 To members of the public and to the staff, welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have two items on the agenda this morning, a decisional matter on what we call the fiscal year 2021, mid-year one proposal, and a decisional matter on the notice of availability for the proposed guidance on alternative test methods and integrated testing approaches, which I could call in short, animal testing. The Commission will be addressing the third matter during a closed session later today. That meeting will commence at the conclusion of this meeting. So today's meeting on mid-year one, as I call it, will address a number of projects that, at this point, staff thinks can be funded from their assessment that we have about $2.7 million in free up funds. And let me explain what that means. It comes from the $135 million in the FY 2021 appropriations bill and arises from funding that occurs most years that for a variety of reasons was planned to be spent, but it became available when circumstances prevented it from being spent as planned. And the biggest example I can think of is when we have unplanned staff departures that salary money can go into the pool that we can use for projects in mid-year one. So the vote on mid-year one will be today. For mid-year two, we're going to address the extra $50 million. Let me stress that spread out over five years, given us in the recent COVID relief act called the American Rescue Plan. And staff will be submitting a full list of additional projects next week for commission consideration. But back to mid-year one, staff has compiled a list of projects that the commission has been given to be funded that focus mainly on our mission in relation to diversity and several other important projects such as the Internet of Things, bath surfaces and ride-on moors. But I want to say a word about diversity because it's such a critical point at this agency and throughout the government. First of all, diversity goes beyond how we look. And to be sure we should look like the American public. But with respect to CPSC being a health and safety agency, it's critical that we understand how certain product safety hazards disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. How barriers like socioeconomic status, language and age can affect our safety messages and people's ability to respond to them. And on this point, I just want to recognize the dedicated work of our staff in support of diversity. And I also want to give a special thanks to Commissioner Elliot Kaye for his many valuable suggestions towards improving our work to serve minorities and underserved groups. So Elliot, thank you so much. Those are the issues that the mid-year one package seeks to address. And I'm hopeful that my colleagues will support them, especially with respect to the diversity issues. So we have several staff members here. And I honestly don't know, Steve McGuggan, whether they will be shown on the screen, but they are here and they're available. Mary Boyle, CPSC Executive Director, Dwayne Ray, our Deputy Executive Director, Dwayne Boniface, EXHR Director, Jen Sultan, our Acting General Counsel, James Baker, our Chief Financial Officer and Alberta Mills, the Director of our Office of the Secretary. And other staff are available as needed. And I want to thank staff for being here today. So we're going to begin with questions for staff. If there are any questions, each commissioner will have five minutes for questions and we can go multiple rounds if necessary. Once the questions are complete, I will then move a vote on mid-year and entertain any amendments to the plan. So starting with myself, I have no questions. Commissioner Kaye, do you have any questions of staff on mid-year one? Thank you, Chairman Adler. I do not have any questions. I just wanted to thank you for your kind words and also thank Ms. Boyle and the rest of the staff for the great work, especially on the diversity, inclusion and equity work. Thank you. And I look forward to supporting the package. Commissioner Biakko, do you have any questions for staff? I do not. Thank you, Acting Chair. Commissioner Feldman, do you have questions for staff? I do. Thank you, Chairman Adler. I want to say off the top that I absolutely appreciate staff's work on this mid-year proposal. I think it's safe to say that the Commission, all of us, share the goal of protecting American consumers, particularly socially disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. While staff may be planning another second mid-year to address the $50 million that we received, I believe that we need to address the requirements of the FY21 appropriations bill. And it's my view that we should construct a mid-year plan holistically. Instead, today we're being asked to approve Part 1 without knowing what's included in Part 2. President Biden's FY21 budget is projected to be released next week. I think it would seem to make more sense, at least to me, that we see what's budgeted in the next fiscal year and adjust appropriately to meet the congressional mandates as well as future commission needs. With the exception of last year, we're considering this mid-year far sooner than is typical over the past 20 years. As I've already said, we should budget holistically. What we're doing with two mid-years and the FY22 funds is not that. Turning to the mid-year specifics, I believe that the Commission's first order of business should be taking steps towards addressing the congressional mandates that were included in the fiscal year 21 appropriations bill, particularly the mandate to hire at least 16 additional board inspectors for the commission. I also believe, as several of my amendments- Mr. Feldman, I have no problem with the comments you're making. Those just don't sound like questions to staff. When we get around to your amendments, I think that would be an appropriate statement to make. But may I ask that you address any questions that you have to staff? Well, several of my amendments call for. I think we should plan before acting, and if that's your preference, I'm happy to wait. We're at the round for questions, but your statements are perfectly appropriate for the record. I have no problem with you making them, but I just prefer that you do it at the appropriate moment. I have no further questions. Okay. Thank you so much. Hearing no further questions, staff, you are excused and you can now move to listening mode. And I want to thank the staff for all their work on the plan. What I'd like to do now, and we will entertain amendments, but I now move that the Commission adopt the mid-year one plan is proposed by staff, and that requires a second. Is there a second? A second. Thank you so much, Commissioner Biacco. And now, before we move to the mid-year one plan for a vote, I will now entertain any amendments to the plan that the commissioners may propose. And Commissioner Feldman, you're certainly free to make your, continue your statement. I have no amendments to offer. Commissioner Kay, do you have any amendments? I do not. Thank you. Commissioner Biacco, do you have any amendments to mid-year one? I do not. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman, I know that you do have amendments. Please feel free to continue your statement. And then I'm going to ask you and recognize you for making each, for moving each of the amendments that you have. Okay. Thank you, Acting Chairman. Several of my amendments call for the commission to plan before it acts. My amendments are designed to demonstrate to Congress and the administration, frankly, that the commission takes its instructions seriously. We may not all agree on what the top-line budget and resources numbers for the commission should be, but I suspect that we all support some additional level of funding for the agency. My, we needed to achieve our mission. My amendments are a down payment both to adhere to the law and, in my view, will help CPSC make the case for additional resources in the future, including in the FY22 appropriations request. We've all supported hiring additional inspectors in the FY22 budget request, and I think we should begin the hiring process and I think we should do it now. I also believe that several of these requests in the staff proposal require a better understanding of the commission's projected post-pandemic posture. By all accounts, with the widespread availability of the COVID-19 vaccine, we're closer to the end of the pandemic than the beginning. But before we spend our money on our building and conference room upgrade, I think it makes sense that we understand what our future operations are going to look like. Is it back to normal? Is it mostly telework? Is it some combination of the two? These are important issues and questions that we need to answer before we spend. I also believe that a few of the requests here should be tabled until the commission develops a comprehensive post-pandemic strategic plan. I hope that we find consensus to meet the agency's mission and the congressional mandates through the allocation of the media resources. I do want to thank staff for their hard work on the mid-year, but ultimately it's the commission who must decide. And I hope that we're going to choose to proceed thoughtfully in a way that respects the congressional mandates without delaying important safety and staffing directives any longer. And we need to put the agency in the strongest possible position to execute our mission on behalf of American consumers. So for those reasons, I do have a couple of amendments that I'd like to introduce. Okay, and I'm going to recognize you for which I understand are eight amendments and I'll ask you to describe each amendment for up to three minutes. And then after that, I'll ask for a second to the amendment and then we will allow commissioners who have questions or comments time to respond. And at the end of that commission problem, you'll have to respond to any questions or comments that were raised. So please introduce your first amendment. Great. So let's take these in order. And I circulated the most recent version of these before the meeting. So it's my understanding that everybody should have them. So beginning with Feldman one, my amendment to develop a plan to meet congressional mandates. This amendment to ensure that all the congressional mandates are met. I want to direct staff to develop a strategic plan about how the commission can meet these requirements. This amendment would direct staff to develop a menu of options for the commission to consider as we move to implement these various congressional mandates. We need to consider cost and timing and putting a plan like this in place would allow us to think holistically about this work rather than being presented with a take it or leave it decision. Okay, that is with respect to amendment one. Thank you. Is there a second for Commissioner Feldman's amendment? I have a point of order question on a point of order. I've gone through all of Commissioner Feldman's amendments and listened to his comments and many of the amendments, the substance of the amendments, I do find, you know, has some validity to them. What I thought the purpose of this particular meeting and decision was to look at specific amounts of money that are left over and how we're going to allocate those amounts to already approved projects. So, you know, congressional mandates, I'm aware of, but when Congress mandates something, we implement it. I don't see that as a, you know, amending the budget mid-year budget proposal with amendments that have included congressional mandates that are already congressional mandates. So, I just want to ask if these amendments are appropriate at this particular meeting. Well, that you raised that as a point of order and I'm going to ask your indulgence to say that I think it's that you raise some valid points and will certainly permit Commissioner Feldman to respond to them. But what I would suggest we do is go through his amendments and to the extent you think the amendments do not meet the point of order that you raised and I tend to agree with you, Commissioner Biakko, then that you will be permitted to vote either I or no. Is that acceptable? Yes, that's fine. And I just want to make sure we're clear. It's not that I'm opposing the amendments individually or as a whole. I'm just raising the issue if this is the best place to put them and to get the if this is the best place to put them. Thank you. Well, first of all, may I be recognized with respect to the point of order? Okay, but please make it brief because I'm. Absolutely. Well, my understanding acting chairman that that and you said this at the mid year in in 2019 that it's your view and that it's agency practice and precedent that any commissioner can offer anything at any point, including in mid years. Yeah, there's no question about your ability to offer amendments. I think Commissioner Biakko's point of order was with respect to the germane as as we discuss this during the course of mid year one. And what I've asked is that she hold her point of order and we can address it as we go through your amendment and we vote on them. I think that will end up resolving the point of order and I do want to say Commissioner Biakko, I tend to agree with your concern. I don't want to see some of these amendments have some, you know, strong points to them and I don't want to see them go to the side just because we are introducing them here. That's all. A point well taken and I think it's fair to say that a lot of your concerns will be addressed when we get to mid year to a lot of Commissioner Feldman's. But let me say that I strongly oppose Commissioner Feldman's amendment and his many similar amendments along the lines, Commissioner Biakko that you raised, but I have several reasons. First of all, they're simply unnecessary because they track what the law requires and what staff is doing in mid year to. But taken as a group, they're much more than that. They constitute to me a massive and unwarranted intrusion into the management and administration of CPSC. And I'm going to ask you to join me in a thought experiment that explains my concern. Think back to 2008 when Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. This act was a comprehensive and landmark piece of legislation. It included provisions that regulated levels of lead and phthalates in consumer products. That mandated new requirements for toy safety, durable infant products, third party testing and certification, tracking labels, imports, ATVs, civil and criminal penalties, and established safer products dot gov. Implementing these provisions required hundreds of thousands of hours and years of effort on the part of agency staff. Now imagine if Commissioner Feldman's requirement for allocating quote the requisite hours, whatever that means to develop for commission approval, a budget and specific timeline to meet each and every requirement of CPSIA. Imagine if that were adopted. Instead of implementing CPSIA staff would spend their days writing a detailed staff plan that met Commissioner Feldman's approval for an act that required years to implement. In short, this amendment and his other amendments would set a dangerous and unwarranted precedent for this agency. Since when we're going to get future legislation, I assume Commissioner Feldman is going to submit similar amendments. So if ever there were an example of mini micro management and paralysis by analysis, Commissioner Feldman's amendments prove that, but I need to be clear. As a commissioner for many years before becoming acting chair. I strongly support the proposition that the commission is entitled to a plan for implementing legislation and for meeting our mandates. And we have a plan. It's called the operating plan. And it's what we vote on every year and what we adjust when we do our review. And that's what the staff is going to share with us when we get to mid year too. And that's what Commissioner Feldman the chance to share discuss policy proposals. But requiring detailed budget and specific timeline for implementing the COVID laws is called for by Commissioner Feldman goes well beyond what Congress required in this legislation and what it takes to implement the legislation. And Commissioner Feldman, if you wish briefly to respond, but then we do need to go to Commissioner K's questions or comments and back to Commissioner Bianco for her questions and comments. I appreciate that Bob and my response would be that what we're being asked to spend in in with respect to the 50 million and now exists outside of the operating plan. I think it's important that we do have a plan in place so that we're proceeding thoughtfully and holistically. The purpose of this amendment isn't to gum up the works or create additional paralysis by analysis as you're fond of saying. It's to have a holistic plan so that we can think globally about agency staffing and resources and that that's presented to commission. If we do this later at mid year to when we're actually making decisions about expending that money and carrying out the mandates of the reconciliation bill with respect to additional port staffing. Many of the things that I'm calling for here would become moot because it's important to have a plan before we act. But that would be my response and I would yield the rest of my time to Commissioner K if he has additional questions. You don't need to use time. Commissioner K will get an appropriate amount of time. But Commissioner K, if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to share them. Great. Thanks Chairman Adler. I really appreciate where Commissioner Feldman's coming from and just wanted to make sure that we have an opportunity to view these things holistically. I'm optimistic that when we see mid year to the package that deals with the supplemental appropriation that that will go a long way toward addressing these concerns. And so I'm looking forward to picking this back up when we have that package in front of us. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioner Bianco additional questions or comments. I think that it's a fair statement to say that since I joined this commission I've done nothing but propose amendments and plans for increasing port staff and doing a better job with incoming products and so substantively I think this is a great discussion to have but I just under the impression that this particular meeting would not address that $50 million. Is that correct? That makes a difference for me. That is correct. That commit your to will address the $50 million and that what we're talking about with respect to mid year one is that portion of the 135 million that we find that we can spend and that is roughly $2.7 million. That's money that it's that we can use contracts for it's more difficult to use it for FTEs, but when we get to mid year two and we're talking about the $50 million spread over five years, we will be able to talk more specifically about staffing patterns. Okay, thank you. Okay. Having heard no further questions or comments then we'll now move to vote on what we call Feldman one. How do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Bianco, how do you vote? I vote no for the procedural reasons I noted. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yeah. And I vote no. The yeas are one and the nos are three. The amendment by Commissioner Feldman is not adopted. Commissioner Feldman will now move to Feldman two and you have three minutes to explain it. Thank you. Feldman two, the purpose of this amendment is to carry out congressional mandates included in Public Law 116-260 and 117-2. This amendment represents a down payment towards the congressional mandates that we hire 16 additional board inspectors. The initial mandate and this gets to a part of the discussion that we just had. The initial mandate was part of the omnibus appropriations bill and came without new funds. I believe that we should allocate some of our unspent FY21 money for this purpose. As I said in my opening statement, this is a down payment. It's not the full 16. I understand that we'll address more of this in the second year. Nevertheless, to start the process of hiring inspectors adds credibility to our request for new funds and addresses frankly existing deficiencies. We can't afford to be blind at the ports. This amendment would call for expending current FY21 money to hire four new additional board inspectors. The amount represents the prorated amount of FTEs prorated for the end of fiscal year for FTEs. Given the amount of time that it takes to actually begin the hiring process, it's likely that the price tag in this would come in significantly lower than the 375 I'm calling for. But again, I think it's a starting place and I think it's important to demonstrate progress with the down payment like that. Thank you for that. Is there a second to Commissioner Feldman's amendment? I second it. Thank you very much. We'll now have a round of questions or comments. And again, I do oppose this. I think it's fair to say that the hiring process is underway and you're quite correct. Commissioner Feldman that it does take some time to do that. Again, what we're talking about and what you're proposing is to take money from the remaining months of FY 2021. And typically when somebody asks for an expenditure from what we've already dedicated our spending to, we ask that you give an offset and I don't see an offset for the $375,000 that you're proposing. I'd like to know where that money is supposed to come from to fund the hiring of these staff. I appreciate that question. First of all, to say that the hiring process is underway, I'm not sure that that's accurate. There have been no, so far as I can tell, notices in USA Jobs that have been posted thus far announcing that we're hiring for this. But in terms of offset, one, this amendments model very closely after an amendment that you have offered previously to hire a consumer ombudsman for the agency and is offset in a similar way. But there's actually some advantages to doing this here. Staff projections for the costs of the mid-year are $270,000 while at the same time staff estimating that we're going to have between $2 and $3 million in non-executed balances that may be available. That leaves the potential of almost $300,000. That money should be earmarked for our primary mission, not left in some administrative plush fund here. That's one place among many that we could seek to offset the cost of this. That's something that I've not yet had a chance to consult with staff about. And I will remind you that when I put in my consumer ombudsman amendment, I had already consulted with staff and been told that there was sufficient funding to cover that. But that's just one of those issues that arises. I did not say that we had filed position descriptions in USA today. I said that the staff was in the process of hiring, which means crafting the position descriptions and getting approvals all around. And so I can assure you the process is underway. Great. I plan to oppose it because I think that this is just a redundancy to what staff is already doing in which we will see when it comes to mid-year too. Commissioner Kay, do you have any questions or comments? Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to reiterate what I said on the first amendment that, again, I'm looking forward to seeing mid-year too. I know that these issues will be addressed. And so when I vote no, I'm not voting no on the substance. I'm just voting no on the timing. That's all I have. Thank you. Thanks very much. Commissioner Biacco, any questions or comments? Well, first of all, I objected to the way the consumer ombudsman position was presented. So I'm not going to rely on that. Mr. Feldman, are you proposing four additional people in addition to the 16 already allocated for the mandated? No, the four additional would be a down payment on the additional 16. If we began the process to hire four now, presumably to meet the congressional mandate, that would put us in a position to hire 12 when we went to revisit mid-year too. But I do have some concerns about doing this wholly in mid-year too. We've all called for a significant increase, and you especially have called for significant increases for the number of inspectors based on some of the proposals that I'm seeing. I'm not sure we even get to covering those expenses with the entire 50 million. Well, that's a different issue. So it's my understanding that this particular get-together decision is to address 2.7 million in funding that we can use for contracts, correct? Is that what we're dealing with? And you want to take 375,000 of that 2.7 million and allocate it to hiring four people right now rather than allocating this at another time? That's what I'm confused about. Yes, but not exactly. As I understand it in staff's memo, while the number of projects that are listed with mid-year priority numbers attached them total $270,000, we're dealing with a pile of money based on, frankly, COVID-19 savings that the agencies experience. A remarkable year in that respect that we're doing a mid-year discussion with a pile of money that exceeds what we're asking for. There's an additional up to $300,000 that's being left on the table. My proposal is that we take some of that money and put it towards a down payment on additional board inspectors so that we can begin the hiring process, which as we've all heard today is going to take some time. So I think it's the down payment that might be throwing me. Can somebody answer, is that correct? And my next question is going to be in conjunction with that. The 2.7 million, I can look through these amendments and say there is one I do want to address. I just want to make sure that, you know, I'm not opposed to spending 375 on four more people. Of course not. I just I'm trying to figure out is does that come out of the 2.7 and what would we get rid of that staff has proposed. I'm just not clear on that. I'm not sure we would have to get rid of anything that staff's proposed. Is there anybody there, Jim, Mr Baker, can you answer that question? Well, I want to, can you hear me? Yes, thank you. I just want to say that these are all estimates for these things that are coming in and like each year we monitor these closely. And a lot of times they can come in and most generally come in higher than what we anticipate at this time. So that to put that clear, you know, this number will probably go up on some of these as we closer through the procurement process and closer to awarding. So, but as far as adding using this money for funding staff, it can be done, but that's a decision up to the commissioners. Is there money, Mr Baker to in the mid year one to do exactly what Commissioner Feldman is proposing? Well, it would depend on what order it comes in as I think he's proposing to put it as number one or number two on the list. And so that would be one of the first things we do when money becomes available. I see. So that that was really what my question was. Okay. Okay. The other alternative, if I may be recognized to add on to the discussion here and I promise I'll be brief. The other alternative here is to hold off on some of the expenditures for conference room upgrades and and telework equipment until we have a plan in place about what the future of our workforce here is going to look like, whether we're going to be fully back at the at the office as everybody has access to vaccines, or whether we're going to be in a permanent telework posture right now. I don't have a sense of exactly what those needs are. So it doesn't totally make sense to begin with conference room upgrades and some of these ideas. You're losing me with those comments. So I can get behind this one as long as we have the money to spend. But I don't want to get into, you know, plans and conference rooms because that that sounds I just want to be drawn into that. So, okay, I got enough information. Thank you. And if I just might add that I think for administrative and accounting purposes, it's just a lot cleaner to do it mid year one versus mid year two and nobody will get blindsided and nothing will be rendered moot. And the fact is that the process is is under is ongoing. Approving Commissioner Feldman's amendment would not move the process anymore quickly, but it also I think does tend to ignore the fact that the hiring process is broad based and it isn't just these four. If I thought that approving this would move the hiring for these four more rapidly, I would be more inclined to support it, but I don't. And this again, to me, smacks of micromanaging. I respond. Yes, sure. You yourself have called for the creation of an e-commerce office and enforcement office and additional staff at the ports to meet the congressional mandate. And based on your own staffing projections, we would need 44 and 28 additional fds respectively to meet the mandate and by my calculation based on how we calculate fds in terms of dollar amounts. That would cost the agency $67.5 million over five years just for the fds and equipment alone. Congress funded us at 50 million. So if we wait until mid year two to do this, we wouldn't fully be able to address what you yourself admit is needed to meet the mandate in mid year two. That's why I think a down payment here is needed. That's why I'm suggesting we spend existing FY 21 funds on the money so we can begin the hiring. I don't know that we fully get to everything that you're asking for, Chairman Adler, but we would certainly need to dip into the 21 money in addition to the 15 just to get to the staffing levels that you've called for. Yeah, well, let's not conflate two things. One is a request for next year's budget and not of $50 million, but for more than doubling the commission's budget, which then would more than accommodate my request. And I'm delighted to see that you at least implicitly support the notion that we have to expand dramatically the resources that we have at the agency, including our funding and certainly including staffing levels. I think that the numbers that you're calling for are reasonable. I do. I think. I'm sorry. But you say that we need to meet those staffing goals to fully accomplish the congressional mandate. We need to establish those goals to implement the Consumer Product Safety Act, which is to protect 330 million Americans. But the question is the timing. I'm not asking for the funding for that expanded agency structure that I called for in my letter to OMB to be done out of $50 million. That's good money, but that's money that expires in five years. What I was asking for is more permanent funding over the long run and a more than doubling of our budget. I don't want to get into it. That's slightly different than what you put forward in your plan, but I take you at your. Okay. All right. Having heard no further questions or comments, we'll now move to a vote on Feldman 2. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote on Feldman 2? I vote no. Okay. Commissioner Boyacko, how do you vote on Feldman 2? Can I ask one clarification point before I vote? If this amendment passes, it will go on to table 2 as what number and the priorities? Two. Okay. Then I vote yes. Okay. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote no. The vote is 2 to 2. The commission does not adopt Commissioner Feldman number 2. Commissioner Feldman, will you now address Feldman 3? Thank you. Feldman 3 is to develop a plan to conduct remedial screenings of product inventories that entered the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through no fault of our port inspectors, we experienced a period where CPSC's in-person port activity declined substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress told us to focus on high-risk products. I can't think of any riskier product categories than those that made it into the United States and on the store shelves during the pandemic without the usual agency screening for lead and small parts. And other harms. My amendment would ensure that this happens. It's the first step to ensure that it happens. It's calling for staff to put together a plan. There's a $0 price tag attached to it, though it would require some staff hours. It's a fairly straightforward amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. Is there a second to Commissioner Feldman's amendment number 3? I second it. Thank you very much. We'll now move to a discussion or questions for Commissioner Feldman. I am going to oppose this one. And I think this is, to me, this is micromanaging to the nth degree. And I hate to say it, but it shows a pervasive distrust of staff. Do you really think staff is not doing this? The staff has come up with some very, very thoughtful approaches to going and checking on things that did get in during the pandemic. And they are using the RAM to track down companies that may have brought stuff in and they are tracking it down and they will be enforcing. So it's a noble sentiment and it's one that I think we all share. I think it's also fair to say that staff is on this and staff is doing the work. I see no need for the redundant approval of an amendment that's unnecessary at this point. So I'm going to vote no. And Commissioner Kay, do you have any questions or comments? I'm going to sound like a broken record. I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. I'm hopeful that as we see the mid-year two package that there will be some indication of this work as well and any additional staff briefings I would want to hear about it too. I'm sympathetic to Commissioner Feldman's desire to have some, you know, for us to all have as much visibility as possible into what the work is that the chairman mentioned. It was certainly a key understanding on our part a year ago when the decision was made to pull back for safety reasons that there would be efforts to track items that had gone through. And so we'll certainly all want to hear what the follow-up work is on that. Thank you. Commissioner Bianco, questions or comments? Yes, sir. Again, this is the port program and how we do things. I've been advocating for expansion and more investment and upgrades since I walked in the door. But for procedural reasons, I don't think that this goes here. So I will pose it for that reason. Okay. Having heard no further questions or comments, I will now move to a vote on Feldman 3. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Bianco. Commissioner Feldman. Yes. And I vote no. The yeas are one, the nays are three. Feldman 3 is not adopted. Commissioner Feldman, your amendment number four, please. Thank you. Feldman 4, the subject of this amendment is e-commerce surveillance. And again, this amendment may sound similar to amendments that have previously introduced here. Congress mandated that CTSA enhanced surveillance of online sales and a violator product emphasizing COVID-19 consumer products. The commission should develop a plan to meet this amendment, to meet this mandate. This amendment would accomplish that. Thank you very much. Is there a second to Commissioner Feldman number four? I second it. Thank you so much. I don't have much to add. The same reasons that I voiced for opposing all of the previous amendments remain. This is something that will be addressed in mid-year too. It's certainly a worthy project, but I don't think we need Commissioner Feldman's amendment to do that. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Yeah, Commissioner Kay, do you have any further questions, comments? I don't. Again, same reason. It's just a timing issue that I would be voting no. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Biakko, any questions or comments? No, same comments that I made for the last amendment. Okay. Thank you so much. We will now proceed to a vote. Commissioner Kay on Feldman four, how do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Biakko? No. Commissioner Feldman? Yes. And I vote no. The yeas are one. The nays are three. Feldman four is not adopted. Commissioner Feldman, may we move to Feldman five, please? Yes. Thank you. Feldman amendment number five calls for a prohibition on compensation for non-government spokespeople as part of the agency's communications initiative. And let me clarify, it's not an absolute prohibition. The commission should approve on a case-by-case basis or via directive the use of taxpayer dollars on compensating actors, social media influencers, media personalities, or other non-government spokespeople. I would also hope that we can find individuals who are willing to engage in our PSAs pro bono so that we can use our scarce resources to do other things. It's my hope that we would have had such a directive by now, but that's not the case. We're a promised directive and we've been waiting since around the 4th of July to receive it. As such, this amendment is an important safeguard on agency resources and our precious staff hours so that we can proceed in a thoughtful manner that shows that we're stewards of agency resources and taxpayer dollars. I don't intend this amendment to interfere with any existing contracts, so those are specifically carved out. It would apply on a prospective basis, but I'd be interested to hear any questions that my fellow commissioners have. Thank you. Is there a second for Feldman five? I'll second it. Thank you both. And so this is one that I do oppose as a matter of principle. And I guess I just have one question, Commissioner Feldman. Are you opposed to influencers? Are you opposed to paid influencers? Is there some set of studies you've seen that tells you that the use of influencers is not effective in communicating the agency's message? I'm just curious. No, I'm not opposed to influencers. I think that it's this notion of compensating and doing so in a less than transparent way that models our message. When you've got actors that are receiving taxpayer dollars for safety messages, I think that frankly undercuts the credibility of the safety message in many respects. And I hope that as our campaigns move forward, we should include survivors voices. They should be an integral part of all these processes and messaging. I think that survivors are the most effective at changing human behavior in large part because the public trusts them to explain the consequences. So no, I'm not opposed to the use of influencers nor would this amendment prohibit that. It would call for transparency and accountability in the way that we go about this contracting process. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I do think that the notion of transparency is a valid one. So I don't object on that, that ground. Commissioner Cade, do you have any questions or comments for Commissioner Feldman with respect to Feldman 5? I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Feldman, thanks for the clarification that this only applies prospectively. As you know from our discussions, that was obviously my only concern and it's good to know that that's not a concern. So I'm looking forward to supporting this amendment. Chairman Adler, you did not ask if I support influencers paying them. I don't. And I actually would gently push back. I don't think the burden is on those who oppose funds from being spent to have to produce studies to show that not spending that money is a good idea. I think actually it's the opposite that if somebody wants to propose spending money on something that they should have to produce studies showing that is a good expenditure. And that has actually been my objection this whole time with influencers is I have not really seen any evidence that their return on investment as Commissioner Feldman mentioned it on our scarce resources is worth it relative to other campaigns that we've done. And I've also felt all along that the government is different and it's a public service. And we should be asking people who influencers, many of them have benefited from their position in society in other ways. And I don't think there's anything wrong with us asking them to pay back to the country by being unpaid influencers. And so for that reason, I plan to strongly support this amendment. Thank you. Yeah, it's interesting to hear you. First of all, I do agree that those who are pressing for the use of influencers do bear the burden of demonstrating the efficacy of that. And it sounds like you have an even more categorical approach to influencers than Commissioner Feldman. So thank you for that feedback. Commissioner Bianco, any questions or comments? Yes, well, so I have a different look at this. I think that as everybody knows from the previous and my statement on our communications team, I'm very unhappy with the reach of our message. And I am not opposed to paying influencers in a situation where, you know, I think that that would get our message across. We live in a time period where we do. And it does work at times. My big issue has always been about getting approval from the commission before somebody in the communications department just makes that decision without, you know, writing a basis. And that's been my one of my objections. So I read this amendment and the insertion of this language. And I just want to make sure this is correct that we are not prohibiting it to have a spokesperson or a paid spokesperson. But before we do something like that, it has to be approved by a majority of the commissioners for all the reasons that we've all stated. We don't want it to be just willy-nilly anybody can pick somebody, pay them and the commission does nothing about it. Is that what this intent is intended to do, Peter? Categorically, yes. Okay. By the way, when you're on the speaking circuit, I'm going to stand in the back of the room and raise my hand to see if you're doing it for free. Or if you have a stipend, just being a just a comment. I'm going to pick in Dana and I'm going to hold you to that. Okay. I would support this. Thank you. Okay. Chairman Adler, if I may respond to one thing, I don't believe that there's any daylight between Commissioner Kay and myself on this issue. Well, that may be and he can correct me if I'm wrong. I thought I heard him say he was categorically opposed to use of paid influencers, whether we're transparent or not, but I may have misunderstood him. So, Elliot, if I did, I apologize. No, I think you got it right. As I stated, I'm opposed to them. First of all, I don't think the burden's been met on showing their efficacy. And second of all, unless we're talking about a victim here who really needs costs paid for, they could participate in something. I just philosophically don't think that an influencer, especially somebody who has a lot of advantages in society and that's why they are an influencer should be paid by the government to do what is essentially a public service. Thank you. I appreciate that. This is one of those policy issues on which completely reasonable minds can differ and can agree. I will now put Commissioner Feldman five to a vote. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Biakko, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? Yes. And I vote no. The ayes are three, the nays are one. The amendment five by Commissioner Feldman is adopted. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. Would you move to Feldman six please? Yeah. Amendment six and thank you for that is an amendment that addresses guidance for the recently implemented SOFA Act. It's my understanding and certainly I appreciate that staff circulated a ballot package yesterday. I think it was yesterday addressing these concerns that I laid out in this amendment. For that reason, I'm going to withdraw Feldman six. Okay. Thank you. Then we will move to Feldman seven. Commissioner Feldman, would you please describe it? Which is appropriate. Feldman seven is keeping in the theme of agency I&E campaign. This is an information campaign on the topic of portable fuel container safety. The purpose of this amendment is again to address a congressional mandate. CPSC is required by law. This was included in the end of your appropriations bill to carry out a safety campaign on portable fuel containers. This amendment would make the safety campaign a mid-year priority. I developed, there is a cost associated with this as all of our campaigns do have costs associated with them of $375,000. I based this amount on the CBO score for the bill and CPSC staff projections. That said, I remain and I should clarify a little bit. The CBO scored this bill at $3 million over four years. The 375 represents the annual prorated basis for that for the remaining six months of FY21. This is a mandate that exists separate and apart from the $50 million that we would be dealing with at mid-year two. And again, there's some questions about whether funding this safety campaign would even be an eligible use of the $50 million, which is why I think it's appropriate that we deal with it now. I remain open to other amounts as appropriate. Congress envisioned a $3 million spend on this campaign over four years. If there are other suggestions that more reasonably aligned that number with other campaigns that we've done in the past, I'm open to making those adjustments. But I'll reiterate something I said earlier. It's my hope that this campaign will include survivor's voices. They should be an integral part of this process and the messaging. As I said previously, survivors are the most effective at changing human behavior because the public trusts them to explain the consequences. And again, I think the rest of the amendment largely stands for itself. I would turn it back to the chair and my colleagues if they have questions. Okay, is there a second to Feldman 7? I second it. Thank you so much. And thank you for your presentation. First of all, this is a worthy project. There's no question about that. And it's congressionally mandated. There's no question about that. I fundamentally disagree with any implication that we could not use the $50 million to fund this. My concern is you're setting the site in addition to 375 for the four extra FTEs. This is an additional 375 that I don't know where it's coming from, from FY 21. I would point out that the congressional mandate is that we develop an education campaign one year from enactment of the legislation, which would give us till December of 2021. I don't think we should wait until then. I don't think anybody plans that, but I don't think that there is any pressing concern at this point. And what does bother me is that you've isolated this one education campaign from the other education campaigns that we have. What I much prefer to do is to make a decision about the expenditure in the context of other education campaigns. And my problem is this could be way too much money, but it could also be way too little money. And until I see a broader perspective with respect to our other education campaigns, I think this is a premature amendment. So I plan to oppose it. Commissioner Kay, do you have any questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Commissioner Feldman for raising this one as well. I completely agree. Obviously we need to attend to it at some point soon. I was curious to know on the CBO scoring that you mentioned, the 3 million over four years, was that specific to the education campaign or that was the anticipated cost by CBO to enact the entire to execute on the entire bill. It was CBO's score to execute on the entire bill. But that said, after consultation with the agency, I think it was apparent in the congressional record reflects this, that there is a existing voluntary standard that we would likely adopt. Therefore, any additional cost to the agency on rulemaking would be in the form of some staff hours and not additional FTEs or other spending. Therefore, I think it's a reasonable assumption that the 3 million encompass the cost of the campaign. Got it. So my request really would be that we take it up in mid-year too, so that we have the benefit between then and now of understanding more about what really the appropriate dollar amounts that staff is thinking for this campaign. Because as the chairman said, we really just don't know at this point. It strikes me as high relative to other education campaigns we've done, and I'm not saying that that's not the right number. But I would want to understand in context that we're spending this money relative to the cost of other campaigns based on the hazards that they present. And so if this, I mean, again, from my memory, this would come in as maybe the second or third most expensive campaign we've done. And if this is the third most pressing hazard we should be addressing through INE campaigns, then that's totally warranted. If it's not, then I would want to know what that other budgetary item should be for it. And I would hope to have the benefit of the staff input between now and when we would visit this issue. So for that reason, I'm going to oppose it, but I look forward to revisiting it in the near future. Commissioner Kay, thank you so much. Commissioner Villaco, any questions or comments? Gentlemen, you are all now singing my song. This was the entire reason exactly why during the hot plan I proposed that the communications team provide us with a communications plan for the year with allocated funds or suggested amounts of money so we could look at a year and see what campaigns we would be promoting. When and how much that would cost. So all of your comments I couldn't be happier with. I just don't think it applies here and I do want to raise one other point. Survivors and this is a policy decision and again, probably a discussion we should have if we are addressing campaigns. Let's be careful with survivors because the defense lawyer and me cannot help but remember that sometimes a survivor is a defined term and sometimes they have lawsuits pending and they do have a financial interest. So let's be careful with, you know, I think the bigger issue here is putting somebody out front to deliver a message from the agency and to make sure that the funds that are being used by the commission are used to best promote the message. And, you know, if they're going to be getting some they have other personal interests or financial issues we should be we should be which should consider that so I don't want to take a position that survivors or influencers or anybody is better than another. This goes back to my original point. Let's get a communications plan. Let's see where we're going. Let's vote on it and let's have some, you know, input and approval so we can have these discussions on a case by case basis. Thank you. Thank you. And I think that it's fair to say that when we're in headquarters we won't have the barking dog but that adds a whole dash of color and excitement to the meeting. He seems to only bark when I'm speaking. Of course, that's life where the kid never starts crying until you're speaking and distracted. Okay, we're now going to move to vote on Feldman 7. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Bianco, how do you vote? Commissioner Bianco, how do you vote on Feldman 7? Sorry, I was muted for the dog. No. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote no. The yeas are 1, the nays are 3. The amendment 7 by Commissioner Feldman is not adopted. Commissioner Feldman, let us move to Feldman 8. Thank you. Feldman 8 is an amendment that would, again, call for some much needed planning. And I think putting together a post-pandemic plan for the agency, frankly, is a requisite step that we should all see. At some point before we begin making decisions like such a significant expenditure on telecommunication, teleconferencing infrastructure, and updates to the conference room. I know that we're all interested in seeing an end of the pandemic. I've been personally and deeply affected by this pandemic, and it appears that, thankfully, various vaccines are going to be widely available by late spring or early summer, if not now. That's wonderful news. It really is. But it begs the question, what do our operations look like post-pandemic? The mid-year plan includes proposed spending, but it lacks the context about our future operations. My amendment here, Feldman 8, falls for a post-pandemic plan on what our new normal would be for agency operations, what resources are needed, how to address any foreseeable changes. We need to put the horse back in front of the car. And in the context of future operations, while these things may seem operational, operations are our policy when they're this significant. And for that reason, I think a plan is called for, and that's what Feldman 8 would accomplish. Thank you so much. Is there a second for Feldman 8? I second it. Thank you very much. I'm particularly troubled by this. Not that I think planning shouldn't be occurring, but when I look at the phrase post-pandemic, I have no idea what that means. That could require a plan that goes on five or ten years. When I think back to the days of the depression or even the days of the recession, the fallout from that extends even when you're back at work. And as you're pointing out, it could affect telework. Bob, if I may respond to that, it's intended to include Phase 3 agency operations as laid out in the Executive Director's May 22nd gating and re-entry criteria. Of course, that's not what's in your amendment, and I'm taking the words back. That's the intent. The intent is not expressed in words, but the motion, the amendment, if you've put it out, it seems to me to be an open-ended requirement for the commission. But I also have to reiterate that even if you put a timeframe on it, I would oppose it because to me this again is micromanaging to the nth degree. It shows a lack of trust in the staff. I think there's no question, but the staff has demonstrated that they're perfectly capable of planning and implementing post-pandemic approaches. Bob, may I respond to that too? The amendment here, it's not designed to micromanage, but to provide transparency and allow the full commission to prioritize our scarce resources. Well, as we learned in law school, it's not what you're thinking, it's what you're saying, and what you're saying doesn't match what you're telling me your intent was. So I'm looking at the specific wording of your amendment, and that's what I'm prepared to vote on. Is there a second degree language that you would consider offering to put this in a form that makes it more palatable to you? I'm not prepared to amend your amendments. I'm prepared to take them as you've put them forward. And so if you, at some later point, think you can come up with improved language, then you're perfectly free to propose it when we get to mid-year too. Commissioner Cade, do you have any questions or comments? I want to thank Commissioner Feldman for this amendment as well and for the back and forth with my office over the specifics of it. I had a question actually, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this is basically already occurring, meaning that staff is already drafting something. Is that accurate? That is accurate. Okay, and so with that in mind, I look forward to seeing it and having that be a transparent, the available document. And so my sense is that this work is already getting done and hopefully that means that it's not necessary to take it up, especially now. And it's probably also worth seeing what the Biden administration is going to come out with that would have an impact on the entire government, including us. I would take that into consideration when staff does that work. So, Mr. Chairman, I assume that the staff is also waiting to take into consideration what the administration might come out with. Is that accurate? I'm not sure what you mean by what the administration is coming out with, but whenever an administration speaks, I think there's no question, but that we have to listen and to the extent that they issue directions to us. I think we have to follow them if it's an executive order that applies to the commission, but we always try to act in accordance with the policy directives from the White House at times. And the point was just that as Commissioner Feldman is pointing out, there's obviously a sense that there will be a post pandemic posture of the federal government. I have to believe that that's something that OMB and OPM and others will weigh in on, and then we'll have the benefit of that along with what staff's thinking that's unique to the CPSC and we can then all look at it and see what we think of it then. And I, first of all, I completely agree with that. I will say that based on past history of prior OMB and OPM direction, the amount of direction and guidance we got was muddled and not at all clear. But I have greater hopes for this administration that when they do issue guidance that it will be clear and it will be guidance that we strongly and fully support. Chairman Adler may I respond to Commissioner Kay? Sure. If this work is being done already, then for starters, this should be an easy yes vote for everybody. But to the extent that this work is ongoing and there's a desire to hold off to see what the administration may say about about any OMB potential future post pandemic directives or guidance. Wouldn't it make sense to have that in place before we begin the process of expending a mid-year plan that calls for a quarter of which is directed at conference room upgrades and teleconference IT infrastructure without having a sense of exactly what that's going to look like. It's such a significant portion of what we're being asked to vote on today without a plan. We don't know what telework posture we're going to be in. We don't know how fully staffed headquarters will be. We don't know what, and we may not know for some time. But again, it would make sense to have a plan in place before we pull the trigger on such a significant expenditure given how scarce our resources are. If I might briefly, I don't think that this calls. Yes, it calls for an easy no. If we're already doing it. Commissioner. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Yeah, I just didn't know if that if ultimately commissioner Feldman was directing that question to me or to the chair. It was more of a comment. I apologize. I think that those points are fair commissioner Feldman part of my concern and I know what your response will be, but part of my concern is asking staff to have a final plan this fiscal year when the pandemic may not have completed. Or at least our dealings with the pandemic and our planning for a post pandemic world. May not be at its conclusion at the conclusion of this fiscal year. I would not want to have to have given arbitrary date to them to come up with something if this carries over as it unfortunately might at least the residue of it into the next fiscal year. But I hear your point. I think it's a fair one. My hope is that the expenditures that staffs undertaking are things that we would need to be doing anyway. In terms of just maintaining our flexibility and our ability to either pivot more toward back to being in the office or however long we need to be in a telework world. That those are necessary expenditures, but your point is a fair one. Thank you. Thank you. Additional questions or comments from any of the commissions. So let me just bring everybody back to where we are. We are supposed to be discussing the $2.7 million that we have and how to allocate that at this juncture in time. So I do not think and so Commissioner Feldman it's not an easy yes vote for me because I don't think that this addresses what the purpose of this particular meeting is. That said, I do think that, you know, is I think the staff is doing this. I do think we are not in post pandemic yet. I do expect and anticipate I have no reason to think otherwise that we will get a plan that will come up. So for discussion and or approval and in different areas. I just don't think this addresses the 237 million we're supposed to be talking about allocation so for me it's misplaced and let me say one other thing. I realize you're trying to make a dramatic point about talking about conference room upgrades. I think that's a little bit misplaced with all due respect. Our conference room. This is not putting in new couches and draper. Our conference room lack basic equipment to hold conferences. So if we are going to have a telework plan or we are going to host meetings that require certain equipment, then that upgrade for certain conference rooms would be more than appropriate. They're not there yet either. I just want to make sure that, you know, I know you're trying to make a dramatic effect, but for the public who's listening. I have never supported nor has it been presented to me that we're going to redecorate this. My understanding for any upgrades in conference rooms has to do with equipment that this agency lacks straight across the board and I've been talking about that since I got in got here as well. So I would support upgrades that are necessary to carry out the agency business in 2021, but that is not what your amendment proposes. And I think it would be, let's get our plan and if it needs to be reinforced or additions, I think that's for the commission to discuss it another time. Thank you so much. Commissioner Bianco hearing no additional questions or comments. I now call for a vote on Feldman eight commissioner K. How do you vote? I vote now. Commissioner Bianco. How do you vote? No, for the reasons I stated. Thank you so much. Commissioner Feldman. How do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote no. The yeas or one, the nays or three amendment eight by commissioner Feldman is not adopted. And I believe that exhausts the amendments to mid year one. I hear no further amendments. And now we're going to turn to consideration of fiscal year 2021 mid year one proposal as amended. Each commissioner will have 10 minutes for closing remarks after the conclusion of all votes. But does anyone else wish to be heard briefly, briefly before the vote on the mid year plan as amended. Okay. Having heard no further comments, I am now going to move. Excuse me. I will now call the vote on mid year one as amended. Commissioner K. How do you vote? I vote aye. Thank you. Commissioner Bianco. How do you vote? Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman. How do you vote? I vote now. And I vote yes. The ayes are three. The nays are one. The fiscal year 2021 mid year one proposal as amended has been approved. We will now have closing remarks. And each year I hope you don't take it. But each commissioner will have 10 minutes for any closing remarks and I will begin and I trust I assure you my remarks are nowhere near 10 minutes. So, I think we've all observed that this has been an unusual year for CPSC. We've never before had two mid year proposals, but I actually think we've organized them and staff has done so in a thoughtful and substantive fashion. And I thank staff for that. Overall, many things look good and I'm delighted that we're getting some additional funding for the agency, but some things really remain unaddressed. I'm delighted that Congress offered to provide funding in order for the commission to address the many challenges arising from the COVID pandemic. In a normal year, I'd be satisfied with this extra funding. I'd be rejoicing and celebrating, but this isn't a normal year and these aren't normal times. I've long maintained that the commission has needs that go beyond what we will spend both in mid year one and mid year two, including the out years for the $50 million. So, I just want to remind all of our friends that CPSC remains severely underfunded, even with the extra dollars that Congress has appropriated to us. And let me just repeat a point I've made before. You could double our budget, which is what I've called for. We'd still be the smallest of the federal health and safety regulatory agencies with what may well be the broadest jurisdictional scope. We have got to improve our funding. And again, I urge my colleagues to join me in pressing both OMB and the Congress for these needed funds. So, I certainly urge Congress to take strong action to boost our budget to permit us to offer meaningful protection to the 330 million Americans we are sworn to protect. And that is my statement. Commissioner Kay, do you have any closing remarks? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. Thanks again to the staff. I was pleased to support the package. I'm particularly pleased to see the projects on diversity, equity and inclusion that are in here and that not only do they continue to work on having our workforce better reflect the people that we represent at the agency here. And on behalf of whose work we do, but also our own work, the work itself, the substance of our work will start to better reflect the needs of the population. And this builds on the work that we added in the operating plan, critical that we continue it. And I was just very pleased to see this. And thanks again to the executive director and her staff for making it happen. Thank you so much. Commissioner Biakko, any closing remarks? First of all, on a personal note, it's nice to see you guys. Elliott, I miss seeing you, but this has been nice having this hearing. I do miss these sessions. So thank you. I don't want to be a, we all have our positions and we all have our philosophies and policy initiatives that we promote. So I don't want to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. So I will just say that where the CPSC is concerned, I will continue to advocate for expenditures on upgrades. We cannot protect the American public as well as we need to without being able to keep up with or compete with the types of businesses that are out there. We're all getting our stuff online, especially during the pandemic. Some of the things that the CPSC has been doing are based on brick and mortar stores and supply chain that's brick and mortar no longer live in that type of environment as much as we used to. And the pandemic has shown that. So I do, I'm very supportive of, of course, working with our port staff. As I've said since the beginning, I'm very supportive of spending and allocating our precious resources to a proper communications plan that reaches the American public. Because I think we have a lot to say and I am supportive of upgrading and increasing our technology so that the CPSC can continue to protect consumers from the largest risks that I think we're seeing at least right now. So I appreciate everybody's input. I know we sometimes disagree on where money should be spent. That's going to be since the beginning of time until the end of time. But I appreciate the opportunity for comments and to discuss this with all of you today. Thank you so much, Commissioner Biacco. Commissioner Feldman, any closing remarks? Thank you. I do have some closing remarks and I promise I will be brief. I want to thank staff for all their hard work in putting this together. Again, I want to echo Commissioner Biacco's sentiment that it truly is wonderful to see everybody. I want to thank all of you for your support on my one amendment with respect to social media influencers. I would have liked to have seen, admit your plan that proceeded in a more global holistic fashion so that we could better plan for the pressing needs that we have in front of us and put the agency in a strong posture to help execute our mission on behalf of the American consumers. I reserve the right for additional comments that I may make in writing, but I will leave it at that in the interest of time. Thank you. Thank you. And of course, we all have the right to issue additional statements in writing. That's certainly one of the commission's rights. Now, I'm going to ask for the commission's feedback. We could take a five minute break and then come back to the issue of animal testing. I suspect that will not take long, but is it the commission's approval? Do I have commission approval for a five minute break? Okay, then according to my watch, it's 1120, so we will resume at 1125. And people know how to turn off their microphones and their videos. So anyway, so then we will reconvene at 1125. Thanks everybody. And again, thank you, staff. Alex, Elliot, are you back? I am. Thanks, Bob. Okay, great. Really appreciate it. So I just want to say thanks again to the staff for all the work they did for a mid-year one. And now we're turning to an additional issue. And that is the consideration of the notice of availability of the proposed guidance on alternative test methods and integrated testing approaches. And that is a long way of saying that this is what I call animal testing commitments. And without going into detail, this is a reflection of what I think is a terrific commitment on the part of this agency to lessen the need for animal testing and to lessen the need to inflict pain and suffering on animals for animal testing. We have staff available who can answer questions on this. Dr. John Gordon, Hyon Kim from the General Counsel's Office and Dwayne Boniface, who is the director of EXHR, I don't see you, but I assume you're there and they're available to answer any questions. So thank you for that. So we will begin with any questions for staff. If there are any, each commissioner will have five minutes for questions. And we can go multiple rounds if necessary. Following these questions will then turn to consideration of the federal register notice. I have no questions. Commissioner Kay, do you have any questions? I do not. Thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioner Bianco, do you have any questions? Commissioner Bianco, do you have any questions? I do not. Thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioner Feldman, do you have any questions? I do. And thank you, Acting Chairman Adler. I just have one question. And first, thank you to staff for putting together this package. The memo that was included was quite comprehensive and it's clear that a lot of thought and effort went into compiling that. But my question has to do with the memo. The staff memo describes the types of data that staff will use to evaluate new approach methodologies and the data used to form an integrated approach to testing and assessment. In doing that work and in compiling the materials for the agency, was the agency's new chief data analytics officer consulted while developing the notice of availability? Yes, Dr. Gorn, I'll take that one. For this particular effort, we did not involve Dr. Kasekert. This has been, this has actually been a far longer process building to this. We've had extensive work with the ICVAM, the Interagency Committee working on this particular issue. Given the number of things that we are looking for from Dr. Kasekert, we felt we would rather have him focus on some of the more emergent needs. This is actually a fairly well-developed area. Dr. Gordon and the Health Sciences team have been really involved in that ICVAM interagency effort to try to bring sort of the best practices forward. I think that this document reflects that extensive interagency consultation. I understand. I think I understand. The data analytics officer wasn't consulted because the project and the agency's work with the ICVAM was well underway by the time the chief data analytics officer was hired. That's correct. And in terms of Dr. Kasekert's only one person, so in terms of prioritizing his focus, we felt it would be better to have him work on some of the other more pressing data analytics issues. It's my view that because the NOA pertains to data analysis, that I would be interested to hear what the chief data analytics officer's feedback might have been on this. Going forward, are these the types of projects that you would consult him on and seek his feedback and input? Yes, I certainly would. I think that where we will continue to have to balance is in terms of, this is an application I would say is a heavy domain, a deep domain type of thing. So what we're looking at is provision of toxicological data and as noted, trying to do so and it means that don't rely on extensive animal testing. I don't know that he's going to have extensive input on that sort of deep domain type of issue, but we certainly do. We leverage Dr. Kasekert absolutely much as we can and probably and then some. Okay, I'm going to hold you to that and I absolutely support the underlying policy inherent in the package that you put forward. So I do look forward to supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Dwayne. Thank you, Dr. Gordon. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. At this point, hearing no further questions or comments. I now move that the commission adopt the notice of availability of the proposed guidance on alternative test methods and integrated testing approaches as proposed by staff. Is there a second? Again. Thank you so much. I will now entertain any amendments. And if I understand correctly, Commissioner K, you do have an amendment. I do have an amendment if I may be recognized to offer it. You are recognized for three minutes and then we will follow up with any questions or comments. So thank you. You may proceed. Great. So first, Mr. Chairman, well, we've circulated already, but I'll describe it and read it. It's brief, but it's important and then I'll seek a second. And then if it's been seconded, then I'll make a few comments about why I'm offering it. So the text of the amendment, it would appear on page four of the draft Federal Register notice and we would seek to add the following paragraph before the first full paragraph. The commission reaffirms its policy to find alternatives to traditional animal testing that replace animals, reduce the number of animals tested, and decrease the pain and suffering in animals associated with testing household products. As such, the commission strongly encourages all agency stakeholders to submit for evaluation by CPSD staff any scientifically validated alternative test methods that do not require animal testing for determining compliance with the labeling requirements under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. That's the substance of the amendment. I would take a second at this point. Yeah. Okay. Is there a second? Thank you so much. Hey, did you have, you said you had additional comments. Please feel free to share them now. I do. Thank you. So this amendment is intended to make clear to our stakeholders that the commission supports the general policy of moving away from animal testing requirements whenever it can be supported by the science. It's not a new policy. We are reiterating here a policy guidance that was issued by the agency in 2012. It's important to reaffirm the general policy underlying this document that the Federal Interagency Commission that works on this issue is no longer formally validating test methods or providing us with active guidance on alternative test methods. So for that reason, we're asking all stakeholders to help the agency to get up to speed on some of these alternative test methods or more up to speed on these methods so that we can formally accept and publish them. There has been a significant cultural shift away from animal testing and towards cruelty-free products, and I think that we have more work to do in this space with all of our stakeholders to try to move better into that area. So the last alternative, and just note as a side fact, the last alternative test method that the commission formally accepted was 2012. So we're grateful that the staff is moving on this project and we're hopeful that with the inclusion of this amendment, if adopted, it will spur the submission to us of more alternative testing methods. Thank you so much. I have no questions. I just have a brief comment. I strongly, strongly support this as somebody who came to the commission back in ought 73 and understood the types of cruelty that were exacted upon some really innocent animals in pursuit of enforcing the FHSA, especially for things where the hazard was clearly known. We really didn't need to know that Drano could ruin the eyes of bunny rabbits. And yet, we still conducted those tests because we felt at the time that we were obligated to do that. And in terms of also determining the LD 50, which means that when you give a quantity to the rats that half of them die. And I just think it's a terrific thing to move away from that. And I think it's a, it's a noble calling. I'm so glad this agency is at the forefront of that. In particular, Commissioner Kay, I'm glad that you are at the forefront, not just of having the CPSC itself improve its methodology, but seeking assistance from stakeholders and feedback from stakeholders. So I think this is a terrific amendment and I fully intend to support it. Commissioner Bianco, any questions or comments? Just that for background, it's a worthy amendment at the, this, this particular issue was first noticed as a ballot. I had timely turned in my vote in the morning. And then I think Commissioner Feldman used his right to turn it to a decisional. My vote was already in before we took this amendment. So I do support your amendment. My vote is already in without it. And that was, I don't want that to suggest that I don't support it because I do Commissioner Feldman, any questions or comments? I just want to thank Commissioner Kay for offering this amendment. I think I in my office are all softies when it comes to animal issues. I think that the policy this existing is sound. I think this is a perfect opportunity to reiterate and put the stamp of the existing commission reaffirming it. I'm proud to support the K amendment. And look who's joining us. Oh, so cute. Mr Chairman. Yes. May I just address Commissioner Bianco's comment, if possible, please, and her concern about the ordering of the vote recording. Yeah, I'm just going to do that. Please feel free to make your comment as well. Yeah, my understanding, and obviously if somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, either the general council or the secretary, but that any votes recorded during this session supersede any prior submitted votes and so that if Commissioner Bianco is inclined to support the amendment, I don't believe that that the prior submission of her vote by ballot would be an impediment to that. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, and that was precisely the comment I was going to make either that or we would let the dog vote, but we get the right vote out of. All right, so then we were going to put Commissioner case amendment for a ballot. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote on your amendment? About yes. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yeah. And I vote yes. The yeas are for the nays are none. The amendment by Commissioner Kay is adopted. Are there any other amendments or emotions? Hearing none will now turn to consideration of the notice of availability of the proposed guidance on alternative test methods and integrated testing approaches decisional as amended. Now, I remind you, each commissioner will have 10 minutes for closing remarks after the conclusion of all votes and I have no such remarks. But does anyone wish to be heard briefly before we vote on this FR notice as amended. Having heard no further amendments, I will now call the vote on the main amendment as amended as amended. Commissioner Kay, how do you vote? About yeah. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman. Yeah. And I vote yes. The yeas are for the nays are zero. The notice of availability as amended has been approved. And at this point, we are going to move to a closed compliance session and that will be not on this software link but on a different one. Does anyone at this point wish to make any additional closing remarks? Hearing none. I want to thank everybody for their participation for lively debate during the course of the morning. Appreciate everybody's input. I want to particularly thank the office of the secretary, the office of the executive director, general counsel and our dear buddy Steve McGuggan. I think the meeting came off without a technical glitch. And when you're talking about my ineptitude, you know, that's a serious, serious set of expertise you've offered. This now concludes the public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. I want to say the meeting is now adjourned and we will move to the closed meeting and I'm going to give us a few extra minutes. It is 1139. Why don't we convene at 1145 on the WebEx. Okay. Thank you everybody. The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you, Bob.