 Welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission. We're meeting today to consider the agency's operating plan for the current fiscal year staff drafted this operating plan with a clear understanding of our likely budgetary limitations. The baseline assumption is that we'll have a budget level cut by 1% as outlined in the debt limit agreement struck by Congress's past summer on his face. 1% cut. May not sound bad, but a staff laid out here due to expected higher salaries and other costs were actually need at least $10 million over last year's level. Just to keep us at our current services level. But differently, a 1% cut results in almost 20% cut to our non-salary work of our of the commission from research to equipment. Now, the appropriations outlook for the agency hasn't approved improved since we've been presented with the staff draft. The house is voting this week on our appropriations bill that could decrease our budget from levels. To the levels of the fiscal from season from fiscal 22 will consider amendments to dramatically cut it further by as much as half should those deep cuts go into effect. It's the American people who will suffer and unscrupulous businesses and importers who will benefit as there's products that could have been stopped. Our borders will end up in store shelves and in homes recalls will be dramatically slowed. Almost to a crawl and our work to prevent deaths and injuries from common children's household products, especially from hidden hazards will be delayed or stopped. And while I hope and expect that once facts are clear, CPC's funding levels remain steady, we must be both ready to operate under tighter budgetary constraints, but not lose sight of our mission to advance our safety work as expeditiously as possible. To end the operating plan remains ambitious given the procedural hurdles that were highlighted in a recent court decision. In which will slow the finalization proposed rules, it may be overly ambitious, but we have long standing priorities to advance mandatory standards, which is portable generators table saws and nursing toes and they're emerging hazards like water beads that we need to address. While doing all this, we need to keep track of imports, testing products, gathering and analyzing data and preparing other safety standards that will be finalized in future years. So, in order to remain ambitious and to fit within the debt limit budget, staff recommended that the mission make some hard decisions and set priorities, accelerating some projects and slowing others down. Today's decisions culmination weeks discussion among commissioners and staff as we struggled with these difficult decisions. CPSC staff is amazing and has moved mountains in the last couple of years to improve safety, but we also must understand that even they are able to do only so much. It's up to the commission to prioritize and guide those limited resources efforts to succeed in getting the safety work with the American people done. I appreciate the time and effort my colleagues have spent putting their amendments together and I'm hopeful we can find consensus on a final operating plan. We're going to start today with questions for staff. Jason Levine is at the table to answer questions. Each commissioner will have 5 minutes for questions to extent that commissioners need additional rounds will offer them now for questions are done. I'm going to excuse staff and move to consideration of the package as a reminder, while commissioners may have voiced personal opinions on legal issues, it's not appropriate to discuss any legal advice given to us by the office of general counsel in a public session legal advice must remain confidential. So, starting with the question period. I personally have no questions. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Levine. I want to extend my thanks for your work on this package and the technical assistance that you provide, but I do have no questions. Thank you. You can, Mr. Trump, I have no questions. Thank you. Mr. Boyle, I don't have any questions. Thank you. Hearing no questions, staff excuse. I'm going to turn to consideration of the package before us. Before putting the matter, it's proposed by staff to a vote. I'm going to entertain any motions from commissioners to amend the staff proposal. Each commissioner will be recognized to introduce their men for up to 3 minutes. The amendment is seconded commissioners rec will be recognized in order of seniority to take 5 minutes to ask questions or provide comment multiple rounds will be allowed as necessary. So, starting with myself, I have a manager's amendment that includes several technical changes, as well as some stuff that changes proposed by each member of the commission. Includes language. I'm proposing to reprogram funds to pay the expenses agency expects to encourage comply with procedural hurdles for ongoing rule makings, given our tight budgets, the cuts to life saving work are unwelcome. The key rules can't move forward without them. As to the the reigners of the the parts of the manager's package, I'm going to defer to my colleagues discuss their inclusions in the package as we consider the amendment. Do I have a second on the managers? Second. Hearing a second, we will now turn to consideration the amendment and a description of the elements that my colleagues have put in. So, Commissioner Feldman, start with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak a little bit about my amendment, Feldman 1, that's included in the manager's package. Our statute authorizes CPC to bring enforcement actions against imminently hazardous products. When Congress conferred this authority, it did so with the expectation that we use it where appropriate. To date, the commission has used its section 12 powers with exceeding in frequency in this authority, frankly, has lain dormant for too long. While not every recall is a candidate for a section 12 action, I'm aware of a number of troubling cases during my tenure here at the agency where swift action by the commission would have benefited consumers. My amendment would formalize the review process for imminent product hazards and ensure that we make maximum use of this authority in the current budget environment. Our interagency relationships matter more than ever. Under section 12, we can bring our own imminent hazard cases, but we are also authorized to work with the Department of Justice to litigate on consumers behalf that DOJ, which is well resourced, is a force multiplier and a willing partner that will bring cases on CPSC's behalf where imminent hazards exist. This authority is particularly attractive because it allows us to move against product categories, not just specific identifiable firms, given the increasing prevalence of foreign firms with no domestic presence that this authority permits CPSC to enforce against the product itself. This is a very powerful tool, especially when it comes to dangerous imports from China and other countries. Simply put, this authority allows us to protect consumers and to do so on an expedited basis. I'm pleased to see it included in the manager's package, and I appreciate my colleague's support. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Trump go over 20% of Americans don't speak English at home. Not English speakers think we all can agree deserve the same information, the same chance to protect themselves and their families as anyone else. But the agency's process of translating a surge in warnings to the public can take up to six weeks. That delays unjust and it creates a second class of citizens who can learn about recalls weeks after English speakers were alerted. So I've introduced an amendment for CPSC to seek commitments from the company's recalling products to communicate the recall information in languages that their consumers understand. That's going to put understandable information in more consumers hands faster. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two amendments I'd like to speak to the first would revise footnote five. If the CPSC is appropriated funds above $150 million, CPSC staff shall transfer employees salaries and expenses for up to 17 FTEs from ARPA to regular agency appropriations. The funds are available following such a transfer, including funds from unexecuted balances assessed to the mid-year evaluation. Staff shall seek specific authorization from the commission for additional expenditures, which may include, but will not be limited to projects referenced above. So in the staff's package, staff sets out a list of spending adjustments ranked in priority order that staff would make should the commission's actual appropriation exceed the 150 million debt ceiling level. And the first priority staff listed would transfer funds from ARPA to annual salaries and expenses. So that 17 FTEs under ARPA would be funded under the agency's regular appropriations instead. This recommendation is consistent with the approach the agency has already established to fund employees through annual appropriations to the extent possible. And I support using funds in this way. My amendment, however, recognizes the fluidity of hiring and the importance of consistently reassessing staffing needs, particularly in this budgetary environment. And for that reason, the amendment will allow for the transfer of funds for up to 17 FTEs rather than referring to 17 FTEs as an absolute. Next, if funds remain available after a transfer from ARPA to the agency's annual appropriation bucket, my amendment would require staff to seek specific authorization from the commission for additional expenditures. That is the list on OS 9 will not be self executing and will require specific commission approval. This requirement will allow the commission to weigh in on priorities and spending choices once the appropriation landscape is clearer. I expect such authorization would occur through the mid-year process, which would also include any unexecuted balances that may be available at the time. Thank you. And I appreciate my colleague's support on this amendment. Other addition in the manager's amendment is really, in a lot of ways, a companion to the amendment offered by commissioner Trump. And I would also like to add that the agency has already taken important steps in this direction, and I am pleased that we have begun to translate into seven, eight recalls and recall alerts in Spanish. That is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see us do more to make this a sustained practice. Going forward so that it is a standard and timely feature of our work. I believe we need to continue to make it a priority and use opportunities that we have today, approving the blueprint for agency activities for the coming year to reaffirm our commitment to reach and serve these communities. To that end, given unstable funding sources, I am concerned that this effort has not been built into the agency baseline, and my amendment is meant to underscore the need to evaluate cost-effective and timely options so that dissemination of information and languages other than English becomes the norm and not the exception. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Maul. I appreciate the work that all of my colleagues have done in the amendments that have been put together in the manager's package. I think it makes the overall package better and plan to support that also had a request to do another round of comments on this. So starting with Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to let my colleague introduce his amendment, but I wanted to state that I am pleased that Commissioner Trump has amendment is included in the manager's package, which would place costs for translating recall announcements with the recalling firm. Frankly, this is an issue that we have been working with staff to address for years. Recalling firms receive a tremendous benefit when CPSC agrees to particular remedies. This amendment is a good first step to shift recall costs from the American taxpayers to the recalling firm itself where they belong. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue going forward, but appreciate the inclusion of the managers. Commissioner Trump, Commissioner Boyle hearing no other comments can move to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman, I vote yes, Mr. Trump, yes, Mr. Boyle, yes, I vote yes as well. The yeses are for the nose or zero. The amendment is adopted. Now return to other other amendments from the commissioners. Commissioner Feldman. Do you have any amendments? I do not. Commissioner Trump could you have amendments? Yes, I call up Trump Amendment one. Recognize you for your amendment. If you can describe the amendment and then last for a second. Sure. When someone appears before the commission, we should know whose interests they represent. With some we already do parent advocates, for example, speak with the purest voice because they speak from personal experience. I value their perspective and I'll always want to hear as much from them as they're willing to share. With others we don't always know. So what this rule would do, what it would address is industry groups sending people before this commission without disclosing their true affiliations. This will provide transparency and protect against hidden corporate influence and agency proceedings. Last fiscal year we proposed the rule. This fiscal year we need to finalize it. This amendment would do that. Is there a second? Second. Hearing second, we're going to turn from to comments and questions from other commissioners. I'm going to start with myself. Commissioner Trump, I appreciate the amendment after talking to staff and reviewing this amendment. You know, my general concern has been we are have it do have an ambitious operating plan and limited resources. But those discussions may be comfortable that we do have the resources available to move the interest closure notice from proposed rulemaking to a final rule within this fiscal year without impacting our substantive safety rulemaking. So I plan to support the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rulemaking agenda that staff proposed is already ambitious and the chairman himself in his opening remarks in fact called it overly ambitious. Throughout our discussions we've been repeatedly told from staff that the mandatory standards table borders on aspirational and that's due in part to the additional requirements that we must comply with under the WCMA ruling. That process involves significant additional work on the existing rule makings as well as anything new we might add. I'm concerned that adding additional items to the list of anticipated work risks other items falling off. And I've asked for additional clarity from staff about what items are likely to slip. Should the commission approve a plan that adds new items or accelerates the existing rule makings and unfortunately today I just haven't received a clear answer. It's unclear to me exactly how this proposal would alter the table and how staff should prioritize a project. So I'm going to know on this amendment moreover I'm concerned that accelerating this particular rulemaking is premature. The comment for this rule doesn't close until November 28th. That means that we're still receiving comments which we're going to need to review. And frankly we shouldn't assume that a final rule is appropriate here until we've had an opportunity to review the comments. So for that reason as well I'm also in now. Thank you. Commissioner Boyle. I plan to support the amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Tom get to your final thoughts. No thank you for your consideration. Now move to a vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman I vote no. Mr. Trump. Yes. Mr. Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are three. The noes are one. The amendment by commission amendment one by commissioner. Trump is adopted. Commissioner Trump. Mr. Trump. Do you have other amendments. I do. Thank you. I call up. Trump. Amendment three. Trump. Three. I recognize you to describe your amendment. Alicia Isabel Thomas or Ali Bell as she was called by her devoted mom Myra was six months old when she died on March 18th 2022. Myra was in this very room when she told us through tears that Ali was wearing a weighted sleep sack when she died. The American Academy of Pediatrics now calls weighted sleep sacks quote unsafe for infants. AAP also told this agency by letter in June that quote there is evidence that the use of weighted sleep products on infants can lead to lower oxygen levels which may be harmful to developing infant brains. AAP pleaded with this agency to act on weighted infant blankets now stating that CPSC quote should take a precautionary approach to these and other novel infant sleep products to avoid a repeat of what happened with inclined sleepers. These products ultimately were associated with over 100 infant deaths all of which would have been prevented if these products were not kept on the consumer market end quote. AAP isn't alone in speaking out against weighted infant blankets. The CDC says quote weighted products are not safe for infants. The National Institute of Health agrees warning that weighted products can pose danger for a baby. Yet neither AAP or NIH or CDC can remove dangerous products from the marketplace. That's CPSC's job. And every additional death we see in these products will be our fault if we don't address this now. We can't wait for a string of infant deaths before taking action to protect babies from a hazard that's staring us right in the face. So I've introduced the Allie Bell Amendment which would deliver a proposed rule on weighted infant blankets, sleepers and swaddles and update CPSC's safe sleep guidance to be in line with CDC and NIH guidance on weighted products. Myra, you asked us to keep a vigilant eye on this product category. Today I ask my fellow commissioners to join me in fulfilling that duty to you and Allie. Is there a second for the amendment? Second. Hearing a second, we're going to move to comments and questions from the commissioners. I'm going to start with myself. Commissioner Tropka, I appreciate you bringing up this issue. It is one that is extremely important, one that I think many commissioners up on this dais have been talking about and urging action on. But as to the amendment itself, I mean I think half the amendment is actually unnecessary and the other half is counterproductive. Staff is already working on how to modify safe sleep guidance to account for the fact that both NIH and CDC is warning against use of wearable weighted wearables for infants. The amendment itself is unnecessary as this work is ongoing and I anticipate that we will be updating our guidance. But as to starting a rulemaking, it's my understanding that the staff hasn't conducted the research necessary to draft a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2024 and simply directing them to do it or wishing something to happen doesn't reflect the work that has to go into a successful rulemaking that ultimately reflects the science and can be sustained over time. That being said, the staff is very aware of the issue and is working diligently to assess and quantify the safety risks associated with weighted blankets. And I plan to make sure that the commission does to keep on top of the issue. But in the end of the day, I can't support what ends up being more of an arbitrary deadline for the staff that we know that they can't meet. So I plan to oppose the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the reasons I've already stated that the rulemaking agenda is ambitious and I don't have clarity on what would fall off. Should we add new items or accelerate existing rulemaking? I'm also in now. Thank you. Commissioner Bo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Trump for this amendment. As you know, several weeks ago when we were briefed on the operating plan, I asked a number of probing questions of the executive director on this topic and underscored my concern on it. I have for a long time been discussing this topic with staff. And so it is something that is of great concern to me. But I do think at this time it's premature. I plan to hold the chairman to his word in terms of revising our guidance and keeping our feet to the fire on this. I do think it's really important. I think there are lessons from the past that we should be applying to these emerging hazards. And this is at the top of my list. But at this time, unfortunately, I can't support the amendment. Commissioner Trump, did you have any additional thoughts? Whether we believe it's possible or we believe it's not, we're right. With that, if there's no other comments, go to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Commissioner Trump. Yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. And I know as well that Trump 3 is not adopted. Commissioner Trump. Do you have another amendment? I call up Trump. Amendment for. I recognize you to describe your amendment. Ashley Haugen came to this commission five months ago at her priorities hearing and stated plainly, I need your help. We heard about her sweet daughter, Kipley, who she told us is suffering long-term effects from her ingestion of water beats. But they both maintain their selflessness. Kipley's constant refrain is friend safe because she wants to keep all friends safe. She wants to make sure no one else gets hurt like she did. Alicia Mitchell was here that day too. She told us the horror her family suffered after her daughter Kennedy ingested a single water bead, multiple surgeries, her tiny body swelling to three or four times its normal size, organ failures, blood transfusions, bowel removal. But she found the strength to come here and tell us their story and ask for our help. Sarah Ghent came too. She told us about her son, Henry, and how the surgeries that saved his young life have left him with large scars and scar tissue that could put him at risk of blockages for the rest of his life. These brave moms spoke for scores more who have suffered similar outcomes and worse. They asked for our help and they deserve it. They deserve to receive it. There will always be voices that say CPSC can't move that fast. But we can drown out those detractors with a dose of reality and a collective statement that we have to. In honor of Kipley's unflappable spirit and her kind heart, I'm proud to introduce the friend safe amendment with its CPSC would finalize a water bead safety rule in 2024. Is there a second? Having heard a second. We moved to consideration of the amendment and I will start with my my time. So again, I share commissioner Trump is concerned on what is a. Important safety issue that the commission is working on and I desire your share your desire to advance safety rules as well. As quickly as possible. Same time, I also am bound by the reality of our statute and our resources and you know, water beads can pose a deadly hazard to babies and small children. And staff has begun to review the existing standard and proposed in the draft operating plan to put forward a proposed nose of rulemaking to address this hazard this fiscal year. Your amendments he's described calls them for on them to do both that research and the draft NPR and to bring forward a final rule over the course of a year. And given the requirements of CPSC's statute or resources doing that in a way that will be sustainable and in court, I believe is simply not realistic and you know. Setting an unreachable goal. I don't think actually helps anyone. So I'm going to vote against the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the reasons I've stated on the previous amendments. I'm a now on this one as well. Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I support Commissioner Trump. Good goal. I unfortunately can't support the amendment. I do think we have already moved quickly to put this on the agenda as an emerging hazard. I also am very cognizant of the rules and processes that govern how we do our business at the agency and the limited resources that we have that said there's nothing that says that pencils down presuming that the NPR comes to the commission and it's approved. My full expectation is that work will continue so that we get as close to possible to a final rule as soon as possible. So I don't see a direction that staff will cease work on this. And so for that for the reasons that the chair said in terms of processes and resources, I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment, but have full expectation that staff will work fully toward a final rule as quickly as possible. Commissioner Trump could you have final comments. Whether we believe it's possible or we believe it's not. We're right. With that, we're going to move to a vote. Commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Commissioner Trump. Yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. And I vote no. The SSR1 knows that three of the amendment number four is not adopted. Commissioner Trump, could you have additional amendments? I call up Trump. Amendment two. Recognizing you describe amendment two. CPSC regulates 15,000 product categories. Only one of them is associated with 750 deaths per year and over 106,000 emergency run trips per year. And that's ATVs and side by sides. They've they're tied to the most deaths of any product category in our jurisdiction. So you'd naturally expect them to be our number one priority. They're mine. And they need to be this commissions. When I put my kids on an ATV, I want to know that it's built as safe as technology will allow. That we've done everything we can to protect against what can be a very dangerous product even for experienced riders. But today we've been called here to vote on a plan containing all the rules CPSC is going to work on this year. And once again, ATV inside by side deaths and injuries are notably unaddressed. I've introduced an amendment to correct that. Most of the deaths are from vehicles overturning and crushing riders. We've been studying that issue for many years. The technology exists to prevent the mass deaths we see on these vehicles every year. Countries like Australia took steps years ago to address this, but we we lag behind. And the final step CPSC needs to take is simply drafting the test procedure we'd want vehicles to pass. This agency has incredible experts on staff, particularly in this area. And I know they're capable of doing that this year. But more importantly, we need to. I've put forward an amendment to make that happen. These vehicles also catch fire at an alarming rate. We directed staff to propose a rule on that hazard last year and to finalize it in 2024. That didn't happen. And this draft operating plan abandons that rulemaking altogether. My amendment also corrects that mistake calling for NPR this year. Is there a second? Hearing a second. We'll now move to consideration of the amendment. I'm going to start with myself. I share commissioner. Trump has concern over the deaths and injuries that we see annually with ATVs and OHVs. It is an area that commission has engaged on for decades at this point in time and has made some progress, but not enough. And I may be committed to moving forward to address the hazards associated with them. And I would be supportive of dedicating funds to complete the review of the ATV rollover incidents and to examine forms testing method is to the extent that they are available. But the funding of an ATV study and diverting resources from staff at this time would undermine staff's ability to move forward on another of other rule makings that are actually close to being finalized. Further, it's critical that we give staff enough time to do this work thoroughly. This work is not ready to move forward at this time. We do want this work to go forward and we want to do it in a way that is ultimately sustainable and that flex the ways to address the hazards that we see out there. So we as commission and I personally will check back on the progress early next year, you know, assess when we're ready to move to the next phase based on the resources that we have. But really in the end of the day, we want to do it in a way that is ultimately sustainable and that flex the ways to address the hazards that we see out there. So we as commission and I personally will check back on the progress early next year. But really in the end of the day, we need to be able to balance out the resources the staff has find out what the technical findings are first. They do think that adopting this time would be counterproductive to a lot of the other work that is on the cusp of getting done. So I'm going to vote against this amendment commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am comfortable with the plan mandatory standards work as proposed by staff. This amendment would have an opportunity cost adding it to the mandatory standards table would mean something else being passed. And unfortunately, I haven't received a clearance from staff about exactly what would fall off should we start adopting amendments to add new projects or accelerate others. So I'm a no on this amendment. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I can't support the amendment, but I hope that at the mid year process. Partially as a result of the amendment, we agree to to read to renew an examination of our priorities at that time we can consider it then. So I can't support it right now. Commissioner Trump. Thank you for that thought, Commissioner Boyle. At this point in time, we move to vote on the amendments. Commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Mr. Trump. Yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. And I'm a no. So the yeses are one, the noes are three in the amendment. Number two, a commissioner, Trump is not adopted. Mr. Trump. Do you have additional amendments? I call a Trump amendment five. I recognize you for your amendment number five. June of this year, four people were killed and two others critically injured. After a lithium ion e-bike battery spontaneously burst into flames in New York City bike shop. And then quickly spread to the apartments above. And it's not an isolated incident. In July, CPSC held an expert forum on this deadly issue that had at the time claimed 13 lives and caused 87 injuries in just the prior six months in New York City alone. That panel of experts included members of industry, voluntary standards bodies, the country's largest fire department and consumer advocates. One takeaway was clear. They all wanted CPSC to create a mandatory rule for lithium ion batteries and e-bikes and to do it as quickly as possible. There's a UL standard that they looked at as a minimum floor and embraced the safety positive addition suggested on top of it. Specifically, check battery indicators like the check engine light in the car that could indicate when a battery or any of its cells is unstable or at risk of failure. Automatic overcharge shutoffs in both the batteries and the chargers to stop thermal runaway when batteries are left on a charger too long. Focus on the state of battery health, including degradation and damage as another means to alert consumers to possible damage before it's too late. And tamper-proof battery containers to address the dangerous practice of mixing and matching battery cells. When industry is begging for rules, when a voluntary standards body says we need mandatory standards, when those experts agree on what we should consider within those rules, we need to strike when the iron's hot. Industry wants to do the right thing here. They want us to tell them how to be safe. We need to do that. People are afraid in their apartments of risks from their neighbor's products that they've never even seen. We owe them comfort. We owe them a final rule in 2024. I've introduced an amendment to make that happen. There's always an excuse available for why we can't move fast, except here, except when everybody involved is calling for it. None exists here. Is there a second for the amendment? Second. Hearing a second, no new consideration of the amendment. Lithium ion batteries and the hazards associated with them are an issue that the entire commission takes seriously. And I certainly do. We hold an all day forum that commissioner Trump. You just reference and in that all the commissioners engaged actively on it. And I was pleased to hear stakeholders wanting to move forward on standard, which is what the staff has proposed. But once again, after extensive conversations with staff and I'm convinced that the timeline that to get to a final rule is simply unrealistic. And in the end of the day, if we pushed it that fast, I believe that somebody would challenge it because not all of industry is out there support supportive. And ultimately, if we're to move forward with honestly any. Rule we need to do so in a way that is consistent with our statute in a way that will be fully sustained because I prefer in the end of the day to get something that's going to be in place that is going to be enforced. So I am eager to move this forward as quickly as possible. And as commissioner Boyle said that nothing stops the staff from moving forward after an NPR has been issued. And honestly, they don't they continue working on forward to get to an NPR. But I don't think that it is realistic to be able to say that we are going to move forward to a final rule this year, given the limited resources and other work that is before the commission. So I'm going to have to vote against amendment. Commissioner Felbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what you just said. And for those reasons, I'm also an L. Mr. Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I have to not support this amendment for many of the reasons I've already said on the other amendments I have been very much of an advocate for addressing issue. These issues, especially in Ebice, I've met with our staff multiple times out at the lab. And I have to take their recommendation seriously that this work needs to be that their work work needs to be done to lay the foundation for a strong rule. And so, you know, I understand that they are already consulting with industry counterparts to look at the voluntary standard that we have already encouraged industry to comply with so that improvements can be made. I have to respect the recommendations of the staff. And again, though, at the same time, expect that staff understands the priority, the importance, the urgency of this issue, and that they will be working in that vein. So, unfortunately, I can't support the amendment, but I support the goal and I fully appreciate that staff understands that and will be acting in that in that vein. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I'll pause for one minute. I'll do a recess for five minutes to fix technical issue. All right, we are back having fixed the technical issue that we are having with the video. So, we're assuming at this point in time, we were considering Trump amendment five. Commissioner Boyle, you had finished. Commissioner Trump. Good. Did you have additional thoughts for the last time today? Whether we believe it's possible or we believe it's not more right. At this point in time, going to move to a vote on the amendment commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Mr. Trump. Yes. Mr. Boyle. No. No I don't. No, I don't. I don't. Yes, no. I don't. No, the yes are one. The noes are three. The amendment. Number five by commissioner Trump. Is not adopted. Mr. Trump, did you have additional amendments? I do not. Commissioner Boyle. Do you have amendments? I do. I have one amendment. table with reference to furnaces to read NOA comma FR, which corresponds to the FY 2024 budget request. The amendment is very straightforward. It would require a revision to the mandatory standards tables such that staff will be directed to work toward the completion of a final rule this fiscal year on gas furnaces and boilers. Staff's presentation to the commission when we considered the draft proposed rule on the subject could not have been clearer. This work is long overdue. Staff reported that after literally decades of work, there has been no progress in the voluntary standards arena and that consumers continue to suffer deaths and injuries from exposure to carbon monoxide from residential gas furnaces and boilers. This is a hidden hazard that we can ill afford to continue to neglect through delay and slow walking. Through our direction to staff today, the commission will be sending a clear signal that we intend to act. Thank you to my colleagues for your support. Is there a second for the amendment? Second. Having heard a second, we're gonna move to consideration of the amendment to start with myself. And Commissioner Boyle, I appreciate this amendment and your work that you've done on this and your dedication to the rulemaking that has been lasting far too many years. It's a hazard that has been known for a couple of decades and we've heard from staff at our briefing on the proposed rule that industry has resisted efforts to improve safety in this area and that a rule was essential. You know, I believe that it's a stretch given our resources. I do recognize that this is an issue that staff has been working on for the last two decades. And it's my hope that the work done over that period of time will help move this process faster. And I understand your sense of urgency. And so I plan to support this amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated before, the rulemaking agenda that staff has proposed, it's already ambitious. There's an opportunity cost with this amendment and it's unclear what other work may fall off if we adopt it. Mr. Chairman, you yourself called the plan as presented overly ambitious. But also as with Trumpka 1, Commissioner Trumpka's amendment on interest disclosure, I'm concerned that this amendment may, to accelerate a final rule may be premature. The comment period for this rulemaking doesn't close until December 26, Boxing Day, for those that celebrate. But this is a particularly complex role and it's something that we're gonna need to review comments that we're still receiving. In addition, under WCMA, we're gonna have to publish an NOA to share additional data and that's information that we're gonna have to receive and then also address. So given these complexities and additional work, I'm just comfortable with this part of the operating plan as proposed by staff and therefore I'm a NOA on this amendment. Thank you. I just know, as it perhaps are really ambitious as opposed to it is overly ambitious. I believe it's overly ambitious. Okay. Commissioner Trumpka. Of course we can do this. Of course we must do this. Thank you for putting forward this amendment, Commissioner Boyle, I have of course supported. Commissioner Boyle, did you have additional thoughts? I don't, thank you. Having heard no comments or questions, moved to a vote on the amendment, Commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Commissioner Trumpka. Yes. Commissioner Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are three, the noes are one. The Boyle amendment is adopted. Commissioner Boyle, did you have additional amendments? I don't, thank you. Hearing no additional amendments or motions, I move to approve the FY 24 operating plan as amendment. Is there a second? Second. Having heard a second, we can move to a vote. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Trumpka, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Boyle, how do you vote? Yes. And I vote yes as well. So the yeses are three, the noes are one and the operating plan as amended passes. So at this point in time, we're gonna move to comments and statements by the commissioners starting with myself, 10 minute rounds. So first and foremost, I'd like to thank staff for all their work on the document for today and for the work that they do on behalf of consumers every day. I know this time of budgetary limitations is as frustrating for them as it is for us and that tough choices had to be made on the dais that impacts their work directly. You know, I do have to say, I am pleased that the plan is moving forward. There is so much good work in here that we didn't have time to discuss and wasn't the focus of the amendments. I mean, looking at the rules that are have before us, there is work that's gonna be done in bassinets in updating firmness for infant carriers, getting to a final rule for safety standards for rockers, for infant support cushions, for nursing pillows, putting out, you know, starting rule makings on toys like water beads, water floats and button batteries. Also going forward with rule makings on furnaces as we just wrote it on, lithium ion batteries having an NPR out there and looking to get to a final rule after decades on portable generators and table saws. So that all is now upon the staff to do. It is a tremendous amount of work. I appreciate their efforts that will be coming over these difficult times and difficult budgetary process. And I thank them in advance for that. I also wanna thank my colleagues for working up with me to get to this point. We all recognize this document was created at a time of uncertainty. And that will be likely back here in the new year once we have a finalized appropriation number so we can reconcile our plan with that budget. But I think that this is a good document and the priorities that set for us setting the priorities forward in 2024. And I look forward to working with you all to achieve these goals. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to thank again staff for presenting this plan and offering technical feedback along the way. While this is not necessarily the operating plan, I would have drafted on my own. It does reflect the commission's fiscal reality and it's a consensus product. I'm pleased that the commission is now recognizing my longstanding desire that operating plans be based on the appropriation we are likely to receive. Prior operating plans and budget requests have been based on aspirational figures that frankly bordered on pure fantasy like a $370 million request to reinvent the CPSC. Keying our plans to realistic funding is responsible management. As always, we must prioritize the agency's annual work within the finite resources we are entrusted to. I am confident that we can continue our work to protect consumers and this plan will enable that. There are provisions in this plan that I'm pleased to see included. For example, the plan maintains our capabilities at the ports and in the office of compliance, which will be extra important this year as we work to enforce newly promulgated regulations such as those under Sturdy and Reese's law. Specifically, it holds harmless the staffing levels that have fought hard to increase over the years. As I noted last week, CPSC posted significant increases to our recall numbers in fiscal 23, including records in the categories that matter most. Those investments in EXC and EXIS are paying dividends for American consumers. I'm hopeful that the commission will continue this momentum. I'm also pleased that my amendment on imminent hazard lawsuits was adopted unanimously. Thank you to my colleagues for their support of this amendment. This operating plan will provide staff with direction and certainty. I look forward to working with Congress, my colleagues and the other stakeholders to implement the provisions to achieve our mission. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. Trumka. If what the American people expect out of CPSC is gradual progress on a modest set of goals, then that's what this operating plan will deliver. But I don't buy that. See, I think the American consumers expect us to fight for them. I think that they believe we are fighting for them. So when we show that we're not gonna fix obvious dangers for years after CPSC hears about deaths and injuries that are happening, we're breaking their trust. Parents think that when they walk into a store in this country and see an item marketed to children, that the product is safe for them to take home to their kids. Water beads are on store shelves today, and this operating plan says that CPSC is not gonna address that hazard for another two years. That's unconscionable and it's wrong. Today, the commission failed to adopt an amendment to correct that. Now, the next line of defense is Congress. They could tell us to act faster. They could even give us greater authority to do that. And I hope that they do. I think that they now need to. Now, make no mistake, even with this operating plan, we will save lives. This agency staff will do tremendous work on a number of very important issues. There's no doubting in that. It just doesn't, this plan just doesn't go fast in a far enough. It doesn't reflect what we need to be doing. We could be tackling the deadliest consumer product on the market, ATVs and side-by-sides, but we're not doing that. We're not even making progress towards rules to make them safer. The public should be wondering why. I'd be demanding to know why. We could be finalizing a rule to stop devastating fires from lithium ion batteries, a consumer product danger that could put entire apartment buildings of people at imminent risk of death. But instead, the commission seems content inching towards the year's long process. We could be taking the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is begging us to act on weighted infant blankets now so that we don't see a repeat of what happened with inclined sleepers like the rock and play. We need to intervene to prevent deaths in emerging products. And we can only do that if we act faster and more boldly. I put forward amendments today to make this operating plan something that we could be proud of, something deserving of the trust that consumers have placed in us. My fellow commissioners rejected those amendments and I won't put my name on a plan for this agency that falls short of what I know we can deliver for the American people. I sincerely take no pleasure in voting no, but I will continue to do that if unambitious plans keep being placed before us. Mr. Boil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are living in uncertain times. We don't know what our bottom line will be, yet we are tasked today with establishing a blueprint of activities and projects we intend to accomplish in the coming year. Last year at this time, I talked about the need to make the operating plan a living document, an aspirational set of goals that can change depending on circumstances, the progress of work and available resources. That paradigm seems especially apt in this year's environment of flux. With my amendment to today's operating plan, the commission will be able to revisit some of the priorities we approved once the budgetary landscape comes into better focus. Regardless of the final appropriation though, one point must not be subject to change and that is that this operating plan must be the final word on unfinished business. Table saws, portable generators, furnaces, nursing pillows, infant cushions. We must devote our full attention and focus to these final rules, not only so that we can fulfill our longstanding obligation to address these issues, which we must, but also to create the capacity to embrace the challenges of the future. These rulemaking activities have been on the commission's agenda for too long and we should no longer tolerate further delay. Rolling projects from one year to the next leaves little room for bold initiatives and new ideas. I am happy we are committing to some new projects such as regulations for e-bikes, battery safety for micro-mobility products and safety standards for water beads. However, there is much more we can be doing to tackle issues of the day, including e-commerce, artificial intelligence and chronic hazards so that we are poised to anticipate safety issues rather than merely react to them after the fact. Our budget prospects may be tentative, but our commitment to safety must not waver. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And thanks again to staff for all your work on this package. And with that, this concludes today's decisional meeting of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.