigns that have not been approved by the commission. So with that understanding, I support it. Commissioner Berkel. So I'm trying to understand collaboration with stakeholder groups for INE activities must be approved by the commission. Is there, there's no must, this just should be, will be, must be. I think it's drafted this way for a couple reasons. One, there are some INE activities that don't require commission approval. But what I, what I don't, what I, and the reason it's drafted this way is because I will not support safety messages that OCM decides that are not based on data or approved by the commission that under our statute require that. For example, they cannot say this product is defective if the staff has not made that determination prior. So I did not want to leave out approved by the commission and I did not want to make it must, which is why it's drafted that way. I think it's assumed that OCM is not going to have blanket authority to make decisions that are inconsistent with the statute. Well, I guess my first comment would be that I don't believe that OCM would put out a statement calling a product defective without knowing that, that determination has been made by staff. I think that OCM works very closely with EPI, with compliance in trying to understand all of the moving parts. But so, like, again, I'm, I'm unclear the club. What, what are we talking about with collaboration? And what are we talking about with INE activity? So we do a tremendous amount of outreach with PoolSafely. So every time we interact with, I mean, hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of groups to help push out our message and to help us with this PoolSafely and to take the PoolSafely pledge and to work with the Phelps Foundation and other foundations to push out our message, is that collaboration and would that all have to come to the commission? Well, I believe that's already been approved by the commission. It is something that the agency does, and I don't think they have to come back and ask us. But if there's something new, I do think that, you know, if the statute and our regs require it, they need to let us know. My point is I want to ensure that we don't have safety messages going out that would require emission approval or following the statute. I've seen that a couple of times. Okay. And I guess I would disagree with that because anything that OCM puts out has to go through 6B clearance and their eyes are not the only eyes on any kind of campaign and or press release or any information that we're pushing out as an agency. There's quite an elaborate oversight mechanism in place to make sure that, you know, incorrect data is not being pushed out by our communications officer and office. But I just, I guess, so then if we've, how do we distinguish between, I'll say, pull safely in our tip over campaign and some of the other larger ones, then how do we define the other I&E campaigns? It's just vague. How will OCM know what needs to get approved? And if they don't have the approval or hasn't been pre-approved, then they should make sure just as they run 6B stuff by, I don't know who, not us, but that there's commission approval. Whether it was prior approval or going forward for something new. It's presented as it's presented. Thank you. Commissioner Kay. I support the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. The amendment, as I read it, would allow for additional commission input into stakeholder collaboration. I think that's a good thing and I have no questions. Well, I do have an additional comment and I would just want to say that I've heard your expression of intent, but I am going with, as former Supreme Court member Nino Scalia would say, I'm going with the actual language that's there. And as I read that language, it does not require the commission to approve I&E campaigns. It says in the event that we have approved one, then we will engage in these collaborative efforts. That's what I'm voting on. I'm not voting to give authority to the commission that is not in the statute, although I have no problem with the commission directing staff to work on specific I&E campaigns, but I do not read this and my vote was not contingent upon any need for the commission approval for I&E campaigns. I see nothing in the statute that requires that. So with those qualifications, I'm prepared to support the amendment. Are there additional comments? I don't accept those qualifications as you see it. So if that's how you want to vote based on that, that's fine, but the amendment is presented as it is. Well, as it is, with your clarification, you have now persuaded me to vote against it, and I think that's fine. We will now move to a final vote unless there are other comments. Commissioner Birkel, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Feldman, excuse me, Commissioner Biakko? Yes. And Commissioner Feldman? Yes. So, and I vote no. So the vote, the amendment is carried and do you have additional amendments? Almost done, honest. On page 40 under fiscal year 2020 milestone, a statement for EXIT, strike the description for control ID number 202M52 and replace with complete updates and upgrades to saferproducts.gov, which includes, among other things, enhancements to user experience, such as making the website mobile-friendly and improving search capabilities. I present this motion. We've approved at the midyear $590,000 to do this. I want to make sure that it's expressly put in the out plan that we get this done. We have heard time and time again from our stakeholders and consumer groups that this is something that they want to see completed, and that is the purpose of my amendment. Thank you. Is there a second to the amendment? Second. Thank you. We'll now have questions or comments. I have no questions or comments at this time, Commissioner Birkel. I just want to commend Commissioner Bianco, and I appreciate this amendment. I think it was one of the first hearings we had when she came on board. We had the saferproducts.gov hearing. This has been something that has been important to me, making safer products more user-friendly, helping the consumer be able to navigate through the system, be able to report accurately and promptly. So I'm very appreciative of her amendment and hope that this will get passed. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Kaye. I support the amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. I support the amendment as well. Okay. My only comment is I certainly don't oppose updating and upgrading safer products. I grant that we've already approved this. This doesn't, to me, add certainly any resource expenditures. So, I mean, we do get to a point where we're voting to approve the second time things that we've already approved. That said, I probably will support it. And we now, unless there are additional comments, Commissioner Birkel, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kaye. Yes. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote yes. It has unanimously passed. Commissioner Bianco, additional amendments. Yes. This is my last amendment and it goes, it's a follow-up to my previous amendment, which is on page 40, just simply to add another row under control ID number 202M62 with the following sentence, complete update and upgrades to CPSC website. It would just be a technical amendment to make it consistent. Okay. Is there a second to this amendment? Second. Thank you. I don't have any comments about this. Commissioner Birkel. I guess my first question would be whether this has been discussed with IT and we know what the financial and staff hours, the resource implications are. Well, and what this would entail. This just clarifies or makes consistent the amendment we just adopted. And I would answer your question. Yes. We have approved the money. This is just to make sure it's in the plan so that we can be accountable for it. It was, in my opinion, lacking. I guess I'm confused. The amendment we just passed for saferproducts.gov? Yes. Well, this is CPSC's website. I understand. I understand your confusion. Okay. I understood a same concept that this has already been something that we've addressed, that we have been working on. I want to see it completed. Do we know what staff is working on currently or where they're at? I don't know where they're at. And that's one of the reasons for the amendment. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Commissioner Kay. I would like to support the amendment. I guess I'm sort of where Commissioner Birkel is. If there's any way to understand, consistent with the burden reduction approach, I'd talk like, what will this entail? But if we can, if that were information that were readily available, or if this, similar to the other amendment where you're intending for it to be resource-neutral relative to what's in the operating plan already, that's fine too. Well, we've been talking about this for quite some time. This isn't a database. I mean, the last time we had a hearing on some of these issues, we heard about broken links and things that weren't accessible from the outside. I'd like to see that done. It's something we've been talking about for some time. It's been on our radar we've taken, and we've assured our consumer advocate groups that we would fix these flaws, and this is what this is intended for. Again, holding ourselves accountable for something we have been representing that we are fixing. And so, I guess, I don't know who would be the appropriate person to answer this, but is this already in the operating plan to do this work? For IT. The answer, it depends on what it is. I think we do have an ongoing kind of maintain and keep the website updated, work built in, but I think in the 2021 request, we specifically tried to request additional funds to do a broader update of the public website to address some of the bigger issues. So I'm not entirely clear on the what, but I think that's what's currently planned. Well, let me just call the commission's attention to the OPP plan at page 39, a code 99953, which is website management. And it already accounts for the project that provides resources for operating and maintaining the CPS websites to meet the needs of the agencies, consumers, businesses, and other stakeholders. And it does go on, my amendment is just to add a bullet point that reflects this in the appropriate section. So I think it's my time still. If the, so if the amendment is basically saying then that this is a bullet point that is reflecting the work that's already in the operating plan, is that what you're saying? I wanna make sure that we arrive at goals and hold ourselves accountable that we set out to complete. So what does completed mean to you? Cause obviously there's two different versions of completed, there's the completed that reflects the code that you just read 99953 and whatever they intend to do there would get completed by that goal. But then there's also completed, meaning what Mr. Ray was saying that we've asked for more money to do a whole additional upgrade. It would help to know which completed you meant. Both. Okay. So but without the resources for it. Cause I'm totally supportive of whether it's a mid-year process or some other way if the resources are identified and we can have a sense of that, this concept that's just in, it's hard to do it out of context with that. I think that this adding a bullet point does not change the out plan, it just makes it more consistent. Okay. Somebody's whispering, it's a milestone. I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you. There are many bright spots at CPSC. CPSC.gov is not one of them. I think everybody on the Dias would agree that updates and upgrades to our public facing website are sorely needed. That work appears to be reflected in the out plan as it's currently drafted. I think the additional accountability in the form of a milestone statement isn't a bad idea. Therefore I'm prepared to support this amendment. Would Commissioner Feldman yield for a question? Yes, sir. But is it your understanding that that milestone would require additional resources that are not currently allocated in the operating plan to complete? I don't want to set staff up to fail. If they're being asked to complete a milestone that the commission is not allocating the resources for, I don't think that's fair for staff. If the milestone is just to reflect the work that staff has already budgeted for, I'm on board. So it helps to understand which milestone you mean. I believe it would be reflective of the work that's being currently called for in the out plan. It would be internally consistent to have this milestone relate back to the project that Commissioner Bianco called out. I have not independently shopped this amendment language with staff for feedback. I think that would be a question for staff or for somebody else. But again, I'm generally supportive of milestone statements. I think that gives a good barometer on which to gauge progress in one direction or the other or in action if the case may be that. If this is something that doesn't pass also, perhaps addressing this at mid-year would be the appropriate, maybe an additional appropriate form and I hope we'd be able to continue to work on that. May I use a little more of your time then? So I would be fine if it's a completed planned update and upgrades to CPSC's website because I think that implies that it's planned within the fiscal year and then have an additional component that would or an understanding that we would see at mid-year when any additional work would cost. I suppose I'm agnostic but would defer to the amendment sponsor whether she thinks that makes sense. I don't think it changes it, but if that makes you more comfortable, that's fine. I'm going out of order here, but I know I didn't use my time before. It actually works better, I think. The question I have is are you, because maybe I'm misunderstanding complete update and upgrades to CPSC's website, are you saying that what's enumerated here in the ops plan standardization of file naming conventions and metadata population process, improvements to overall site organization, review of website visitor statistics to inform people? Are you saying that that's what would be completed? I am, I can't say that we would ever, I mean, it would be silly to say there's not going to be any more adjustments upgrades to the CPSC website in the future, but let's get what we have on the books done. That's why I addressed, Elliott, your point about, or Commissioner Kaye, about if planned helps, that's fine too. I mean, it's implied. I mean, for me, that would be the difference of being supportive or not, because that would provide the clarity that would be. I don't think it changes my intent, so I'm happy to add it and accept your friendly amendment. Do we really have to go through voting on the amendment to the amendment? I actually can accept, my understanding procedure, I can accept the friendly amendment, and we can vote. Okay, so then we'll vote on the amendment with the friendly amendment that some say is not needed, but it helps for our voting purposes. So with that in mind, I will now ask for a vote. Commissioner Berkel, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kaye? Yes. Commissioner Biakko? Yes. Commissioner Feldman? Yes. And I vote yes. It's unanimous, and congratulations. Handing on that one. Commissioner Biakko, I would, yeah, I would suggest that we take a 15-minute break, which would bring us to 2.30, I can do that math. So we will reconvene at 2.30. 2.35. Okay, we'll reconvene at 2.35, all right, so we'll take in a 20-minute break. Okay. In other words, you can't do that. Welcome back to the continuation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's deliberation and vote on its 2020 op plan. We now move to amendments offered by Commissioner Feldman. Commissioner Feldman? Thank you. The first amendment that I'm offering today has to do with agency modernization, and it would modernize CPSC and expand agency expertise on emerging technologies in particular by hiring a chief technologist. The amendment would, at the appropriate place in the ops plan, insert the following language that in the fiscal year 2020 to expand agency's expertise on innovation and the safety implications associated with emerging technologies, staff in consultation with the commission will allocate resources in one FTE at the discretion of the executive director and without negatively impacting the agency's safety mission for the purposes of hiring a chief technologist. Additional explanation about that or? It's a concept that shouldn't be unfamiliar because this isn't the first time that I've discussed it, including on the dais here, but it's my goal that this would be a position that's modeled off of similar roles at some of our sister agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, FCC, NASA, OSTP and others. The chief technologist would be, and this is consistent with the draft position description that I circulated earlier in advance of the decision of today, that this individual would serve as the commission's principal advisor on innovation and the safety implications associated with emerging tech. The purpose here would not be to replicate any functions or roles that are currently within the agency and in place, but rather the role of the chief technologist would be to expand agency expertise and to provide the strategy and leadership across various offices here, including on the seventh floor with respect to and in support of the agency's mission on emerging tech, including the internet of things and connected devices, wearables, artificial intelligence, among other things. It's my hope that the chief technologist would serve as a sufficiently senior position that it's a voice that would carry and resonate within the agency. The position description that I've drafted here is a starting point. As we discussed with previous amendments, this is aspirational language, but by placing it in the ops plan and hopefully having it accepted into the ops plan, this would be a starting point for a more fulsome discussion. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. We will now have a round of questions and comments. Let me say that I support this amendment as written and I just want to go out of my way to express my appreciation to you, Commissioner Feldman, for your willingness to collaborate and refine the proposal so it captures what you want with this and the analytics position, but adding them in a manner with what I consider to be consistent with current civil service requirements in the CPSC's statutory language. And I promise Commissioner Feldman I would make the following comment and that is I plan to consult with him and our colleagues about the language of the position description for these appointments. I also promise to seek his and our colleagues advice regarding candidates for these positions to make sure that everyone has an ample opportunity to offer advice and recommendations regarding any appointment to the position. These aren't positions that require formal commission approval, but they are positions that are important enough so that there should be extensive consultation and I promise to do that. So I thank you. Commissioner Buerkle. May I reclaim some of my time? Yes, please. In response, I appreciate those statements. I think your statement right there does encapsulate the compromised nature of the amendment. It had been my initial hope that this would be a role that would be hired at the direction in subject to a commission vote. I understand why you've suggested the language that you've done. I appreciate your offer to do so in consultation with me. I think it's also important that that also be in consultation with Commissioner Biacco and Buerkle and Kay. I think everybody at the dais recognizes the skills gap that this amendment is designed to address and therefore I would hope that everybody has input on the process. Reminding you of what I said, I did say consulting with you and the and our colleagues. Yes, you did. I just wanted to underscore the and our colleagues. I certainly appreciate that. Commissioner Buerkle. I have no questions. Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you want to commend Commissioner Feldman, you're right. You have brought this up a number of times and you've been really the leading voice since you've gotten here on the need for the agency to modernize in these directions. And so the questions that I'm going to ask will probably be the same for both of them. And so as you've identified a need and how have you satisfied yourself that the agency is currently constructed with our current skill sets is not meeting those needs? I think that's been identified explicitly in the strategic goals and strategic skills gaps that are outlined in our policy and performance budget requests. I think that the nature of the marketplace, the speed with which new technologies are being developed and deployed in the hands of consumers from concept to manufacture to sort of broad disbursement within the marketplace is happening at such a lightning quick pace that it makes sense that we have some additional supplemental expertise at the agency so that we're not caught flat footed. A great example of that is hoverboards. This was something that certainly was not on the agency's radar and you blinked and they were everywhere and there were problems associated with them. I think the agency was able to triage and work collaboratively and in partnership with UL to get a standard up quickly. I think having a voice with some extra gravitas at the agency to inform how we proceed when crises like this do occur, I think would be to the benefit of everybody and in safety and consumers. Thank you. And so do, I'm sorry if I missed this, but if you envision a virtual org chart where in your aspirational mind would this position sit in that org chart? Ideally this would be a position that would be floating and I recognize the challenges of doing that which I think was the nature of the conversation that Bob and I had and the justification behind some of the amendments that, modifications that I made to the amendment and that you see reflected in the current form. I think for practical purposes, this is a position that would be under the executive director. It would be my hope that this would not be in, housed within any one particular vertical because I think the expertise that this position would bring to the agency would inform any number of different important functions that we currently conduct in advance of our safety mission. I see, so you envision it maybe like a separate bubble underneath the office of the executive director not in the office of the executive director but sort of separate? I think that those particulars are important. I think that those would be the subject of the more detailed discussions that I hope we would have when we're hammering out the particulars of the position description. And I think that goes to the point that Commissioner, our acting chairman Adler made earlier that this is a discussion that we should be having amongst the five of us. Got it and do you envision that person ultimately needing his or her own staff? No, not necessarily. And that's not the model that other agencies have employed. Okay, similar to the questions that I asked during Commissioner Villacchos' amendment but really more of... May I clarify that as well? There's been some questions raised about whether the chief technologist would be brought to the agency in a supervisory role and that sort of, at the core of your question about whether they'd have their own staff, I don't necessarily see this person as even being in a supervisory role, especially to the extent that that has an impact on this having a larger budgetary impact than I think I intend. Got it. And is this, do you know what other agencies is this position filled in an SES capacity or a GS capacity? There's different models. There are agencies that fill this with some creative funding in terms of expert witness allocations or the way the specific project for the tenure of their time here. And therefore, that doesn't sort of fit neatly within an SES or a GS position. I think this would be a conversation that would be important to one, the five of us to have but also to weigh on the thoughts and expertise of human resources at the agency. But I hope that's not a sticking point. May I just go a little longer? Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And so that is where I was going next. And similar to the question that I asked of Chairman Adler during Commissioner Biakko's amendment on the Kintuma and Budsman, I would hope that in this process that this could really come from staff through their recommendations as opposed to being dictated top down because there are a lot of issues in terms of HR facilities, turf, other things that need a lot of thought put into it for both of these positions to make sure that if everything's done that it doesn't create unintended problems and I wouldn't want us to force staff into a situation of having to, that where they get distracted and we've created a giant mess for them. So I'm hopeful that you're, that we can build into this process something that is very much solicitous of staff and respectful of how they believe something like this needs to be accomplished and gives them the maximum flexibility to do so. Chairman Adler, may I respond briefly? Yes, of course. I appreciate those concerns. Thank you for raising them. This language is crafted very carefully to make sure that the role does not supplant or otherwise frustrate existing roles within the agency. It's been crafted with some significant staff feedback already at this point and particularly with respect to the chief technologist, staff has identified a skills gap and has given some positive indications that this is a role that would fill an unmet need in terms of agency expertise. So for that reason that I'm supportive of it, that's the reason I'm offering it and again, appreciate you raising those concerns. Thank you. Commissioner Biacco. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman, I support this concept. I know we've certainly talked about it at other hearings and I've been a huge advocate of increasing the technology and the way we do things to be a little bit more modernized. So I appreciate your proposal here and I'm inclined to support it but I need to have a couple of clarifying points. Do I understand correctly that this chief technologist is being proposed to address a skills gap in the agency? Yes, exactly. And do you see this position as one of leadership or yeah, one of leadership to the descriptions already in the hot plan? It would be a leadership but a non-supervisory position. That's my hope that this individual be sufficiently senior within the organization that his or her views, opinions, advice, input carry sufficient weight that it have a positive impact on our understanding and our ability to handle problems that I fear we may otherwise be caught flat footed when it comes time to address them. And this person would supplement some of the skills and activities that we already have going on at the agency, right? Supplement but not be redundant of. Okay, I think that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you and thank both commissioner Kay and commissioner Bianco for helping refine points I've discussed with commissioner Feldman. So I'm glad we put that on the record. Are there additional comments, questions? I have a couple of questions based on the questions I just heard. Commissioner Feldman, you mentioned a number of other agencies that you're, I'll say modeling not exactly but somewhat this position. I think you mentioned FTC, SEC, FAA. I'm not necessarily certain about SEC and I'm not necessarily certain about FAA but DOT definitely. Okay, my concern is not that this is a bad concept at all but rather than those are much larger agencies with really, I'll say infinite pools of money that we don't have. And so to commissioner Kay's point because I didn't hear the answer, what is the skills gap that we're trying to fill or to address? The skills gap would be the skills gap with respect to a number of emerging technologies that are on the horizon that staff has indicated there are some gaps in understanding. With respect to the budgetary impact, we are talking about one FTE at this point. So therefore I don't anticipate the budgetary impact of this being significant even given the fact that these agencies tend to be on the larger side although some of them are smaller. Does that answer your question? Well, a little bit. When you're saying that our staff would inform this person that then means to me staff has identified the hazard and so they would look to this person to provide the expertise. Let's say you mentioned hoverboards with the lithium-ion battery. We have that expertise with lithium-ion batteries but so I'm trying to understand so our staff would identify the emerging hazards to this person and then this person would then what? This person would then conduct research and serve as a node and nexus of understanding and knowledge within the agency to support the mission at various levels. Okay, so are you thinking in terms of an academic to do research and are you thinking an expert, I guess my mother used to use the word the phrase Jack of all trades, master of none. Sometimes that's how I feel as a commissioner. You get to dabble on a lot of issues. You don't really have the opportunity to really become an expert. Would this person be the expert? Would this person be the vehicle to go out and find the expertise? I'm trying to understand again what their role would be. I think that the academic model that you raised is one that's been employed to a great deal of success at other agencies, particularly with respect to the FCC. They adopted the model where their chief technologist was brought on from academia to address a specific discreet issue during their tenure. The most current chief technologist, I believe, is working day and night to help solve the problem of annoying robocalls, which I think everybody can agree is a problem squarely with NFCC's jurisdiction. It may be that this person is brought on with a specific charge for a defined period of term, be it a year term or longer. But again, those are all details that I would welcome your input on the process going forward as we work to flesh out the particulars of the PD. And I think that there's a number of models that make sense, and I think you hit on a number of them. Thank you. I just want to just distinguish between a specific discreet issue, because that may, to me in my mind, that may be have more merit that you have someone come in to look at specifically an issue, but just to broadly hire them to be our technology officer. There's so many issues. If it is just to focus on IoT, well then that's not lithium-ion batteries, that's not the hoverboard. So it's just, the devil is in the details, and I think for your work on this, but my concerns are just that we're not analogous. We just have jurisdiction over such a broad swath of products that having someone come in, it's a challenge. And we are still in the old mode where we're looking in the bricks and mortars and doing the defects from that, and from reporting, 15B reporting, and then we want to have someone poised looking at the emerging technology. So I think it's, we're not analogous to so many other agencies, and that's one of my concerns. I understand the concern, I think we would be able to address that in the position description to make sure that this person isn't a generalist, but a specialist that comes on board to tackle a specific project. And because these are emerging technologies and potentially emerging hazards, we may not know with specificity exactly what that is right now, but this would put us in as good a position as we possibly could be to make sure that, again, we're not caught flat footed if and when a crisis arises. Thank you. Commissioner Kay. Thanks, I just want to seek additional clarification from you, Mr. Chairman, just that what we're talking about, to make sure we're all on the same page that when it comes to staff input, that staff will have the similar flexibility as with the consumer embudsman to really shape and to provide feedback to the commission going forward. This would be a sort of a staff driven process that comes up to us as opposed to us sitting in a room and hammering out all the details and then just telling staff what it is that they have to do. I don't see how we could do it any other way to be quite honest. This has got to really start with the foundation of staff input because, as Commissioner Feldman's saying, we don't want to create new gaps and we don't want to have conflicts or overlap in what's being addressed. And hoverboards is one of those interesting examples because I wasn't thrilled with the commission's response on hoverboards and I'll just leave it at that. But no, no, no, no, it's, I understand the point you were making. And you know, one thought off the top of my head would be if suddenly nanotechnology were emerging in the market, this would be the sort of thing where we would march over it and say, we need somebody who's expert in nanotechnology. And may I say, I particularly like the idea as a former academic of bringing in academics with their fresh thinking and their cutting edge research to help us identify broad areas of concern. So I fully support the notion of having staff sit down and taking a first cut at this and making sure that they're satisfied before we move to address and refine it. Great, and that would apply to the analytics office. Well, just to save time. Of course, I'm concerned. I feel that most, if not all of this conversation is duplicative of the one that we're gonna have about my amendment number nine. Exactly, so I'm just covering it now, thank you. Yes, sir. Okay, good, let's hear it for efficiency. Are there additional comments or questions? I do, just quickly. So as I hear you describing these positions, I see them or I'm hearing that like today we had a lot of amendments on technology and modernization that these technology people would expand on that and expand on our capabilities that we're not addressing right now. Yes, exactly. Okay, and you plan to fill current vacancies that have already been accounted for in the resources. It's my hope that this would come from within an existing vacancy. Thank you. Well, it's gonna have to and we've already gotten a list of where we have vacancies and so I'm leaving to our executive director the decision about where we would, what position that we would not fill and what new position this would be. Are there additional comments and questions? If not, we will vote. Commissioner Berkele, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kay. Yes. Commissioner Biakko. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote yes. The amendment is approved. You have additional amendments? I do and I'll hope to get through these in short order but I appreciate everybody's patience today. So my second amendment would address the, well, why don't I, if it's okay with everybody, why don't I go right to amendment number nine? Because this conversation is very similar to the one that we just had with Feldman one. I apologize for going out of order. Oh, no, that sounds fine, that makes sense. So Feldman nine again is an amendment that would address agency modernization and it would support CPSC's mission to improve our understanding of large data sets and the safety insights that they potentially provide by hiring a chief data analytics officer. The amendment would at the appropriate place insert the following language that in fiscal 2020, the CPSC will continue its ongoing efforts to develop an agency wide data management and analytics strategy to support the CPSC's mission and to allocate resources and one FTE in consultation with the commissioners and at the discretion of the executive director and without negatively impacting the agency safety mission for the purposes of hiring a chief analytics officer. I can talk with some more specificity about sort of my views about what the analytics officer's role would be. And again, this is a position description that's aspirational. It's my hope that if Feldman nine has adopted that placing this in the ops plan would be a starting point for a more fulsome discussion. The chief analytics officer would be CPSC's principal advisor on matters concerning data analysis. The purpose would be not to replicate functions and roles already in place at the agency but to be the agency's key advisor on advances in data analytics capabilities and best practices and understanding large data sets in support of our mission. The chief analytics officer would also assist the agency in terms of improving transparency by facilitating better sharing of agency information and agency data with outside stakeholders consistent with agency statutes. This individual would serve as the again a sufficiently senior position within the agency structured in the org chart very similar if not identical to where the chief technologist may sit. But again, those are specifics that I hope would be developed balancing commission and staff input to make sure that to make sure that this is pursued in a way that doesn't negatively impact critical FTEs that are currently vacant to make sure that that's sort of a thoughtful and informed process and to make sure that the position description sort of developed with as broad a consensus as we can find. Thank you, is there a second? Second. Thank you very much. We'll now turn to questions and comments. I support this amendment also, although I do want to say mine is a more cautious approval. And actually when I had first seen it, I was not necessarily in support of it. I do greatly appreciate the collaboration between my office and commissioner Feldman's office including our staff sitting down and having extensive discussion among the parties. I worried greatly in this case about overlap and redundancy which is why picking up on the point that commissioner Kay was making, this is one as far as I'm concerned that we require substantial and extensive staff input to make sure that whatever position is filled in this regard that it is a positive net plus for us, I mean a net positive for us. And so with that reservation, I am supportive of the amendment. Commissioner, I keep saying commissioner Burkle. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions. So how would this work? Because both you and commissioner Eller raised the issue not to be duplicative of what we have here. Well, we have a epidemiology, we have of course our whole epidemiology but all of EXHR taking in data and reviewing it and coming up with studies. How do you see this person interacting with what's already in place? EXHR is an important vertical within the agency but it's certainly not the only vertical within the agency that uses data and that has expressed at one point or another concerns about the volume of data that it's receiving and ability to sort of spot larger trends in a large data set. I think particularly as today we voted to accept commissioner Bianca's fourth amendment, expanding the sources of data inputs that the agency would consider, considering the volume of section 15 reports that the agency sorts through. And particularly as we've had discussions about expanding retailer reporting, it seems like an awkward thing to say in 2019 going into 2020 that it's just too much data, that we can't make sense of it. I think given advances in artificial intelligence, given the state of the art that exists with respect to data analytics and the ability to derive really meaningful insights from large data sets, even if that's only for the purposes of figuring out what normal looks like in the marketplace so that we can better discern sort of blips on the radar or the proverbial smoke before the fire, I think that that's a good example of how this individual may benefit and support EXHR's work in particular. But again, EXHR's not the only organization that exists within CPSC that handles data. We have a database in the form of saferproducts.gov that we're all aware that there's complaints that that's not working particularly well. And we held a hearing, I don't remember the exact date of it, but those criticisms about that database not being as efficient as it possibly could be, I think are something that having a dedicated data scientist on staff would go a long way in terms of putting us on a better posture just to make the agency run better. There's other applications, but. So in the two instances you've, the two examples you've given, both with an influx of data that we can't seem to manage and or saferproducts.gov, my understanding has not been that we don't have the people to deal with that. It's the technology we lack and the resources to get into place the technology so that we can have the capability to review data. Not that we lack the expertise, but rather than we lack the technology and the ability to get that technology on board. And so I just, I'm wondering how this person would interact with what we have in place. And EXHR is where the data comes from. They look at saferproducts.gov. They look at NICE. They look at all of the data sources. And I'm concerned that this person, I don't know, I don't understand that relationship. I think you raise a really important point that there are potential tech solutions to the skills gap that we've identified and that we all understand to be true. Adopting an artificial intelligence or a machine learning capabilities through a particular vendor one way or the other thing, I think is a wonderful idea. I think it's something that's reflected in the ops plan. I think it's important that we have dedicated staff on board at the agency that understands the technology itself and is able to refine its use to use it in the most efficient way possible and to make sure that we are seeing all the critical safety signs that we need to in our market surveillance to make sure that we're not missing anything. It's my fear that particularly as we're discussing an expansion of the data inputs that we're collecting. And I think that's a wonderful amendment that Commissioner Biacco adopted that I think passed unanimously. I think it's important that in concert with that, that we supplement the agency's skills and personnel, not to create more bureaucracy, not to replicate existing roles, but to make sure that we're doing this in the best, most thoughtful way possible. And I think a chief analytics officer would go a long way to putting us in as good a posture as we possibly could be and that's why I introduced the amendment. I would just emphasize, I don't think we have a skills gap as much as we have a funding gap. And I think if we had the appropriate amount of resources to put into place and to be able to invest in AI and invest in the technology we need, we could accommodate the data, whether it's from retail or reporting or any other source. But I appreciate your work on this amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Kaye. I'm consistent with the conversation we had earlier about staff maintaining, having maximum flexibility and playing a leadership role. I support this amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Biacco. I actually think that the discussion here further supports some of my initiatives and why this person or why a chief analytical person is so essential here. During many of the amendments that I presented today, we had questions about what we did this before or what can we do now. I think that is exactly the question. We need somebody to come in and say, here's what you can do. Somebody who knows and is very experienced and timely approaches and timely options to say, hey, you guys have been doing this a long time and you've been doing it well and you've been doing it the same way. How about consider this and this will get you to this point and to that point. I think that's exactly what we need and I think this type of person is consistent with the amendments that I presented today that were designed to expand on what we're doing. I think it's time for us to up our game here and that's just having personnel that supplements and adds to the good work that we're already doing is, I don't see a downside to that. I appreciate that. Can I reclaim some of your time? Just, I want to relay an anecdote that I had in a, it was a public meeting yesterday with consumer reports and it's sort of echoing another criticism that I've heard and this gets back to one of Emery's earlier questions about sort of applications here. The specific gripe was that when we send staff to participate in the voluntary standards process that different staff interprets the same data inconsistently and I think having somebody that comes with a strong analytics background to help standardize sort of what our insights are and what the correct way to look at a large data set to be able to comprehend any insights that might be gleaned. I think that standardization function would benefit that area as well. Thank you. Commissioner Buerkle, additional comment? I wanted to comment on that because I think it's an important point. Of course people are going to interpret data differently. That's, otherwise we'd all be sitting up here agreeing that here's the next five things we need to do. It's just, we look at things, whether it's a discipline or a person or a scientist or an academic, you look at things differently and you interpret things differently as evidenced by our OFR conversation earlier today. So I don't think you can have one person who reflects, I'll say, an interpretation of our data because that person isn't speaking for the commission. I mean, it gets, it's just very tricky. I'm not opposed to this, but it's just so important. And I keep hearing substantial staff input, reliant staff expertise. Well, we've got some other amendments that disregard staff's opinion, which concerns me greatly. So I do think it's important that staff is involved because what we don't want to do is have an organization where we're siloed, where we've got this person coming in who isn't working in concert with EXHR and making sure that EXHR is helping them and then it's a good symbiotic relationship. So I'll stop there, but I just, there's a lot of important points and issues that need to be ironed out with us. I think you raised some very good points. I'm glad that you did. I think if I may sort of paraphrase the knob of what you said at the outset that reasonable minds may differ with respect to the facts that they're presented in a data set. I think that to the extent where we as a commission can strive for consistency in our messaging, I think this would go a long way. And I think the specific value add that a chief analytics officer would be to help develop a consistent method of analysis that would help us get to a better place with respect to differing and potentially conflicting messaging. And I'm not calling out anything specific, but there's always the potential that, in the possibility that we can be clearer. Just have one additional question. So based on what you just said, does that mean then would there be a vote on what this person, if they're interpreting data with the commission, then look at it and make an agreement or make it an assessment about whether or not they agree and then that's the position we put forward. Again, there's just a lot of details that I would have concerns with. I think the specific answer is no. I think that the value out of this role and this individual would be that to the extent that we can help identify a consistent method of analysis that may result in consistent messaging. It may not. It may be a situation like we were talking about where reasonable minds disagree and see things differently. But I think it puts us in a better posture than we currently are, which is why I think this amendment's a good one. Additional comments and questions. If not, then we will take a vote. Commissioner Buerkle, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kay. Yes. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote yes. The amendment is unanimously agreed to additional amendments from Commissioner Feldman. I do have a few more. And again, I hope to get through these quickly. Feldman 2 is an amendment with respect to the IOT working group. It would continue the coordination that Chairman Buerkle began with our sister agencies on potential safety issues related to IOT. Specifically, it would insert on page 12 under the heading FY 2020 priority activities. It would amend bullet three in that list to read that the agency focus on potential safety issues with the Internet of Things and connected products through continued involvement with the multi-federal agency working group. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. We'll now turn to questions and comments. I support this amendment and the continuing encouragement of staff to stay involved in the multi-federal agency working group. I particularly appreciate Commissioner Feldman's amendment, but I also want to note the excellent work that has been done by Commissioner Kay and his staff in developing a comprehensive, very, very persuasive approach to best practices in dealing with the Internet of Things. So that's a great foundation from which to start. Commissioner Buerkle. Thank you. I too want to, I will support this amendment. I do want to commend our staff, particularly Patty Adair, who took a lead. And we're not just participating in the intergovernment agency work. We have been a leader in that work for a small agency with limited resources. Ms. Adair has done an outstanding job in leading all of the efforts, and so I am very glad to see we'll be voting on continuing those initiatives. And thank you for the shout out to Patty Adair. I am embarrassed that I didn't do that as well. Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Feldman, so the, your amendment would strike the third bullet on page 12 correct under FY 2020 priority. It would alter. It wouldn't strike it. And substitute in your language. Yes, sir. So is it intent, so currently in the staff draft, bullet three reads as follows, continue focus on potential safety issues with Internet of Things slash connected products by developing a best practices guidelines. So is it, is your intent to strike the staff work associated with developing the guidelines? I want to know more about the guidelines. I think this amendment would not preclude that work. I don't know what those best practice guidelines would look like. I imagine that they would look very similar to a white paper that you worked on. I think it would be important to solicit additional input and to have a more deliberative process at the agency so that the commission can express its views on exactly what those best guidelines look like. But that's my thoughts in the intent of the amendment. Got it. Okay, so I think it's fantastic that Dr. Midgein in my office took the lead and drafted what is now almost a year old best practices. But I don't, I'm not comfortable with that being the current word of the agency so to speak. I'd much rather staff and the agency speak. And so if you were adding a bullet to continue work with the working group, I'd be totally supportive of that but I'm not supportive of taking away the staff's work on best practices because if they're ready to do it, then, and I think it can certainly be done in the type of process you're talking about but if they're ready to do it, I don't know why we would hold them back. So unfortunately I can't support it as much. I understand. Additional comments and questions? Oh, I'm sorry. I support this amendment. I think it's consistent with the initiatives I have and it comp, it complements many of the amendments that I put forward today and that were adopted. So you have my vote on this. We got to call on you, I apologize. Commissioner Burkle in addition. No, that's not true. I just have one other comment to make with regards to this, I do believe that NIST along with our staff's help and all of the intergovernment agencies has just recently published IOT best practices but I'd have to be sure of that but I'm fairly sure that the work that we've done and have continued to do and I see Dwayne Boniface nodding. I think that that is correct. NIST has published best practices with the internet of things. So this has been taken to a higher level with the input of our staff, I believe. Thank you. Additional comments and questions? I didn't want to have to say something but I guess without having seen the NIST guidance, my concern and there were a number of best practices that have been considered when Dr. Midget undertook his work. The issue was they weren't specific to our issues and that's my concern. If it turns out that NIST has completely covered the field and I'd be surprised because I don't know why staff would have this in here if that were the case but if that's the case fantastic but I still hope that we would not lose sight of staff providing some work product in this area. Thank you. Additional comments and questions? I know she didn't mean it this way but I don't consider NIST to be the higher level. I figure that they're an agency on par with CPSC. All I said was they published findings with their part of the intergovernment agency group and to Commissioner Kay's point, his document is not the only document out there. There's a lot of work being done here and our staff has been a very vital part of it. I do seem to recall when we had the hearing on the internet of things, there were a number of groups that walked in with best practices so there are lots of best practices and so I hope the staff continues its work on best practices. Additional comments and questions? If not, we'll call a vote. Commissioner Berkel, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kay. No. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote yes. The votes are four to one. The amendment passes. Commissioner Feldman, additional amendments please. Yes, sir. Feldman three is an amendment addressing emerging hazards. It would improve staff's ability to participate in the standards development process for emerging technologies including on connected products, wearables, 3D printing and others. It's a simple amendment on page 14 in the bullet under the paragraph titled 13327 emerging hazards. It would be amended by inserting the words as directed by the commission after including work on voluntary standards development. One of the criticisms and concerns that I've heard is that when our staff is deployed to participate in standards development organizations, they do not always feel empowered to speak on behalf of the commission or to offer views that carry as much weight as if it was directed by the commission. And therefore I think this is an amendment that would improve the ability of the commission to operate in consultation with staff and to have a little bit more input on the SDO process that's contemplated in the current plan. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Then we turn to questions and comments. I intend to support this amendment. I don't believe that it calls for a mandatory commission approval of voluntary standards amendments. I think what you're saying is to the extent the commission can add its voice to voluntary standards amendments. That will help and I fully agree with that. So I am supportive of that. Commissioner Buerkle, questions or comments? Thank you. I guess my first question would be how would this work? Standards development organizations are just that. They're making the sausage process. So we're gonna send our staff in after consultation with the commission with a position and that's their position. I don't understand how this is gonna be, how this would ever work. It would work in that it would provide an opportunity for some oversight and input by the commission to be able to spell out with some better specificity what the agency's position is, specifically with respect to the emerging hazards that are contemplated in the current operating plan under item 13327. What it would do is make sure, harkening back to the conversation that we were just having, make sure that particularly where there are various competing best practices and guidance documents that exist among different federal agencies, different industry groups that are messaging be as consistent and clear as it possibly can. And I think whenever there's an opportunity to better involve the commission in these kinds of decision making positions and direction setting, that's a good thing. That's why I introduced the amendment and that's why I hope you'll support it. So again, we're talking about standard development and these standard development committees work countless hours trying to figure it out based on data we provide and based on input that we have, but it is a consensus standard. And so that is the nature, that's what our statute requires, a consensus standard. And so for us to go in there with a predetermined position, I can't understand how this would work. I mean, if we take tip overs or we take, just pick one voluntary standards committee and just maybe run through how this would work, how we would let staff know. And what if, for instance, and we saw this very clearly here with the Ops planner, disagreements and agreements and discussions, what if three commissioners favor one position and two commissioners favor another? How does that staff person go in there and reconcile that position to the standards body, to the standard bodies organization? I mean, I just, I don't understand how this could work. May I ask that you yield to me for just a few seconds? Yes, sir. I actually think this is a good idea and I think we've done it on numerous occasions and I would cite tip overs, I would cite window coverings and I would cite ROVs as instances in which the commission sent a strong consensus to standards development bodies and said this is what we're looking for. Now they're free to reject that, but I think that's a perfectly appropriate, if not commendable approach for this commission to take. But that's a very different position than saying to staff, this must be your position versus sending a message to the entire body. And so I don't understand how that could work. Why do we empower our standards development officer? Why do we empower, we just hired a deputy because you wanted the standards development group and that to continue their good work and to make sure that Patty Edwards who does a great job, that she has what she needs and now we're gonna take back some of the authority and the ability for staff to apply their expertise, not our expertise, we have the ability, the statute says if a voluntary standard and a consensus standard addresses the hazard and there's substantial compliance, then we don't have any recourse. However, we can always start mandatory rulemaking. So I think this is not a good thing. I don't understand the inconsistencies when it comes to staff. I just heard for two positions, we're gonna get the experts, tease from staff, we're gonna work with staff, make sure we have what they need. And now we're saying staff, sorry, you have to adopt the commission's position and go back and you have to, whether you believe it or not, whether you're a scientist, whether you're an expert on whatever it is data you're looking for, you have to do what we're telling you to do. I think that is nonsensical. I'm gonna permit Commissioner Feldman to respond. I do have some personal responses. I don't view the two as inconsistent. Again, without telling Commissioner Feldman what his amendment is, I can tell you how I interpret it. I don't think this is taking back authority from the commission. I think what this is doing is enhancing the authority of the staff when they go to participate in a voluntary standards proceeding. Excuse me, and when they're reaching a consensus, that means the consensus from stakeholders. I think the commission is a worthy stakeholder. So the more I think about it, the more supportive of it I am, but we may just have a different understanding of what voluntary standards process is about. Additional comments? Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can only just obviously speak for myself to address Commissioner Berkel's concerns with the perceived inconsistency. At least the way I look at it is that if it's a policy call by the commission, we take into consideration staff's technical expertise. We take into consideration outside expertise, comments, what have you, but ultimately we're charged with making that policy call. And sometimes we agree with staff's policy recommendations. Sometimes we don't. On the hiring issue, I think that's totally different because there are areas of human resource issues, as I mentioned, facilities issues, legal obligations, things. There's no way we would ever have the insight into and I wouldn't want to create an issue without letting staff lead that effort and help enlighten us as to what all of those concerns are. And they go well beyond that. They go into very legitimate issues of people's feeling of their own turf and how people have to work together. And I think that it's unfair for staff when it primarily affects their workspaces and their working arrangements to not take into consideration their views. That's just how I distinguish the two. I support the amendment. Thank you. Any additional comments or questions? If not. In I go. A big part. I'm sorry. I'm gonna get a complex up here. Sorry about that. I'm gonna get a buzzer. You can get a fly swatter or a stick. Either one will work. Sorry, I apologize. That's okay. I'm so quiet over here. I gotta tell you, I'm conflicted on this one. I don't know how to vote on this one and I'll tell you why. On one hand, I support the opportunity to involve the commission more. I think the commission, I certainly want to be more involved and more hands-on. I think all of us bring something to the table and a perspective. I have the same concerns that Commissioner Berkele does. I can't picture how this would work. And I'm sitting here trying to come up with ways of what I see. And here's where I am. So I've been a long-time proponent of, I don't like how long voluntary standards take. And so I've been a proponent of, look, if you can't come up with a voluntary standard that works, we're gonna help you out here. The problem is, the way we approach it right now, we don't have a position before the voluntary standard. We wait for it to fail and that takes a long time and the consumers suffer before we come up with the mandatory rulemaking going forward. So it would be great to have a participant at a voluntary standards meeting saying, look, you guys better come up with something because if you don't, this is where the commission's prepared to go. I think that could speed things up. And I see that as a positive thing. On the other hand, I can see the commission's position and direction to interfere with a consensus standard that might otherwise be reached. So it's the voluntary standards development part that I'm struggling with. Can you help me out on this one? I don't believe that the direction that the commission provides necessarily needs to be particularly prescriptive one way or the other or outcome determinative. The direction may be, and keep in mind that this is limited to a number of specific potential standards development activities with respect to emerging hazards. It's important to look at this amendment in the specific context that it exists within the text as it's been presented for us for consideration. The direction could be, just to the extent that the commission is approving participation on a particular emerging hazard or identifying an emerging hazard that may not particularly be receiving sufficient attention from staff and sort of directing staff to go ahead and participate. And not handcuffing staff one way or the other. Do we need this language to do that? I don't think we necessarily, this language is useful to that extent in that it's another touch point that the seventh floor has in terms of providing input and direction to the activities of staff with respect to voluntary SDOs. How does this square with, I mean, I've sat in on some of the calls and have spoken up and my staff's like, no, no, how does that square with commissioners not participating? I don't think this would apply to commission or this would apply to staff's participation. But if we give, if we direct, if the commission directs the staff, isn't that just a proxy for us participating? I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition on commission or participation. And the others. But okay, I mean, I'm just, like I said, I'm conflicted. I do want to put in language that gets the commission more involved. I think we need to be more involved. And I do think, I agree with you, I hear this all the time that they feel a staff often feels that they're not empowered and they don't know what to do. And giving them more direction, I think is really important. Just not sure this is the, this does it. I'm just not sure. Okay. If I might, I would refer folks to the commission's regulation on participation and voluntary standards. And I'm looking at 1031.15, which specifically contemplates staff participating in and communicating commission positions on technical matters that are substantive in nature. There's some restrictions on how they do it without appropriate authority within their group. But that does contemplate that the commission would do that. And I must also say that we have a provision in our statute that I hate that requires us before we can issue a mandatory standard to examine the world of voluntary standards. And if we determine there's one that is adequate and is substantially complied with, we must rely on that. And we cannot write a safety standard to say that we should have a hands-off approach under those conditions to me is really limiting and tying the commission's hands. So again, the more I think about it, the stronger I feel in support of it. Additional comments? I don't think anyone is suggesting a hands-off approach. I think this is a complete juxtaposition with the authority we gave staff a few years back to be able to vote and take a leadership position. I don't know how we reconcile that in this. And on Commissioner Feldman's ninth amendment, we just approved a chief analytics officer. Maybe that's the person that needs to be interacting with staff and helping them with the voluntary standards development. That person is gonna be charged with looking over the horizon and identifying emerging hazards. This body is not equipped to do that. That's why we're saying here we need this analytics, this chief analytics officer. What we get into with the commission is policy. What the staff is involved with and the development of voluntary standards has to do with data and the information we get through all of our sources of data. That's how the staff operates. It's up to the commission after they do what they're gonna do to talk to them about policy. We get a V-STAR report quarterly that lays out if the commission looks at that. V-STAR report, it's a document that thick from Patty Edwards. Here's what the staff's doing on is we don't like what they're doing. We met quarterly with Patty Edwards to hear what the voluntary standards coordinator had to say, what staff was doing. Every time we get a public calendar, it's in there, what staff is doing, how they're working with the voluntary standards. There's all sorts of way for us to be involved and to be paying attention and we certainly should be. But I think at that level, it's not a policy question in the voluntary standards organization. At this level, it is policy. At that level, it's data in the interpretation of data. Additional comments or questions? If not, then we will vote. Commissioner Burkle, how do you vote on this? No. Commissioner Kay? Yes. Commissioner Biakko. I think I'm gonna go with it and see how it works. I think it still will be limited to the boundaries of the voluntary standards rule in 16 CFR 1031. I would like to see the commission get more involved because I didn't have the benefit other than seeing the public calendar or what was going on. So let's see how it works and if it's not working, I would rely on my colleagues and myself to step up and say this isn't working and we're not going to do it. But let's give it a try. I'm gonna err on that side, yes. We'll take that as a yes with an explanation. Commissioner Feldman? I vote yes. And I vote yes, so that is a four yes and one no. The amendment passes. Additional amendments, Commissioner Feldman? Feldman four is another burden reduction amendment and keeping in mind that we just passed earlier Commissioner Biakko's seventh amendment. I've made some slight amendments, modifications to my amendment to make sure that they're consistent. So this amendment would provide for a more robust burden reduction than it's currently called for in the OPLAN. It reads that on page 18, the burden reduction paragraph is further amended to read as follows, that this project provides funding for ongoing efforts towards potentially providing meaningful reduction of third-party testing costs of children's products, among other things. And then striking the first sentence, that it would further read, also CPSC staff will review comments received, including but not limited to comments received in response to the June 16th, 2017 RFI on potentially reducing regulatory burdens without harming consumers and develop recommendations for commission consideration. So this is a narrow light touch amendment that opens the door for agency consideration of additional burden reduction items without specifying them. It would be consistent within the allocations that are associated with the OPLAN as it's currently existed, but it would provide some additional flexibility for the agency to address something here or there should it come up during the course of the operating plan being in effect. Is there a second? Second. Okay, thank you. We'll now turn to questions and comments. I am going to reluctantly oppose this if it were simply the first sentence that says that we'll provide a briefing package with final recommendations for potential determinations of manufactured fibers. That's on page nine of the, I'm sorry. All right, I was talking. Oh, okay. If this is absolutely consistent with what's already in the OPLAN, so I don't really see a need for that, but that I wouldn't oppose. It's this additional work where I don't know quite what the resources to be dedicated to it are. And because I don't know what those additional resources would be, I'm going to oppose it. Commissioner Birkel. I have no questions. Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Commissioner Velma, I just want to make sure I heard you right. I think you said that when you said that it was a light touch, that your intent is not to require any additional staff months taken from anywhere else. Did I understand that correctly? That's correct. Okay, because my understanding, and I hate to pull Mr. Ray back up here, but when we asked this question yesterday of staff, the answer we received was that it would take three to five additional staff months. So I would need to reconcile those two, because obviously that's an important difference in allocation. I understand that concern. I think it's difficult to state with specificity, specificity exactly what the staff allocation would be, because it doesn't specifically call out any particular burden reduction activity. I think that staff has already reviewed the comments that are associated with that 2017 RFI, but this would put that in play should there be additional recommendations for consideration, but it would also open the door within the universe of burden reduction opportunities that the commission might consider during the out plan. I guess we're sort of back where we were before the different amendment. If you're willing to have language in here reflect that there's, it would not require additional staff time than what staff's already dedicating to this particular line, then I'm fine with it because it's resource neutral, but if staff believes that this definitively as written develop recommendations for commission consideration in particular cannot be resource neutral, then I unfortunately cannot support it. Additional questions, comments? I'm comfortable if you've got language that you'd like to add to this that makes this resource neutral. Consistent with what we did on Bianco seven. Commissioner Bianco additional comments, questions. I would not view this as being consistent with the commissioner of Bianco amendment seven. If we were to conform it to what commissioner case calling for, I'd be supportive of it, but to the extent that it would require additional resources I'm opposed to it. So I think we'd have to have some clear understanding that this must stay within existing resources. I mean, I guess, sorry, may I proceed? Yes, please. I would then suggest as a friendly amendment, I guess that at the end it would say after develop recommendations for commission consideration, comma within existing planned resources for this project. If the rest of the, if a majority of the commissioners support that language then I'm comfortable with it. So it would, I don't look, I would perhaps the best way to proceed would be to take a vote on your friendly amendment. If that passes, we'll vote on the underlying amendment as amended. If it doesn't pass, we'll rely on the, we'll take an underlying vote on the language as introduced. May I just see clarification from Mr. Ray that if we made that change that it would be understood that they would not have to provide any additional resources. I'm not fully tracking on that. I can just say this, we did not plan to do this activity. So we don't have planned resources currently and what we put with anything associated with this. With those activities that are prescribed here. I'm sorry, would you yield for a second? Absolutely. I'm looking at page nine, which says burden reduction, burden reduction manufactured fibers. That's already in the out plan. And it's so if we were to say a briefing package with final rule recommendations for potential determinations for manufactured fibers and the rest of it is encompassed within existing resources then I think I would be supportive. But are you saying that we've dedicated all the resources that might be dedicated to this for the manufactured fibers package? Anything above that in terms of reviewing comments received would require additional resources, not programmed? Yes. Okay, thank you. Then I would withdraw my attempt to cure it and unfortunately have to stay opposed but I appreciate the consideration commissioner Feldman and thank you Mr. Ray. And I also expressed my appreciation. That's one of the things that I appreciate the commission doing today is being so flexible and open-minded and I think that's a great example. With that, are there additional questions or comments? If not, then we'll vote. Commissioner Berkel, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kay. No. Commissioner Biakko. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote no. There are three yeses that passes. Commissioner Feldman, do you have additional amendments? Yes, I do. Yes. Feldman five is again a relatively straightforward amendment that I believe is consistent with where the agency currently is with respect to CNPPA enforcement but the amendment would prioritize enforcement of the child nicotine poison prevention act. As drafted, it emphasizes the removal of non-compliant product in the marketplace consistent with the congressional intent behind the statute. It would not however in my view preclude the agency from conducting a consumer level recall if necessary. The amendment would on page 22 under the paragraph about 2020 priority activities, insert the following language that it's a priority to quote enforce the child nicotine poison prevention act including removal of non-compliant liquid nicotine containers from commerce. Thank you. Is there a second? Okay, need a second. Okay, thank you. Okay. Questions or comments? I have no questions or comments. I intend to support the amendment and appreciate commissioner Feldman's very, very hard work and dedicated approach to this. Commissioner Feldman, I just have a question you mentioned at the end with regards to including removal of non-compliant liquid nicotine from consumers. From commerce. From commerce. And so you didn't, and so what does that mean? I mean more than what we're doing right now. It would be my intent that this places an emphasis on the compliance activities to focus in crafting corrective action plans that it focus on actually removing the product from commerce. Now I could drill down on that a little bit more to cure I think with the issue that you're getting at. It's possible, and we've seen situations where a potential remedy is to modify existing product to come into compliance. Particularly when we're talking about situations where it's the specific incidents of non-compliance is failure to adhere with the flow restrictor requirements where you could retroactively put a flow restrictor into the product. As I read that, and it's maybe a subtle or legal point the act of modifying the product would therefore make it non-compliant and therefore wouldn't be subject of the kinds of things. It would have in effect either make it non-compliant or effectively remove a non-compliant product from commerce. Or would make it compliant. Yes, it's been a long day. Commissioner Merkel, please. So you're just talking about continuing what we're doing that it's been a priority. We've got, I think compliance did an extraordinary job of putting together a compliance plan. I know that some files have already been referred to general councils and working on that. So I'm not sure other than just a statement saying this is important work and we're gonna continue doing it as an agency. Well, it hasn't always been a priority, but I think we've made under your leadership some important strides forward. I think including this as a priority activity in 2020 would be an important safeguard to continue the forward progress that we've made thus far. No other questions, thank you. Other questions or comments? Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So there could be daylight between what you said removal of non-compliant liquid and nicotine containers from commerce, including consumer level recall, which I think you said, and doing what we're doing now. Just so I understand, you just are basically saying all of our normal remedies for recalls are on the table. Yes, sir. No more, no less. Okay, wait, that's the intent and I'm comfortable with this, thank you. Thank you. Additional questions or comments? No, I actually looked at her and she shook her head, so it was all unspoken, but it was very strong communication. But thank you for that. Record, Bob, for the record. No, no, for the record. So hearing no additional questions or comments, in particular, especially from Commissioner Bianco, can we move to a vote? I now call for the vote. Commissioner Buerkle, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kay. Yes. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote yes. The motion is unanimously carried. Commissioner Feldman, do you have additional amendments? Feldman Six is an amendment dealing with the Office of Compliance Organization. The purpose of the amendment would be to restore the children's product defect team within the Office of Compliance. There's currently a perception that the agency is not doing enough in terms of enforcement efforts with respect to children product defects. We've been criticized in the media on this front and by Congress for the decision to disband this team. I'll admit, I don't fully understand the decision to disband this team and I'm aware that staff opposes the amendment. But again, I don't claim to understand that I fully understand the rationale but behind the decision. The purpose of the amendment as it's drafted would be to layer some additional, wouldn't be to layer additional bureaucracy within the Office of Compliance but to add some additional clarity and accountability to the process by making sure that we have a team that's dedicated to this type of compliance and enforcement that's identified, known and understood. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. We'll now move to consideration of the amendment. As a first point, I want to mention that this is not an amendment that the staff supports. The staff is concerned that this will send the wrong signal in terms of how the staff in compliance is organized. I am absolutely sensitive to the concerns that staff has raised. The reason that I am cautiously and reluctantly supporting this is that I do think it's a good idea to send a strong signal to the world that CPSC's concern for children in particular of getting dangerous toys out of the market remains strong. I also note that this is asking staff to send us a plan for consideration. It may be when I see the plan I will decide that this is ill advised and I may oppose it. But I do think that Commissioner Feldman makes a very good point in terms of what the signal is that we send to our stakeholders and to the public at large. So very cautiously I would support this. Commissioner Burkle. Thank you. I guess my first question is since when does this agency organize, act, react to perception and to criticism? That is not what we do. We are a data-driven agency and we look at our priorities. What we're doing here today, we're establishing our priorities just because someone in the media criticized, do they even know what the whole compliance reorg entailed? Do they even know that a lot of thought, not under my leadership, it began when Commissioner Kay was chairman, the reorganization began. And it continued on. This is staff, we hire staff, we hire a compliance director who we rely on to look at the organization within compliance and to say to us, this isn't working. I need to reorganize. And it was done with a tremendous amount of thought and input and working with the executive director's office and Mr. Ray who is overseas, a compliance and for us to just say, nope, there was something critical of that in the newspaper, so we're gonna change course. We'll be knee-jirking around. I just am dumbfounded that that would be the impetus for us to change. Who says we're not dealing with child defects? Where is that? Just because where it's not called the child defects unit, how does that even wrap your head around the Consumer Products Safety Commission not tending to children's products? What was identified in the restructure was that we're gonna look at it a different way and the way it was set up created a lot of work. It was not a good balance of work for the staff to do. The complete reorganization of compliance was to modernize compliance and to have it be more efficient. I just am adamantly opposed to this and it is the commission reaching down into staff and their expertise and again, undermining when we hire someone and the compliance director requires a commission vote, we are relying on them to put their best foot forward and to give us their best recommendation for us how this agency is gonna run. And I just feel like I am, there was an article and it said, given the child defects, who even was that someone in the agency who was maybe a little disgruntled who said that? That is not and should not be the impetus for this organization and this body to act. Can I respond? Please. I agree that CPSC is an agency-derven organization, at least it attempts to be. The intent and the justification behind the amendment isn't in response to any one particular piece of criticism, but rather taking into account that that criticism is indicative of what I believe to be a larger perception that we're not doing enough in terms of enforcement on children's products defects. I think that this amendment would go a long way to underscoring our commitment to that as a specific and important class of products. I think that we all agree that the defects involving fatalities warrant the highest level of agency attention and as a subset of those, those defects involving child fatalities rise perhaps even more to the top of where we should be placing our priorities, although not exclusively. I think that this is a good amendment because it signals and underscores our commitment here. I don't think it would be particularly disruptive to the way compliance currently operates, but that's why I introduced it. Thank you. Commissioner Birkel, additional questions or comments? I just, again, I wanna just go back to number one, we have a regulatory side of the house and most children's products are strictly regulated. And I think we've had a great deal amount of success in forcing the statute in making sure children's products are compliant with those regulations and when they are not, we deal with them. When there is a defect, and I will say children, we always talk about the most vulnerable population and we pay the closest attention to that. Children's products have always been a priority for this agency, but to question a reorganization that just occurred that hasn't even had a chance to play out in full, we haven't even completed the hiring to put this plan into action, into complete action, it just undermines any faith that we're supposed to have in staff. And I vehemently opposed to this, I think it sends the very wrong message. Thank you, Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not an amendment I would have offered and I do understand both what Commissioner Feldman's getting at and I also very much understand Commissioner Burkle's concerns. It's a choice that I wish I did not have to make because I think that there are underlying areas for improvement that I think Commissioner Feldman's getting at that I think we could all agree on and so this is not the way I would go about doing it, but if presented with the status quo or having an opportunity to continually seek improvement, which is I feel like what I'm being presented with here, I would very reluctantly vote for this amendment in the name of trying to seek improvement and hope that there is wiggle room going forward to try to unpack some of the areas that the Commission might wanna see continued improvement on and see if there's some flexibility to get there in a way that's consistent with the way staff believes it should be organized. Commissioner Biakko. I think one of the, I don't completely, I understand both sides as well and I don't have the benefit of staff's position on this in detail, I think part of the problem is the Commission was not, we did not vote on the reorganization and so maybe some of these things could have been avoided if the Commission had input at that time, but I think given all the projects that were mentioned today and added and so forth, I would choose to take the resources that would be used here to have a plan that might not go through anyway and apply those resources to something else. That's, it's not to say that I don't agree and I'm not sure, like I said, how this came out or if it, I'm not even convinced that it would help do any more than we're already doing or it would. I just don't know enough and if my choice is to support another plan when I'm hearing, we don't have the resource for this and we don't have the resource for that, I think I'd like to relieve staff here and give them some breathing room if you could call it that to work on some of the other projects. So that would be the only reason I wouldn't support it. Additional comments. I just want to add that Commissioner Berkel, you make a very, very compelling case. You haven't convinced me to change my vote, but I promise that I will look with a great deal of concern and caution on any plan that the staff would submit to us. Additional questions or comments, if not, we'll take a vote. I want to add to my comments and that is all I'm asking this body to do is give the reorganization a chance. The organization, the reorg, has not even been fully implemented and we're sitting here, how do we know it's not working? Because the Washington Post told us there's no nothing to substantiate that the new structure isn't working. And we sit here and we just say, oh, well, someone said that so we're gonna believe it. Rather than relying on staff, give this reorg a chance. Give this reorg an opportunity to be fully implemented, that compliance gets fully up to staff. I know you've got concerns because of the numbers of staff. Give it a chance to play out. And given this amendment, I'm sure there will be, I don't even have to say this, because I know staff puts children's products and the defects at the top of their priority list. This is, I find this insulting to staff and it's just premature. It's premature because the plan hasn't been fully implemented. And I'm imploring my colleagues, give this reorg a chance before you deem it unsuccessful. And in a year from now or six months from now, revisit it. But in the meantime, don't disrupt a plan that hasn't even been given a chance. I find that just so troubling. May I be heard? Yes. Hearing those concerns and criticisms, I think I'm gonna withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that very much. And I think we all appreciate the openness. And I think for those who are watching and think that everything's cast in concrete when we come to meetings, the fact is that people listen to one another and they are moved by strong, powerful arguments, I think is really commendable. I would just add that I do think that it's important to work with the Office of Compliance. And that's one of the big priority areas I have for moving forward, is that we do a very careful look at compliance in particular the resources that we dedicate to compliance. So I appreciate that Commissioner Feldman doing that and do you have additional amendments? I do. Feldman seven is an amendment that deals with e-commerce modernization. The amendment would implement a number of staff's proposals that are currently in the operating plan with respect to e-commerce and the import surveillance that Mr. Jiholsky's team is currently conducted. It's a more narrowly targeted amendment that on page 28 under the FY 2020 priority activities that bullet six is amended to insert the language and proposed to the commission for implementation after the word determined. That's getting at a number of the recommendations that the import surveillance team excess is currently tasked with making determinations about. It would make that more of an action item or oriented priority activity in terms of contemplating a work product for commission consideration. Is there a second for that amendment? Second. Thank you. I have no questions or comments. Commissioner Burkle. I have no comments or questions. I thank Commissioner Feldman for offering the amendment. Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I plan to support it and I appreciate the refining it down to a more specific deliverable. I always think that's a better idea. Commissioner Villaco. Thank you as well. Commissioner Feldman, I do support this one. I think this goes along with a lot of my initiatives. So thank you for presenting it. Okay. At this point, we will take a vote. Commissioner Burkle, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kay. Yes. Commissioner Villaco. Yes. And Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote yes. The amendment is unanimously approved. Commissioner Feldman. Last but not least, Feldman 8 is an amendment dealing with the Office of Communications. The amendment would improve commission oversight of the Office of Communications by requiring our communications team to provide information to the commission to substantiate the safety claims of official agency communications. On page 34, under the Office of Communications priority activities paragraph, it would insert at the appropriate place the following language that upon request by any commissioner, the Office of Communications provide timely updates to the commission, including information to support any safety claim made in OCM press releases, social media posts, safety campaigns, and other external communications. Thank you for that. Is there a second? Second. At this point, we will consider it and ask questions. This one gives me pause. It makes me nervous, especially as it was originally proposed, but even as it's been revised. The one thing I don't wanna do is have our communication staff paralyzed under requirement for incredible documentation. To me, this permits staff to say we talked to technical staff and technical staff has said the following things, and therefore that's a justification for issuing communication messages. I think this is a perfectly fine amendment in the sense that I find it hard to remember any instances in which the Office of Communications did not have technical documentation when it issued press releases or made social media posts. So to the extent this is a reminder of the need to do that, I'm fine. I would be strongly opposed to this if this somehow required the Office of Communications to pause while a commissioner asked to review whatever release there is gonna be made, but it's certainly something that it does call for if a commissioner is concerned to contact the Office of Communications and have explained to them what the documentation is behind the issuance of a press release. Specifically on that point of whether it would require a pause, I don't believe that it would. That's why the language is crafted specifically to require OCM to provide timely updates. And I really appreciate that clarification, Commissioner Buerkle. Thank you. I have a couple of questions, and I'm not sure it may be useful at some point to go through before OCM to go through the process OCM follows before a press release goes out, before a tweet goes out, before anything is done, that six B clearance, that so many eyes are laid on that document and conversations and communication with EXHR, with EPI, with compliance, so that the information that's going out is not the opinion of OCM, but rather as close to the facts as we can get. And I think just practically speaking, if this were to pass, so let's, I don't know, just take an issue, the press release goes out and it alleges that there are so many incidents. Well, I would pick up the phone and I'd call EPI or I'd call the EXHR, I probably would call Mr. Ray, and say how many incidents, me as a commissioner, trying to verify this? Well, that's what OCM does. They're not gonna put out anything that isn't cleared. Now, whether the commission agrees with it, the way that they agree with how it is phrased, that's a different issue. But I just wanna make it really clear that OCM does not act on their own. They act in concert with EXHR, specifically with EPI, but with, I'm looking at Mr. Boniface, but all of the teams with compliance, with the executive director and with general counsel to make sure when we utter a word out of this agency, it's appropriate and it isn't a violation of six B and it's as accurate as it can be. So I don't even understand what the purpose of this is other than to get the background information which we could pick up the phone ourselves and call or I would guess it'll be available. And I'm very glad to hear that it will not hold up the dissemination of information and that's, I just wanna clarify that point because otherwise nothing will go out. It would not. And to tie it back to the conversation that we started today off having about OFRs, on your amendment we had a fairly in-depth discussion about the importance that the information that the agency communicates be accurate. The agency credibility is such a fragile thing that I think this amendment helps create some additional safeguards to make sure that the safety claims that we are communicating to the public in fact are accurate and substantiated. I don't disagree with that but the problem is the commission doesn't have that information. We have to reach out to the very people who are informing OCM and providing them with the information. Again, we may not agree with it but the information that OCM is putting out is consistent with what EXHR, with epidemiology, with compliance, whether it's incidents or anything else. And so I just don't understand, we don't have that expertise. We will rely on staff and that's exactly what OCM does. Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that that's really all Commissioner Feldman's asking is just to have access to the information and to whoever had come up with whatever the justification is to provide that, not before it goes out but at some point just to inform any individual commissioner what the basis is for any recommendation to Commissioner Burkle's point, it shouldn't be an issue because the work is already happening in many instances and so I don't know why it would cause any more work than if even without this amendment and you picked up the phone and you said, hey, I noticed you suggested in a recent tweet that on product X, the proper way to handle it is to do the following steps, where do we get that from? They should be able to answer any commissioner's request and so all this is doing is putting in writing what I think should already be a practice that should be followed. I do appreciate Commissioner Feldman your flexibility in working with my office to modify the language a little bit to make sure there's that flexibility and that there is not a belief on staff's part that they have to draft an entire white paper to provide that information, so I plan to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Additional questions or comments? If not, oh, I'm sorry, I'm telling you, Bob, you're starting to worry me. I think it's giving us both a complex, it's me a bigger one so I humbly apologize. Thank you. I actually think this is a much needed amendment. The commission or the communications department speaks on behalf of the agency and not on behalf of the communications department and I think this, I don't think OCM should have access to information that the commission doesn't have or have access to. I think that this amendment is designed to put in writing a practice that allows the commission to exercise oversight over these messages to ensure they're appropriate and that is our job. I think that these messages, if there's a question, we should be able to raise it and I think that clearing these statements by OCM for 6B by someone other than the commission does not thrill me in the least so I'm supportive of this. I'm nervous about even calling for additional questions and comments but are there additional questions and comments? I have one question to Commissioner Feldman. What does provide timely updates mean exactly? Are you, I guess I would ask for what is, what are you looking for in that term? I think the more important piece of language there is information but it's my expectation and hope that the updates would be to provide a record about the facts, data, other information, underlying and substantiating any particular safety claim that we may from time to time have a question about and by the process of putting together that record and memorialization and it doesn't have to be in the form of a memo or a white paper, it may well be sort of an informal communication in the form of a phone call but I think memorializing exactly what the substantiation is for any particular safety claim is an important step forward in making sure that this agency is held to the highest standards in terms of accuracy and accountability. I guess my concern and I just do wanna just address one point that Commissioner Biakko mentioned that OCM shouldn't have access to information that we don't have. We have access to any information that OCM has information. It's really a question of us picking up the phone and asking EXHR, do you agree with this number? Was this in consultation with or whatever the topic is that OCM is putting out? I think for me just generally I've seen a couple of amendments today and in particular this one and thankfully the withdrawn on the children's defects that was withdrawn but trusting staff and understanding there is a process. I mean with this amendment I would say why don't we all seek to understand what the process is first? How does OCM come up with their information? What is the process? Do they just go to their file and pull it or do they talk to and get checked for the most recent data and the most information and incidents and everything else relevant to whatever the issues? And I think we're sending a message to staff that we're questioning and undermining so much of what they're doing and that concerns me because this agency without the staff we're just decision makers. There who keeps, the staff is who keeps this agency running and that concerns me we're sending to them whether it's OCM or anyone else the wrong message and that's my concern with this amendment. Additional questions or comments? I do because I didn't have the same experience that you referred to Commissioner Buerkle. There was several times where I didn't get the information that I had requested or I got it after the information was released to the public and that isn't acceptable. And so I think that this is designed to address that and we are the decision makers and the buck stops with us. And so I do think we should take that role just as seriously as the staff takes their role to make sure that we're meeting all of the appropriate standards, rules, regulations and commission policies and we should be given the opportunity to ask for it and receive it in a timely manner. To clarify, but this is not saying that nothing can go out until it's this update and this information has been provided to the commission because I think I heard something different from Commissioner Buerkle. I don't read it that way. But it would provide accountability after the fact and perhaps leading up to the only sort of temporal qualifier in the language here is that the advice be timely. Sorry, not the advice, the updates and information. Okay, but it wouldn't preclude the information going out because I think the other thing we have to be careful of are staffs primarily but all of us witness the kinds of hours that went into just coming up with this ops plan and to try to reduce everything, every action this commission takes to a commission decision or commission input will paralyze this agency. It's certainly my hope that the OCM would not be putting out information and rushing to put out releases that contain unsubstantiated safety claims. That's why I introduced the amendment to provide accountability and a fail-safe safety check that we're able to exercise that much more insight and control as to the information that's underpinning safety claims that we make. And I would just reiterate because it's such an important point. I don't believe OCM operates that way. I don't believe anyone in the agency there is a very, very complicated. And for those who are on the chain who have to do the 6B review that goes through, they will attest to the fact that they're constantly reviewing information so that what we send out is fair and accurate. Yes, but not all safety information and claims that are made by OCM implicates 6B and go through the 6B review process. A lot of it does, a lot of it doesn't. I would just weigh in. I have to say that again, given my respect and affection and need for staff that I'm afraid this is sending a wrong signal to staff. And so you've persuaded me to switch my vote and so I'm prepared to do that. Are there additional questions or comments before the commission on this matter? Commissioner, I was terming out there, may I speak? Yeah, sure. I just wanted to say that I don't agree that it sends any kind of signal or at least it's intended to send a signal. It shouldn't change anything about existing practice. Every commissioner has the right to pick up the phone and say, hey, I saw you just put out a press release. It's not asking people to do a 6B review they haven't done. All it's saying is, hey, I'm not part of that process as a commission office. I see you made the following recommendation. Can you help me understand what the basis of that recommendation is? And so I'm not seeing it as anything other than a putting in writing what the commissioners are entitled to do now. And so it shouldn't change any practice. I am the only one on the dais who has sat on both sides of the 6B process. I did the 6B review when I was the executive director. I don't think we're talking about whether it's 35 incidents or 40 incidents. I think what we're talking about is when staff says for the following safety issue, we recommend you do the following things. I cleared plenty of those information and education pieces and a lot of times as ED, I would say, where did we come up with this idea? Like so we're suggesting that you take three safety steps in the following hazard scenario. Where did that come from? The same questions that any commissioner might wanna ask. The answers varied in the degree of specificity and substantiation anywhere from a group of us sat in a room and thought about it. And this is what we thought we should advise to we hired a contractor and they spent a year researching it and peer reviewing these solutions and this is what the contractor recommended. I don't think there's anything wrong with the commissioner asking to be better informed since we are on the hook for what the agency says. So I think it's part of the normal give and take between the commission offices and the staff. And if everything's working properly and staff has any at the back, I mean, OCM shouldn't wanna put out something that's not well justified. So I would think to commissioner Berkel's point, they're already doing that work. They should be happy to say thank you for the phone call. I'm glad we were able to get that release out. Here's why we said what we said, the commission office is then hopefully satisfied and we can move on to, and better educated and we can move on to the next issue. I think you're absolutely right. This, it is all of our credibilities and our collective credibility that's at stake if and when an unsubstantiated claim were to go out of the door. This would not to your question change existing practices, but that it would indicate clearly that it is a priority OCM's response to those commission driven inquiries for substantiation about safety claims and official releases. I certainly appreciate that thought. If it's not changing anything, then it feels like a scolding kind of amendment. And in this case, I would prefer an affirming amendment that says staff, you're doing a good job. Keep doing the same job you're doing. Additional comments or questions? If not, we'll take a vote. Okay, commissioner Kay, I'm excuse me, commissioner Berkel. How do you vote? No. Commissioner Kay. Without scolding intent, I vote yes. Okay. So we have to add that as an amendment to your vote. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote no without an explanation beyond that which I've given. So the amendment passes on a three to two vote. We have now reached a point where I think all amendments are on the table, except actually moving to vote on the op plan. And here's where I would make a suggestion that we take a 10 or 15 minute break before we actually have the vote on the op plan. And I just wanted to add that I would be prepared to provide a gold star to the shortest statement from any of the commissioners at the table with respect to the op plan. So at this point, we will take a 15 minute break. So one of the things that we have done and has circulated to the commission is a list of the amendments that have passed. This will not be absolutely categorically binding, but I'd ask if you would examine it for a few seconds to see if something that you believe failed past or something that passed is not on this list. Are we all comfortable with this list? This is not a cast in concrete list, but this is our best summary of what the votes have been. Any objections? Are there any other amendments or emotions at this point before we move to vote on the op plan? Having heard no further amendments or motions, I will now call for a motion to vote to approve the FY 2020 operating plan as amended. Do I hear a motion? I move to move the operating plan as amended. Thank you, and do we have a second? Thank you. Please note that each commissioner will have 10 minutes for closing remarks after the conclusion of all votes. Does anyone else wish to be heard before we vote on the operating plan as amended? Commissioner Burkle, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kaye, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Bianco, how do you vote? Yes, but I do not. Yes, but I do not intend to ratify the footnoted ombuds position as presented. Thank you with that qualifier. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? Yes. And I vote yes, so the yeas are four and the nays are one. The fiscal year 2020 operating plan as amended has been approved. We will now have up to 10 minutes per commissioner for any closing remarks, and I will begin. And let me start by apologizing profusely to Commissioner Bianco for consistently missing her during the proceedings. Please understand, there's nothing personal. It's just my own incredible incompetence. And so I beg your forgiveness on that. I want to thank the members of the commission for showing that when the Sunshine Act calls for public deliberation, we actually deliberated today. And I'm very proud of what we've done. I don't know if we set a world record for the length of commission meetings, but we certainly were certainly up there in the very top of commission meetings. And I think that the degree of cordiality was impressive. I think people disagreed without being disagreeable. And so I thank you all for that, that really commendable job. Of course, we have to thank the commission staff for all the hard work they put into the out plan. I don't think the fact that there were so many amendments in any way suggests there's any deficiency in the out plan. It just shows how engaged and how strong the feelings are of the commission, particularly the Duane's, Duane Ray and Duane Boniface, and Jay Hoffman and James Baker. Baker, thank you. And I also particularly want to thank the commissioners, personal staffs for extraordinary work behind the scenes. And I say that as somebody who was a special assistant for years and then was also a staff assistant on the Hill. You have no idea how much hard work went into this and how many meetings. And here, forgive me, I want to single out my chief of staff, Sarah Klein, hereafter known as the queen of collaboration, conciliation, and compromise. I think that this is a reflection of tremendous involvement to all the commissioners, staff. And I want to thank everybody for that. I hate many of the things that are agreed to in the amendments to the out plan. And I'm going to issue a statement with respect to one or two of the things that I hate. But I love the idea that we have come together, all of us swallowing amendments that we do not like and believe put the commission, at least in some respects, in a bad direction. But when the dust settles, I am very proud that we have approved an out plan and that the staff now has an understanding of steps forward. And with that, I have nothing further to say except again to thank all of my colleagues for their very hard work today. Commissioner Buerkle. Thank you very much. And I just want to echo Acting Chair's comments about my appreciation and thank you to the staff putting together the document and then being available for the multitude of questions that followed and the clarification and all of the work that you did. Thank you. What I said earlier, I truly mean the staff here at CPSC is a heart and soul of this agency. So thank you very much for all of your hard work. I also want to thank, again, as Acting Chair mentioned, our commission's staff spent hours and hours and hours in fish bowls and really worked very hard to get us to where we are today. And I also want to single out Jen Feinberg and Sarah Klein because they and Mo not only are they queen of collaboration and compromise but graphics. So I want to thank them for keeping all of the kittens in the box, doing what needed to get done to get us here today because it's very important this agency has an ops plan. And to Bob's point, I agree. I disagree. We've had some really robust good discussions up here. But at the end of the day, it's very, very important that we know what direction the agency is going to head in. And that's what this ops plan does today. I feel like this is my seventh ops plan, if you can imagine that. But I do feel like the agency is being left in a good place, a better place. And in the hands of Acting Chairman Adler, I want to wish him well, as well as all of my colleagues. And so I think that's all I have to say. I will be issuing a statement to Bob's point, just with regards to some of the things I loved and some of the things I don't love. So thank you very much. And I yield. Commissioner Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you as well to the commission, to the staff of the agency, as well as to our personal office staffs. And I agree completely with the comments that were made about Ms. Klein, Ms. Mefeinberg, and Ms. Kentoff, that just a tremendous job by your office. In seeing everything through, I will issue a formal statement or a longer statement to discuss the reasons for opposing the operating plan and what the big hurdles for me were. But instead of spending time on that what, I want to spend a little bit more time on a who. And when we all become put in positions of responsibility, we all feel like, and I think Commissioner Chairman Adler is going to do this right now, where you want to put your own touches on things. And when I became chair of the agency, one of the things that I wanted to do was to try to make the discussion of the dais a little bit more formal and go with titles and the proper names of the individual staffers who were before us. Not that there was anything wrong with the way that it had been done, but I felt like the agency should take that next leap forward and treat its staff in particular at a more formal level. So I've not, when I've discussed my colleagues at the dais talked about them in their first person form, but I do want to deviate from that practice for a moment and talk about Ann Marie. And when Ann Marie was appointed in July of 2013, I think it's safe to say that the commission at that point was not at its best in terms of how people got along at the commission level. And it broke down significantly along party lines as a result of the terrible slog of implementing the difficult issues that Congress punted to the agency in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. And that slog took its toll on the then commission at the time. And so there was a lot of distrust and bad will that existed along partisan lines. So when we got the names that we found out that Commissioner Berkel and Commissioner Robinson were approved, at that point I was the chief staff to Chairman Tendenbaum. And I did not ask her, which was actually not abnormal. I just went ahead and did something that I thought, even if she didn't want me doing, I knew she would be OK with in the end. And I called both Commissioner Robinson and Commissioner Berkel and left messages for both of them, explained to who I was, and offered the full assistance of the chairman's office, Chairman Tendenbaum's staff, and Chairman Tendenbaum in welcoming both Commissioner Robinson and Commissioner Berkel to the agency. And at that point, I remember that Ann Marie called me back and I think that it's fair to say that there is probably misconceptions about people's reputations and concerns about the agency's reputation and how people would get along at a partisan level. And so I credit Ann Marie for calling me back. And really, I don't know if she likes this admitted publicly, but I was pretty much her first staffer because that was before Nancy and before Caitlin. And really, Dottie, who's now Dottie Yard, then was Dottie Lee, who works for Commissioner Bayako. Dottie, who was Chairman Tendenbaum's, on Chairman Tendenbaum's staff with us, Dottie assisted with sort of the admin side of getting both offices off the ground. And I assisted with the trying to help with the substance. And I felt like my job was to be an honest broker. And actually, the out plan, I think, was coming up pretty soon after when you got here. And I remember sitting with Ann Marie, and we went through the issues, and that's where the famous phthalates moment happened, where I explained to Ann Marie how to pronounce it because I was concerned that if she didn't get some guidance, she would say phthalates. And so we talked about that. And I went through and I gave her a very candid assessment of the issues from both sides. And of the various stakeholders, sort of, who she would probably be more likely to find common ground with, who she could feel like was an honest broker on the other side, and how it all worked. And I think that that was important for establishing a foundation of us having that goodwill to work from. And I remember Ann Marie approved me becoming the executive director right before I Nez left. And then Ann Marie was one of the first people that I told that I was the nominee for chair. And I asked Ann Marie to come up to my office, the executive director's office, which is now Mary Boyle's office. And we sat around the table, and she had no idea why I wanted to see her. And she was on one side of the table when I was on the other. And when I told her, I don't know if you remember this, she said, yay me, and got up and came around and gave me a hug. And to me, that was a reflection of the goodwill that we had built back and forth. Now that goodwill, no doubt, has been tested throughout the entire time that we've served together on the commission. It's been strained at times. We've gone through periods of having better relations, of having difficult relations. But we've stuck through it. And I can tell you, we ended up serving in 724 for, I think, around the same amount of time, pretty close. And I'm not going to say that the chairman job is set up to fail. I don't think that's right. But I don't also, I think Ann Marie would agree with me, I don't think it's really set up to succeed either. And that's probably intentional by Congress. But there's a human being who has to occupy that seat. And that inability to have things function except on the rarest of great days, which is very rare, but that inability to have things function smoothly and to deal with the commission environment and the issues that come up with the resource limitations we have and the difficult questions that Congress gives to us, that takes its toll. There is just no doubt about it. It is a very, very heavy responsibility. It's a very lonely position. And despite the great staff work, both from the agency staff and your own staff, nobody could fully understand what it feels like to sit in that seat and bear that burden day after day. And unless you've sat in that seat and borne that burden. And so I am so impressed with how Ann Marie led, endured very difficult conditions. We all have our unique challenges and personalities during our times, internal, external, for wherever they come from. And Ann Marie was so steady and always kept a human element to how she did everything. It was always true to who she is as a person and always represented the best of herself during it. We may not have agreed on the substance, but I always knew that Ann Marie was giving it everything she got, she had, and was trying to truly make the best decision she could under the circumstances. And we may not, like I said, we may not have agreed on the outcome, but I think that that's what you could hope for, for somebody in that position of heavy responsibility. So I hope we can all, as Ann Marie leaves, express our gratitude in our own way. And I wanted to just say how much I appreciate the service and the sacrifice that you've endured. And I really do understand what it's like. Thank you. I was taking careful notes about the burdens of the chairmanship, Commissioner Biacco, your closing comments. Thank you. Well, that's tough to follow. So let me just agree, certainly, with Elliot's remarks, Ann Marie, and I found your professionalism on this dais exhumatory. I had a statement drafted, but I changed my mind. So I will rewrite it and issue it. I am encouraged, excited about everything we accomplished today. I believe that all commissioners should have projects in the AWP plan that promotes their initiatives and their views. I think it makes the agency stronger. And I think today we accomplished that. And so I'm excited about that. Thanks to my staff, particularly Dotty Yar, who I would have never gotten through today without. And to all of you guys and the staff who answered my countless questions, particularly James Baker, thank you for that. And thank you to my colleagues for working so hard together. I think that today demonstrated that we should do more of this. The Sunshine Act, I think, should not preclude us from deliberating and deliberating in public, because I think we all have something that's important to say. And many of you changed my mind on many issues today through deliberations and perspectives that I didn't have. And that's a good thing. So that's it. That's all I have. Thank you so much, Commissioner Feldman. Thank you. And I would associate myself with many of the remarks that were made on the dais today. And for the sake of brevity, I'm going to introduce a longer statement for the record. Today we met, and I'm pleased that my fellow commissioners found common ground to define the agency priorities, to advance our safety mission, and to clearly communicate to the taxpayers how we intend to use the precious resources that we've been provided. I want to thank my fellow commissioners and Acting Chairman Adler and his staff in particular for the hard work on the operating plan. I'd like to recognize the work of Teddy Tanzer on my staff for his invaluable contributions in the process. And I'd also like to thank the career agency staff for the hard work that they did in putting together this document. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit my remarks to that and submit a more fulsome comments for the record. Thank you. Thank you very much. This concludes the public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Thank you all. The meeting is now adjourned.