 Welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission. Today, we're considering CPSC draft 2023 to 2026 strategic plan. It's an important document. It lays out our vision for the agency over the next 4 years and sets the tenor of our work. Obviously, this is putting out a draft that will then see comment from the public, which is also extremely important. So, I appreciate the work staff has put together and the focus my colleagues have put on it over the last summer weeks. Today, I anticipate we'll make some amendments to the plan, but as I said, this will not be the last step after today's meeting. We'll put the draft plan out for public comment. And I'm hopeful that members of the public will view the plan and review closely and comment on areas where they think needs strengthening and improvement that input will be carefully considered. We have several staff members present at this meeting to answer questions. If my colleagues have any with us are Jason, the executive director James Baker, chief financial officer. Also, in attendance are Austin slick general counsel and Pam Pamela stone, a special assistant to the general counsel who's standing in for the secretary of murder mills. This point each case for sure will have time 5 minutes for questions comments and after the questions and comments are complete. We're going to return to any amendments. That I would have said how glad I am that we're here. I don't have any questions or additional comments at this point in time. So, I'm going to defer to my colleagues. I turn to commissioner, do you have questions or comments? I do. First of all, chair, I would just like to recognize that what a great job you've been doing with all of this, this, this particular document for even as long as I've been here now is the 1st time we've had it as a commission to put together a document like this. For the public's understanding, because we've had acting chairs prior to your installment, we have not put this plan into place. So, this is the 1st time for me. I think this is a very, I think it's a difficult document to put together, because it. It needs to have a balance between a just overview of and try to anticipate the things over the next 4 years, which is a long period of time. And it's not a document that is designed to get in the weeds. And so I think as we've all had our discussions, that is something that I personally have struggled with, because some things appear to me to be more weedy, if you will, and other things are more strategic. So, I Alex, I think you've been doing a terrific job with this. I appreciate all of your time. And I'm just going to, I'm going to raise 1 point to demonstrate where I struggle. And the fact that this is going out for comment, I would ask would ask for some comments and for some input. And I know we're going to keep looking at this and that relates to in appendix D. We talk about key performance measures for CPSC staff and its participation in voluntary standards committees. And there's a lot of different committees. There are a lot of different goals to those committees. There are some times that the CPSC takes the lead. And there's an approval process for that. And there's sometimes that the CPSC staff participates. And I've listened in on some of the voluntary standards committee activities. Some are more organized and. Go better than others, but what I would like to do, and I'm not going to offer an amendment at this time, but I would like to point this out and keep the discussion going right now in appendix D. We have a performance measure on this particular idea that just talks about the staff participating in committee meetings and measuring our success or goals by the number of times. I don't think that goes far enough. I think that what we've been lacking in this particular area is some type of protocol and understanding amongst the commissioners amongst the staff. You know, amongst each other as to what our goals are in these voluntary standards at committee meetings and whether they're performance standards that what they're working on or something else. And I would like to see. Some language on this particular issue that is that goes more to that point, because just saying we're going to measure our success or our goals by the number of time. Of course, we participate lots of times. That doesn't get me there. So, I would like to call that to attention of my colleagues of the staff and of the public, because this is something that I think really needs to be addressed. Not only in our strategic plan, but also in more detail in our operating plan and so forth going forward. So, I'm going to just give that statement right now. And that's all I have. Mr. Can, will you be willing to yield to me for just a minute? Absolutely. Well, first, I want to thank you and I know that Commissioner Trump has also raised this issue with respect to this this performance measure. And I agree. There's, there should be a better way to measure our participation in and impact on the voluntary standards process. You know, CPC plays a key role in helping to develop the voluntary standards into making them strong. And oftentimes to the extent of voluntary standards take too long, the commission has and should move forward with mandatory standards. So, we need to find the right metrics to better track this work. And I do look forward to working with you and the staff on finding the right path forward. And as you said, I would urge stakeholders and members of the public to share their ideas with us as we put out for for comment. I think that an issue like this is exactly why we put it out for comment. So we can get input. We can raise the issues and then be able to think about it over the next, you know, as we as we take in comment as we update the plan. So, I thank you for bringing up and I look forward to working with you and I yield back to you. Nope, I couldn't have said it better. So thank you. And let's let's proceed from there. I'm good. Thank you, commissioner commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some comments and I wanted to express some some concerns with the strategic plan process that we follow thus far in waiting to consult with relevant stakeholders until this plan has been substantially drafted. I fear that we're foregoing an important opportunity to learn early about specific concerns that will be critical to the successful implementation. Of of the strategic plan, the legislative history in the GIPRama Senate report is actually quite clear on this point. We're supposed to have consulted with Congress. During the development of this plan and not afterwards, and we're required to periodically consult with Congress and obtain both majority and minority views from the house and Senate, authorizers appropriators and oversight committees. And it's my understanding that that we haven't done that yet. And as a result, I'm concerned that at this point, we may have missed an opportunity for input on the goals, objectives, strategies, performance measures that that we're looking at for the agency. But my concerns here run a little bit deeper. The process has been flawed from the start, frankly. And as I mentioned during the public briefing we received earlier, our earlier strategic plans have involved a comprehensive and a full canvas of views from within the agency. From our most junior employees to senior agency decision makers at the public briefing. Also, I was told that this plan was developed by a small committee of agency managers. But I was also troubled to learn that the plan had been under development since last November, I believe, but only recently. Now is the full commission's input being sought. We're being looped in after substantial drafting and without being able to offer specific concerns early on. And that's a problem. The amendments that we're considering today are going to make some targeted changes, but won't under address the underlying procedural deficiencies. And I do believe that that's a problem. I considered offering as an amendment to direct staff to abandon the current draft. And begin anew, but at this late time, of course, that's, that's not a practical solution. So I'm disappointed with the process that we're using this far. I think, I think seeking a more inclusive process from the beginning would have been appropriate, but I'm excited to see the amendments that we're offering. Hopefully that will make this a better document. And I do look forward to reviewing the comments that are made. So I'll leave it at that for now. Commissioner, commissioner Trump. Thank you. 1st, I just want to say that I completely agree with commissioners commissioner, and the chair on voluntary standards. We do need a better way to measure the effectiveness of our voluntary standards work and and I look forward to working together on a solution. And I look forward to seeing the comments that we get back in response. I don't have any questions at this time. Thanks. Thanks, commissioner commissioner boil. I do not have any questions at this time. Thank you. With that, the, the staff is excused and will begin to say consideration of the package before us. I will now entertain any amendments to the. Proposed document before us starting to myself, I have 1 amendment will recognize myself for 3 minutes to introduce it. I have the privilege of introducing a manager's package with 3 amendments that I believe have the support of all the members of the commission. The amendments would clarify the agency's focus on the voluntary mandatory standards to lead a confusing key performance measure related to recalls. Modifier performance measured short in the time by which staff will notify firms who are providing recall remedy information overdue filing. And replace the term unsafe consumer products with hazards for appears these amendments will clarify and strengthen the plan and I'm pleased to support them. Is there a 2nd amendment having heard a 2nd, we will now consider. Move to consideration of this amendment other commissioners will ask any questions or make any comments with respect to some amendments. And then I will provide myself an opportunity to close each commissioner. I'll have up to 5 minutes around and we can have multiple rounds as needed. Kim shamblico, did you have any comments or questions? I do not. I support the the amendments presented. Thank you, commissioner Bellman. No comments at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Trump. Nope, I support the amendments and commissioner while. Also support the amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Here, I know further questions or comments in this amendment. I'd like to thank my fellow commissioners for. Holding together and getting this managed amendment done and move to vote on it. Turning to commissioner Bianco, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Feldman, I vote yes. Mr. Trump, I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle, and I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are 5 and those are 0. The amendment from the chair is adopted. Turning to other amendments going in order of seniority commissioner Bianco. Do you have any any amendments? Not outside the ones that you've already addressed. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman, do you have any amendments? I have no amendments. Thank you. Mr. Trump, do you have any amendments? I have 1 amendment. Thank you. And it addresses 2 important concepts. Chronic hazards and recall response. So. On chronic hazards for you. Uh, no, you are right. You you describe it and then I ask for a second. So. Okay. I'd love if you asked for a second before I described it. That'd be an easier for me to go, but. Uh, but so on chronic hazards, the amendment clarifies that we're concerned. Not just about hazards in new products, but also chronic hazards that we later realize might have been in our homes all along. Because they often take a long time to reveal themselves. It also indicates that. We're going to be moving to address chronic hazards with all due speed. And with all of our tools, including mandatory rules, where they're appropriate on recall response. The amendment clarifies that moving forward, we're going to be publishing more information about active recalls to the extent we can. And also about the response rates that we're seeing this will allow the public to assess both our performance and recalls and the performance of recalling companies. And it should give a window into how many of these recalled products might still remain in people's homes. Thank you very much. Is there a 2nd for the amendment? 2nd, thank you. Having heard a 2nd, we're going to turn to consideration of the amendment itself. For, since I said, we'll have 5 minutes per round to comment on the amendment. I'm going to start with myself and clean 5 minutes and. First of all, thank you for this amendment. And I appreciate all your efforts to make the strategic plan stronger. I think you may 2 changes, both of which I support. And as you've talked about making clear that our chronic hazard work is essential. And it's focused on well known hazards, not just ones are starting now is important and putting into writing the work. And as we've been doing, and I've been. Directly staff to do to make more information available that public disclosing the monthly prior reports. Is important and it'll enable the public to better track. Recall response rates provide more transparency on how individual firms are performing their post recall responsibilities. I'm pleased that this this ongoing work is now being included in the strategic plan and I support the amendment. Commissioner, do you have any comments or questions? No questions. Thank you commissioner Trump for the amendments and you and I have discussed this previously. And as you know, and I will support the concepts of the amendment. I think they're important concepts. I don't love the language. But since we are going to be taking comments, perhaps some of my concerns, if they're, if they're really. That necessary will be addressed, but I would like to see the comments coming in. But conceptually, I think they're both important goals and I will support it. Thank you, commissioner, Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you commissioner Trump for offering this amendment. I do believe that the work that is doing to address chronic hazards is some of the most important work that this agency has in front of us right now. That said, I am uncomfortable supporting this amendment as we discussed at the briefing and in earlier. I think it's important that the language of the strategic plan mirror as closely as possible, our statutory directive, and our statutes direct us to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with with consumer products. And I think that that is important context and without that additional clarity, particularly on the on the chronic hazards portion of this amendment that used to be 2, but now it's combined into 1. I think we're potentially opening ourselves up to submission brief that I'm uncomfortable with. So, sort of expanding that work beyond our authorization is something that I'm cautious of and that's the reason I regretfully am unable to support this, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness and in the offering of the amendment. Thank you, commissioner, Mr. Boil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do support this amendment and thank you commissioner Trump. I'm particularly pleased to see the language that concerns address ability of the chronic hazards. I think at the briefing I did mention that was something that I found lacking in the original draft and the. Message that we're sending that we intend to take concrete actions where we can. I think it's an important 1. And so I support this amendment. Thank you commissioner Trump go. Thank you, commissioner Boil. Commissioner Trump. Did you have any closing closing thoughts? No, just thank you all for the consideration on this. That I'm going to turn to vote on the amendments, uh, commissioner. Yes. Mr. Feldman, I vote no. Mr. Trump. Yes, Mr. Boil. I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are 4. The noes are 1. The amendment by commissioner Trump Trump is adopted. Did you have any other amendments? Commissioner Trump? No. You know what? I actually probably no, I did not skip commissioner Feldman. Um, commissioner Boil. Did you have an amendment? Yes, Mr. Chair, I do recognize you to speak for up to 3 minutes and then a conclusion that will last for a second. Okay, thank you very much. My amendment is very straightforward and it's designed to include a key measure related to civil penalties as a way to reflect the need for such penalties to punish bad actors and to deter future bad conduct. Just a couple of points about the amendment, it's meant to systematize the penalty assessment process to ensure that all cases are evaluated for a potential penalty. This amendment is designed to measure activity on the front end and is not a measure of outcomes to achieve a certain number of penalties. For example, rather it is meant to emphasize that the agency will be evaluating in a systematic way all cases to determine whether a penalty is appropriate. Everyone knows a central premise of our statutory scheme is that companies must report information to the agency. And I think we must send a strong message companies that we will be taking action against those that do not comply with our requirements. Particularly the reporting requirements, which are so central to our statutory scheme. So, for most companies that do the right thing, the result of the civil penalty assessment will not be an issue, but for those companies that impede our ability to safeguard consumers by failing to report information or by committing any other prohibited acts. They will find themselves a subject of civil penalty investigation. And so this amendment simply reflects the importance of civil penalty work as an essential tool that the agency should and must use to enforce our statutes to protect consumers. And I ask my colleagues for their support. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Is there a second? Second, again, having heard a second, we'll now move to consideration of Commissioner Boil's amendment. The commissioners will ask any questions, make any comments with respect to this amendment. And then we'll come back to Commissioner Boil at the end. Each commissioner will have up to 5 minutes per round. We can have multiple runs necessary and I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Commissioner Boil, thank you for this amendment, which is, I believe, your 1st as a commissioner and given your past history as a director, I really expect your input as we're looking towards a strategic plan and I believe that. Yeah, yeah, I've been working to strengthen the commission's enforcement to ensure we are aggressive and pursuing civil penalties when appropriate. And I think this amendment will enable us to measure how well we're doing at evaluating. That brings such cases. It's an important step in ensuring that we are actively protecting American consumers and I support it. So, thank you. Commissioner Bianco, do you have any comments? Comments, thank you, and thank you, Commissioner Boil. I support the amendment like the other amendments that we have. I, I'm bussing still a little bit with the language and I would encourage because this does apply to all stakeholders. And as commissioner Boil noted. Everybody's going to be looked at the same. So, if you have something that you need to say out there, please give us a public comment so it can all be considered. I, I actually. I have a different view on how the agency has been applying the reporting standard over the years. The statute gives varying classes of hazards and varying times to actually conduct an investigation. Before determining whether the reportability obligation is triggered. I think the agency has really blurred that and said everything has to be reported within 24 hours. Not sure that's what the statute says. So, I'm hoping that this amendment and what we're going to do with it going forward. We'll address that and some of the other issues that go with it, but I do support the amendment and concept and look forward to hearing the comments and I will vote. Yes. Thank you, commissioner commissioner problem. Thank you, mr chairman, and thank you to my colleague for introducing this amendment. Unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment. My concern is that as drafted, it might have the unintended consequence of incentivizing staff to shy away. From the complex and resource intensive enforcement activity that we often see just in order to meet this metric while we don't want to rush cases on the back end to clear the deck. For example, by settling them for less than consumers deserve at the same time. I also don't want to rush the process on the front end by imposing an arbitrary deadline to initiate a penalty investigation. I think the proposed metric. Might incentivize staff to open cases in some instances. Those, including the especially obvious and in less complex cases, but my fear, as I said, is that it might incentivize. Staff to to have the opposite result where we forego enforcement in the larger and more complex and resource intensive cases. And as we know, those cases tend to involve the larger potential defendants. Including multi-billion dollar firms, and I frankly don't think that those potential defendants should get a pass in front of this agency. Certainly not. So, I would welcome stakeholders feedback on a better measure that would include both a qualitative and quantitative assessment of how we're using our civil penalty authority, but I can't support this as it's drafted. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner Trump. Well, I really welcome this amendment. You know, I think civil penalties form the backbone of what this agency does to keep people safe by deterring bad conduct. And so, because of their central importance, this sets up a system or it will help set up a system where we're looking at them every time so that we don't have an arbitrary process. We put ourselves on the clock for consideration. It doesn't push us towards any result, but what it does is say, we're going to have a system to make sure we think about it every time it could be appropriate. So, for those reasons, I think it's a great idea and it's a well-reasoned approach on how to get there. So, I support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. I turn back to Mr. Boyle. If you have any other thoughts before we go to a vote. No, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just appreciate my colleagues support and consideration on the amendment. That we will ask for a vote. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Commissioner Feldman I vote now. Commissioner Trump. Yes. And I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes as well. That makes it 4 yeses. 1 now the amendment of commissioner Boyle is adopted. Are there any other amendments or anybody else? I do not have any other amendments. Mr. Chair. Thank you. So, hearing no additional amendments, I move to approve the staff's draft 2023, 2026. Strategic plan as amendment and direct the publication of the notice of availability at the same time that federal register. Is there a 2nd? 2nd, having a 2nd, we can move to a vote. Commissioner Bianco. How do you vote? I vote. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman I vote now. Thank you. Commissioner Trump. Yes. Commissioner Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes. The noes are 1. The motion to approve the staff drafts is as amended. Is proved the notice of availability has been approved and should be published in the federal register. Opening the document up for comment, we will now have 10 minutes for commissioner for any closing remarks. I'm going to claim my time and 1st, I do want to thank the staff for all their work on the strategic plan and for the commissioners for their engagement. I know a lot of hours put into it shows. Um, to the issues that commissioner felon raised to point out that this is really the middle of the process with a long way to go. I think that there's opportunities said, we're putting this up for public comments and that is coming from obviously. Uh, our stakeholders, the American people and Congress as well. And so we will engage with all. And I think the number of you have. Uh, it's urged the public to comment on different aspects of the amendments and the plan as we've been talking about it. I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I look forward to that and we will have. Realistically, several months to work on this and to perfect it in a way that hopefully all of us will be able to support going forward. Because I arrived at the commission just about 10 months ago and when I arrived, I was really focused on a number of key goals. And 1st of all, that's been focusing on strengthening and modernizing CPSC. So, it's better prepared to meet the changing needs of consumers in the marketplace. This means improving our internal operations, giving ourselves the capacity to analyze and understand vast quantities of data so that we can better identify hazardous products. And the communities that they impact us, it means adapting to the growth of e commerce and addressing the challenges that come from direct to consumer importation of goods. And secondly, I really do want CPSC to be household names so that we are the 1st place that the public turns to when they hear about a recall or want product safety information or when they identify a hazard and want to raise a flag. They think of us and we're there to take up their information and go forward. You know, we should be there to to warn consumers of dangerous products to educate them how to better protect their families and doing so we should be reaching out to understanding the needs of all consumers, including vulnerable communities and communities of color. Finally, that's the 3rd key. I wanted to make clear that CPSC always should put consumers 1st and work that we do both prevention and response must work with industry to come up with voluntary standards. Where those standards fail. We should turn to mandatory rules are recalls should be conducted in a way that best serves consumers and we should take appropriate enforcement action when companies violate the law. I'm pleased to see that these concepts are picked up in the draft strategic plan and. Incorporates and moving the agency in the right direction sets the agency on a strong path for the coming years. I look forward to getting comments from all stakeholders and the public about how we can improve and strengthen this plan to and based on those comments and come back and we will update the plan and finalize it and. Be here again, talking about it again amongst ourselves. So, thank you again to the staff and the commissioners that my comments are done. I will turn to commissioner Bianco. Thank you. I agree with many things chairman that you said, and the 1 of the reasons 1 of the many reasons I came to the CPSC was also to help modernize the agency to bring some of the credibility that I personally feel. May have dripped away over the years. I really have appreciated and. Black for better term enjoyed working with my colleagues on this. This has been a real exercise in collaboration. We all have been put. We all have comments to be made. And these are important goals. And. You know, we always all of us will say we could disagree on this or disagree on that and human beings are going to disagree all the time. I think many of the points that commissioner Feldman raised today are right on the money and there are certain things that I think. ought to be considered on balance. I think that it's a it's a strong document, but I cannot stress this enough. Those of you who are out there, you have to give us your comments because coming into our offices later and saying, well, I don't agree with this or that and not commenting is really an awkward position for us. I do think that this this particular document and the CPSC as a whole should put the consumer 1st. I agree with that, but it is not. Just consumers who are stakeholders, many industry leaders are stakeholders and in their individual capacities are also consumers. So, I think it would be a stronger effort if all of our stakeholders got together and we didn't leave anybody out, not vulnerable communities, not stakeholders, not you, not me, not our families. I think on this type of goal setting needs to consider everybody's point of view and I know that this particular commission has been very open to that and that is a great thing. So, I encourage everyone out there who's listening or spread the word, please comment on this document, give us some goals or input on the language because I think the goals of this commission are more aligned than it may appear. And I look forward to strengthening the document. I look forward to the agency strengthening some of its approaches and I look forward to working with all of you going forward. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Pelman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and all of my colleagues and agency staff for putting on a decisional today that that ran quite smoothly. As I expressed at the top, I do have some very serious concerns with the process that we followed thus far and a little bit further, the legal sufficiency of the extent to which we're in compliance with not only the letter, but the spirit of GIPRAMA when GIPRO was reauthorized, it was done so with the intention that this not be a rubber stamp exercise. And I fear that that it's possible that that's the road that we're headed down. I was troubled to learn at the briefing that the basis for the document that's in front of us right now is essentially a rehash of a previous plan that we put together. It was constructed without extensive input from up and down the agency. GIPRAMA is quite clear in its directive that Congress be looped in at a point earlier than we've done at this point at the beginning of the process, not the middle of the process. So, with that said, I do have some concerns. I think some of the amendments that we agreed to today make some modest tweaks around the edges. It's my hope that by pursuing public input that we can continue to make this a better document. But for the reasons that I've stated, this is something that that I'm just not able to support. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner commissioner trump up. Thank you. And first, thank you to staff for the work you've put into creating this new strategic plan and for listening to the questions that we raised at the initial briefing and also here today. And thank you to my fellow fellow commissioners for the very collaborative work we've all done trying to, you know, trying to improve this plan. And I think it has many strengths. Um, we have a new focus on deterring bad corporate behavior. A new objective to track what firms do with their product recalls and a clear understanding of when and why CPSC should issue regulations to protect consumers. I know that those changes are going to improve how our agency works over the next four years. I'd also like to thank the chair for his manager's amendment and thank my fellow commissioners for their support on the amendments to help us identify chronic hazards as an important area of focus and to better track and report on recall response. I've still got questions about how our agency measures its performance. It's extremely important that we get that right because for better or for worse, I think we all know that what gets measured is what gets managed and we want the measures to be as close to our goals as possible. So, if we're measuring the wrong things that could pull us away from our mission of reducing injuries and deaths from hazardous products. So, I'd love to hear public comments on our performance measures in particular. For example, is there a way that we can include measures on the estimated number of injuries and deaths that we succeed in preventing through the actions that this agency takes? It's something that we already do to a large extent in rulemaking, but I'd love to hear how we could accomplish that goal more broadly because it would allow us to highlight the full value of the service that this agency provides to the public health. Again, I agree completely with commissioner and the chair that we need a better measure on the effectiveness of our voluntary standards work. We're doing important work there, but we're not measuring it every year. The commission direct staff to participate in a certain number of voluntary standards activities. Last year, I think was 83. And then staff reports back that they participated in those 83 activities. They actually do more than those 83. So, there's no need to hand out participation trophies around here because we're doing important work and staffs hard work on those voluntary standards deserves a true measure of its value. So, I'd like to hear comments on whether we can measure something that captures the public value we create by participating in those committees. I'd also like to see a proposal from staff that creates protocols that commissioner be a co alluded to that would govern the participation, how we participate when we participate in voluntary standards activities. And I think we can conduct a survey as well of staff who work on voluntary standards to get their feedback on which standards committees are giving us a true seat at the table. And where we're hitting brick walls and I'd love a sense of whether we have separately the right timelines for identifying and responding to hazards. Is 85 business days the right amount of time to identify a hazard. Is that too long from there is another 90 business days to get a cap the right amount of time. Or could be proud recalling businesses to protect consumers faster than that. I'd love to hear the public's perspective on those time frames. And lastly, strategic goal to. It's the heart of what this agency does, you know, we enforce safety rules that we put on the books and we do so in a way that deters companies from breaking the rules and putting people in danger. We enforce and deter and wouldn't that title enforce and deter, send the important message to the public and to regulated enemy entities. About what we value more than the current title, which is simply address in which title describes the agency more willing to aggressively protect consumers from harm. So, I look forward to public comment on that and on these other open issues. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to my fellow commissioners for this productive discussion this morning. And of course, thanks to the staff, put this strong draft plan together and we're so invaluable in providing the assistance as we can develop the amendments that we consider today. I think the plan is stronger product as a result and I'm going to echo by fellow commissioners and say, though, I'm really looking forward to receiving comments from stakeholders. Across the board, as commissioner Bianco said, so that the resulting strategic plan is stronger still so that will be well positioned to address these difficult challenge of safety issues in the years ahead. So I don't have any further comments at this time, knowing that this is an iterative process and we will be addressing it multiple stages along the way. I just want to say thank you and appreciate all the hard work from everyone. Thank you, commissioner. Thanks again to all the commissioners and staff for the work on this process and look forward to getting the comments and continuing to engage with all the commissioners to back the plan and to update it based on the input that we receive. So, with that, this concludes today's decisional meeting of the consumer product safety commission. Thank you.