 Welcome to this public meeting as a consumer product safety commission. We're meeting today to implement sturdy, which Congress passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill in December to address the hazards caused by furniture tip overs. We'll make a determination whether a F. 257 dash 23 satisfies studies requirements and consider the draft. Direct final rule to implement F 257 dash 23 is mandatory safety standard. Today's disissuance meeting is a culmination of decades of work on this issue here at the commission and a Congress. Parents against tip overs a group of parents who have suffered them unimaginable loss of a child has championed this effort. Working with other safety advocates members of Congress and others to push industry to make safer. Furniture and to protect children's lives and applaud them for their efforts. CPSC staff also deserves special recognition and our deep appreciation for a job well done. Prior to our decision today, decisional today, CPSC staff work tirelessly to develop a strong mandatory safety rule to address furniture tip overs. Staff also push industry and other stakeholders in the voluntary standards process and their work and all of this cannot be understated. Following the adoption of CPSC's rules and the industry's challenge to it in court, Congress passed sturdy and so is directed by Congress. We're here today to make a determination as to whether ASTM voluntary standard meets the requirements of sturdy. And if so, it issue a final rule to require manufacturers to meet that standard, which will result in safer clothing storage units. We have several staff members present here and there are any questions in the opening around with us are Dwayne Ray. Sorry and Deputy Executive Director and Daniel Weiss, Assistant General Counsel. Also in attendance are Jason Levine. CPSC Executive Director, Austin Schlick, General Counsel and Barb Mills, Commission Secretary. And we're going to begin with questions for the staff. We have unanimous consent among commissioners for each commissioner to have 10 minutes rounds of questions to the extent that commissioners need additional rounds that will be allowed and after the questions are complete, I'm going to excuse staff and we're going to move to consideration of the package. As a reminder, while commissioners may voice their personal views on legal issues, it's not appropriate to ask any legal advice that's been given to us by the Office of General Counsel on a public session. Now such legal advice must remain confidential. So as we turn now to questions for the staff starting in with myself, I don't have questions at this time going in seniority, Mr. Feldman, do you have questions at this point or? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased that this day has finally arrived. It has been a long time coming. We are here today because of the efforts of parent advocates and other stakeholders. In particular, I see Brett Horn from Parents Against Tipovers is here today in the audience. Welcome Brett and thank you and for all the parents involved in this effort for your tireless advocacy, which is what got us here today. Also a special thank you to Kim Amato, Lisa Seifert, Kiesha Bowles, Crystal Ellis, Megan DeLong, Janet McGee, all of whom I assume are watching today and have been an integral part of the process during its pendency. The standard we're considering today is a strong consensus standard that will improve safety significantly so that other families won't have to endure the kind of tragedy that your families experienced and so many of the families that I've met along the way have. Our efforts today will also provide needed clarity to industry stakeholders. I don't have any questions for staff, but I would like to thank them and Mr. Ray and Mr. Vice in particular for all the work that went into this process. I recently read an op-ed from Don Mays, a respected product safety expert who has tracked this issue closely. Mr. Mays's op-ed ran in the front issue of product safety letter and summarizes the efforts that went into crafting the ASTM standard, including why he believes its test methods are more straightforward. Mr. Mays writes that all stakeholders, including consumer groups, parent advocates, experts in the field, and furniture manufacturers agree with our staff's conclusion that the ASTM standard meets the requirements of this 30 act. Mr. Chairman, I've submitted this article for the record because I believe it provides a good summary of the ASTM process and how we got to where we are today. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'd have no further questions. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Tromka, do you have a question for Damon? Where does a kid feel safest? Well, they feel safe in their bedroom, and they feel safe around the things that they see there every day. Things as simple as their dressers full of their tiny clothes, lovingly folded and stored away. And we all know that our kids are curious and adventurous. And that leads many to climb those dresser drawers full of their clothes, climb up the staircase that it creates. Children's curiosity shouldn't cost them their lives. Certainly not with an item meant for their bedrooms. But for decades, the companies that made those dressers knew that their products were killing children by tipping over and crushing them to death in those entirely foreseeable and known scenarios. And for decades, those companies refused to do anything about it. The industry had the opportunity to eliminate this problem through its voluntary standards process, but refused to do that for decades. Why? Greed. Disregard for human life and unadulterated greed. They wanted to pocket the $6 to $17 it would have cost them to make a dresser that won't tip over. We've done the math and that's all it will cost. This industry made it abundantly clear that they will not do the right thing unless they are forced to do the right thing. And in October, this agency finally did that. We've forced, we voted to force the agency to do the right thing after they proved they would never do it on their own. We passed a rule to save children from these gruesome deaths and injuries. Our rule was a product of tireless work by this agency staff, our expert staff, to solve a deadly problem. And they came up with the best and only solution to save children's lives. I thought that the rule was so important that I fought to have it go into effect 30 days after passage. The shortest time allowable by law. And I really wish we had done that right now. We all knew that this agency's solution was the best instrument to save lives. And I wanted that to start happening immediately. 30 days after publication would have been December 25, 2022. And I think it would have been poetic that on a day that many celebrate the birth of a child, that we'd stand up to protect the lives of children. In the end, the commission instead chose to wait six months for the rule to go into effect. So we're still waiting. I hope we take a lesson from that delay. But our rule will go into effect in a mere month on May 24th. Furniture makers don't want that to happen. They're the same folks that knew about this problem and refused to fix it for decades. After we issue a rule, that should be the final word on that subject. But this industry has inappropriately kept pushing and pushing to subvert our process. They've lobbied consumer advocates. They've lobbied members of this commission and they've lobbied Congress. They try to convince everyone that if industry didn't get its way, if it didn't get to save a little bit of money, that they would hold up our life-saving rule for years through litigation. They try to convince everyone that our only hope was to take this minimally protective rule that they have written themselves or else we'd be left with nothing to protect our kids. It's nonsense and it's not a credible threat. But their backroom lobbying is the reason that we're here today. Industry wrote amendments to a bill. One that, as amended, couldn't pass on its own because it was too transparent of an industry favor. Instead, it was jammed in and buried its pork in a year-end appropriations package. Congress threw industry a scrap with that bill. Not enough to have their rules to plan ours, but just enough of a Hail Mary to give them an excuse to keep pushing. It said that if industry can issue a voluntary standard that's good enough to meet certain requirements, then CPSC should adopt it. Okay, we should. We would. But that didn't actually get industry anywhere. Yes, I mean, we all know that CPSC's rule is much more protective than industry's rule. There's no dispute on that one. Everyone knows that under industry's rule, kids will die that would be saved by our rule. But here's the more relevant truth. Industry's rule doesn't meet the requirements of sturdy. But the legality of our actions are not the industry's concern. So undeterred, the furniture makers press forward playing their losing hand and hoping that someone would fold to their weak bluff. If we follow the facts and our own science, we reject the industry standard as non-compliant with sturdy. But this industry's lobbyists kept pushing anyway. They continued to list others to tell Congress and members of the commission that we must find that their rule meets sturdy and throw aside our more protective rule. They kept stoking that fear that they would get our rule struck down in court, something that they've shown a complete inability to do. I'm suggesting that we ignore them. The industry that we regulate is trying to push us around. If instead of capitulating, we simply do nothing today, our rule goes into effect next month and lives will be saved. We're under no obligation to be here. And we shouldn't be here deciding this today. But as long as we are, as long as we're asked to sit in judgment on whether the rule that industry wrote for itself can be adopted under sturdy, I'm here to tell you that it cannot. As with all decisions like this, the agency staff wrote a briefing package. Outlining what we should consider in making our decision. Here's the first red flag. Our on staff experts, the folks who worked for years fighting against this weak industry rule and on developing our rule that will actually protect kids. They're not the authors of this briefing package. Their names don't appear anywhere on it. And that tells you that we didn't look to science or facts or reason to develop the path before us today. And I'm proud that our experts weren't forced to sign off on this, that they weren't forced to compromise their integrity in the way that I feel that I'm being asked to do today. This package takes another deviation from normal practice. Typically, staff provides commissioners with a recommended course of action. Here they didn't because staff wasn't asked for one. We know what the answer would be and it would have conflicted with a desired course of action. We also see very clearly that the questions that staff is asked to address matter. It guides what they present to us. And here we didn't ask the right questions. We should have asked whether we're compelled to set aside our rule and find that the industry standard meets sturdy. Staff would have said no to that question. There's a paper trail a mile long and staff's technical assessments dictating that result. We could have even asked whether we should set aside our rule and find that the industry standard meets sturdy. Again, staff would have said no. We could have asked whether there is any scientific or technical basis to determine that the industry standards meets sturdy and again staff would have said no. And I know all that because our staff has been called to analyze this industry standard on multiple occasions. Our experts sat on the voluntary standards body. Our expert staff pointed out the industry rule shortfalls all along the way. Our staff voted against the rule and issued analysis explaining why the industry rule fails to protect kids. They analyzed the industry rule against the factors that ended up in sturdy. And they found that the industry rule failed to meet them. But staff wasn't asked to answer any of those questions. Must we accept this industry rule? Should we accept it? Because those questions would have yielded a resounding no. Instead, staff was asked to weigh on a policy question. Could we? Policy questions are left to the commissioners to decide. So this issue was taken away from our expert staff and left to the commissioners to make a bold policy decision. And staff was given the unendurable task in the briefing package of pointing us to reasons, any reasons, credible or not, that we as commissioners could choose to find that the industry standard meets the requirements of sturdy. A document to give commissioners cover for a policy decision so that if we make the wrong choice today and kids keep dying, a document commissioners could point to to justify their vote for this industry rule. Well, anyone who wanted that cover will be disappointed that this document does not provide it. Predictably, the justifications that would allow one to approve this industry rule under sturdy are to put it kindly thin and shockingly, for some factors, they're entirely non-existent in this document. This is the analysis that staff did to show why our rule was needed. This is the support for the industry rule. That's not a lot to hide behind. I do have more to say on this topic, but I will wait for my next round, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Boyle, did you have questions for the staff or statement? I do not have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Though starting another round, I don't have additional questions. Nor do I. Mr. Trumka. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're asked today to decide whether the industry standard meets each element of sturdy in a way that allows us to approve it. So we're going to examine each element, each sturdy requirement. We'll look at the question presented, whether we could conclude that the industry rule meets the sturdy requirement and we'll also look at the questions that should have been presented, whether we should and whether we could. The answers to all those questions are the same. No. We're not required to accept this industry rule. Our expert staff tells us that we shouldn't, not if we want to save lives. And most important for our purposes today, we can't. We're not permitted to legally adopt this industry rule under sturdy. The first sturdy requirement for an industry standard is that it quote protects children up to 72 months of age from tip-over related death or injury. Could we find that the industry standard meets this requirement? In the briefing package, this one, to support the conclusion that we could, the only justification put forth is the text of the preamble to the industry rule itself that includes an aspirational statement of intent. It reads, quote, the test methods in this safety specification are intended to simulate a dynamic force from possible interaction of a child up to 72 months. Based on an unsubstantiated statement, the briefing package tells us, quote, the commission could include that the standard protects children up to 72 months of age. So the logic here is that we could find that it protects 72 months old because industry says it's intended to. As an agency, we can't rely on self-serving unsubstantiated statements from industry without checking them on our own. Certainly not as the only justification for a finding. That would be an unprecedentedly reckless method of decision making. They haven't shown us anything to suggest that rule protects 72 month olds. That's all we have for could and let's look at should because I believe are technical experts at this agency. Can you please put up chart one? I've already submitted this for the record. On September 26, 2022, staff sent this analysis. Our technical staff assessed that the industry standard would protect 0% of 72 month olds. Yes, you can see that the industry standard is comparatively terrible at saving lives for two-year-olds, three-year-olds, four-year-olds and five-year-olds. But I do want to focus on six-year-olds because 72 month olds because that number is zero. So should we find that the industry standard protects 72 month olds as required by Sturdy? No. Could we if we wanted to? No. Not if you believe our expert staff like I do. That's the end of that story. And this flawed industry standard fails the first prong of Sturdy. We cannot accept it under the law. But for the sake of being thorough, I want to address how it fails the other prongs too. Sturdy's second requirement for an industry standard is that its tests simulate the weight of children up to 60 pounds. Could we find that the industry standard meets this requirement? Let's examine. In the briefing package to support the idea that we could, it looks at the three tests that are part of the industry standard. The industry's test one is to simulate clothes simply existing in drawers, and does the dresser tip over without a child anywhere near it if the drawers are simply open. I don't know what could possibly fail a test like that, but more to the point, how could this be quote, a test to simulate the weight of a child up to 60 pounds? Closest that could be mustered in the briefing package was the quote, it would be reasonable to conclude that a child weighing up to 60 pounds would be able to open loaded drawers. And that the commission could conclude that this is a test that simulates the weight of children up to 60 pounds. That's not relevant. I mean the test doesn't have anything to do with the weight of a child. The 60-pound simulation requirement is for how their weight contributes to a tip over through climbing or swinging. Further, a kid doesn't have to be 60 pounds to open a drawer. At 20 pounds, 30 pounds, a kid can open a drawer. I've got two kids under 60 pounds. They've both been able to open drawers for years. And by this logic, we could say that this test simulates the weight of a 200-pound person because I can open a drawer. So it fails test one. Industry test two applies a 10-pound horizontal force at handhold not to exceed 56 inch height. Briefing package suggested that we could conclude that this test simulates the pull force of a 60-pound child. But the support for that suggestion is quote, a study that found the elbow pull strength of children 2 to 5 years old, 2 to 5 years old to be in the range of 6.14 to 26 pounds. This same package tells us on page OS 11 that Congress uses 60 pounds and 72 months interchangeably. So if that's true, the study that we're told is the basis for concluding that this test could meet the sturdy requirement actually says nothing about the relevant age group. It only goes up to 5-year-olds. And by saying 60 pounds here, we're talking about 72-month-olds, 6-year-olds. So we're left with no support in the package for this finding. Further, it doesn't support this finding because it doesn't simulate enough pull force for a 60-pound kid. From this study we see that the low end of 2-year-olds have over 6 pounds of elbow pull strength. If the low end of 2-year-olds have 6 pounds of elbow pull strength, 6-year-olds have over 10. And indeed on June 3, 2022, in a lettered ASTM explaining CPSC's negative vote, staff provided their analysis and conclusion that the industry drawer pull test is, quote, lower than forces demonstrated in child strength data, as discussed in the briefing package for the clothing storage unit's final rule. Test two fails. Test three uses a 60-pound weight gently placed on the edge of an open drawer. Based on that, the package states that, quote, the commission could conclude that this test is a test that simulates the static weight of children of 60 pounds. Now, the requirement is sturdy is that the test simulate the weight of a 60-pound child. There's a reason sturdy doesn't just say 60 pounds. It requires the test to simulate the weight of a 60-pound child, and that's a recognition that it's something greater than 60 pounds, as it recognizes that it takes dynamic force to get a child into place at the end of a dresser drawer. If you want to use a static equivalent, it must be some amount higher than 60 pounds. None of ASTM's tests simulate the weight of a 60-pound child. I see no way that we could find that the industry tests simulate the weight of a 60-pound child. And troublingly, deciding that one of those tests does simulate the weight of a 60-pound child today would directly contradict staff analysis from the expert agency staff. On June 3, 2022, CPSC technical staffs voted against a proposed change to the test weight in the industry standard finding that the 60-pound weight, test weight did not simulate a 60-pound child, stating in its public reasoning, quote, the 60-pound test weight and associated stability tests do not account for or simulate the forces of a dynamic child-climbing interaction, which is a critical component of adequately addressing the tip over hazard. Staff further reason that, quote, the ballad language implies that the 60-pound test weight represents the body weight of a child and that the test simulates a child's interaction force. However, the child-climbing study and analysis in the CPSC staff briefing package demonstrates that the center of mass of a child-climbing would be outboard of the drawers. Static body weight in line with the edge of drawers substantially underestimates the forces generated during child-climbing interactions, and incident data shows child-climbing interactions to be among the most common interactions during incidents. I am unwilling to ignore our staff's technical analysis, demonstrating that the industry test does not simulate the weight of a 60-pound child. So we have no basis to find that the industry rule meets this prong of sturdy, and now for a second independent reason, we cannot accept it. I do have more to add, and I will wait for another round. Thank you, Commissioner Walde. Do you have anything yet? Mr. Chairman, I don't, and it sounds like maybe you and Commissioner Feldman also don't, so I offer our unanimous consent to have Commissioner Trump go finish up because it sounds like he has additional. I don't have anything else, so in order to not keep going through that. Commissioner Feldman, do you have an object either? I thank you, Mary, for our Commissioner Boyle for introducing that, and thank you both for your support. I have what would be two rounds, so I will finish those both up together, and thank you for that. Story requirement three requires test to simulate real-world use. The package suggests that the commission could conclude that the industry test rule has a test that simulates real-world use because one of its tests simulates a CSU on a carpeted surface, which is a real-world condition carpet. I will stipulate that carpet exists, but Sturdy's requirement isn't satisfied by simulation of one condition that exists in the real world, or else exposure to air would pass the requirement too. In the test that simulates carpet, all of the drawers are empty, and that's not how kids encounter dressers in the real world. So this might accurately simulate carpet, but not real-world use, and that's the requirement in Sturdy. The package also looked at the test where they fill the drawers with the simulated clothing load and open the drawers to see if it simply tips over on its own without kids anywhere nearby. According to the package, the commission could conclude that this test quote simulates drawers with open items in them and multiple drawers, which is another scenario reflecting real-world use. Same problem. By the logic we use here, wouldn't an ASTM test with all the drawers closed and the dresser just sitting there also check the Sturdy box of simulating real-world use? Jores are closed in the real world too. But neither past muster because Sturdy is about tip over. Sturdy requires a standard that quote protects children up to 72 months of age from tip over related death and injury. Simulating real-world use means the entire picture, not individual elements that happen to occur in the real world. They can't split the mountain isolation. So we have no basis to conclude that the industry meets the real-world use prong of Sturdy. It fails could, but let's also think about should. What if there were dressers that could pass this industry test that would protect zero percent of kids in real-world scenarios? Would the test that allow that to happen simulate real-world use? I'd like to look at staff's analysis because that's exactly what we have. Can you please put up chart two? This too was in my submission for the record, which is now in the federal register. Staff provided this assessment on September 26, 2022. You see our rule on the bottom row. It protects kids because it recreates real-world use. Loaded drawers, multiple open drawers, and the simulated force of a child climbing. And as you can see, staff asserted certain dressers. This is the top row. Can pass the industry rule and fail to protect any kids in the real world? None. Not even two-year-olds. Zero percent across the board. That's what staff told us about how the industry standard can operate in the real world. If dressers can pass this industry test and protect zero children, then that's a failure of the industry test to simulate real-world use. And it's the third prong of sturdy that this industry standard fails. Remember, it only need to fail one for us to reject it. Sturdy requirement four requires the test simulate dynamic force. Could we find that the industry standard simulates dynamic force? For each of the other elements we've talked about already, the briefing package at least puts forward some information and points that information and adds the suggestion that it would allow the commission to conclude that the element is met. The briefing package includes no such suggestion for the required element of sturdy, the test simulate dynamic force. I reread this package several times looking for it, and it's not there. It missed an element. It's a required element of sturdy, and the briefing package doesn't address whether we could find that it's met. We can't vote to adopt the industry standard as compliant with sturdy without any analysis on this required element. And indeed, where the briefing package does talk about dynamic force, it only does so to conclude that the industry's 60-pound static hang test fails to simulate dynamic force, stating that, quote, this test simulates a static load with no additional tip-over moments generated due to dynamic climbing forces or center of mass position. And of course that matches staff's due and third statement issued when voting against the industry standard. They are stating that, quote, 60-pound test weight and associated stability tests do not account for or simulate the forces from a dynamic child climbing interaction, which is a critical component of adequately addressing the tip-over hazard. And it matches staff's previous determinations that the industry standard fails to simulate dynamic force. By June 3rd, letter staff said about the industry's 10-pound drawer pull test. They quote, the 10-pound pull force in the test is lower than the demonstrated child strength and does not appear to be a simulated dynamic force as claimed. For the 60-pound static weight test, staff there mirrored the comments I mentioned earlier, saying that, quote, substantially underestimates the forces generated during child climbing interactions and does not simulate a child's interaction force. This agency has straight up rejected the notion that the industry standard simulates dynamic force. And we are foreclosed from concluding that it does and compelled to find that the industry standard fails this prong of sturdy, now for a fourth time. And for this prong, we literally have no leg to stand on. The briefing package doesn't put forth any cover that even purports to allow us to conclude that the element is met. We've talked a lot on the substance, and I think it's a compelling argument, and we also need to talk about our inappropriate use of procedure. The briefing package before us claims that a direct final rule is appropriate here because the matter is non-controversial and we're not expecting any significant adverse comments. I think as today's level of disagreement among commissioners should make clear, this matter is indeed controversial, and if we publish this document, I'd be very surprised if we didn't receive a significant adverse comment. A direct final rule is not the appropriate vehicle where deep disagreements exist, but virtually every legal and technical component of the analysis. I'd like to make sure we also don't lose sight of one thing. Congress does not favor this industry rule over ours. In our briefing package, we acknowledge the obvious that the industry standard is, quote, not as protective of safety as CPSC's 2022 final rule. But then the package makes the dubious assumption that, quote, given that Congress went forward with enacting sturdy in December 2022, after CPSC promulgated its final rule in November 2022, sturdy can be seen as embodying legislators' preference for consideration of a less protective voluntary standard in place of CPSC's rule as a mandatory standard for CSU stability. That's false. It cannot be seen as that. Congress told us to accept the industry standard only if it's good enough, and they laid out the minimum requirements the industry standard would have to meet. They asked us to assess whether it did. Members of Congress recently wrote us and they didn't ask us for a specific outcome. They reiterated our role in the process to use our expertise to evaluate the voluntary standard and adopt it only, quote, only if it is sufficient to protect children up to 72 months from tip-over related death or injury. It isn't. And I guarantee no member of Congress would publicly agree with a statement made in this briefing package that they saw our rule and wanted us to replace it with a rule less protective of children. The industry standard wasn't even passed at the time Congress enacted sturdy, so they had no way of prejudging it. Replacing a stronger standard with a less protective one, that's not what Congress wants. It's not what anyone wants. The industry standard fails to meet the requirements of the law and accepting it will kill kids that would be saved by our rule. I've laid out the reasons why we can't legally find that the industry rule meets sturdy. I did that for several reasons. I strongly believe that people deserve to know, just like they also deserve to know that this commission has already passed a rule that will save lives. And I want my fellow commissioners to join me in upholding that rule because our life-saving rule will go into effect next month. If we have the courage to reject this paltry offer from industry, if we have the fortitude to tell the industry that we regulate that they don't get to write their own rules, we do, we need to send the message that with an industry that ignored a known problem for decades, we don't trust it to write its own rules and we've analyzed its wish list. It'll save them a buck and it will kill kids that we would otherwise save. Our hands are tied here. We're required to reject this industry rule in the death sentences it brings, or we could simply delay this vote until we fully analyze the issues before us and let our rule go into effect and watch the young lives it will save. Companies are already lined up to meet the requirements of our rule in May. As much as they might not want to, they've admitted they're readying this publicly. In an article in February, Klausner Home Furnishings Vice President said that hitting our May 24th deadline was, quote, doable. Other companies cited in that article echoed that sentiment, including managers at A. America Wood Furniture and Elements International, a large furniture wholesaler. Even the lobbyist for the American Home Furnishing Alliance told Furniture today a couple weeks ago that his members, quote, have been 100% focused on how to re-engineer their clothing storage units to achieve the necessary 1.0 or greater stability rating required by the CPSC's rule. I'm sure that many more companies have spent time and effort making their furniture safe and compliant. Knowing that our rule is about to take effect, those companies should rightfully be rewarded for their efforts with additional sales and a clean conscience. There are many compelling reasons to reject this industry offer, and there seem to be two very bad reasons to consider accepting it. Fear and convenience. Fear of the litigation risk? Come on. Our rules rock solid, and the industry's twice tried to even temporarily stay our rule, and twice they failed. The last time the court smacked them down so hard that it ordered industry to stop wasting its time with premature stay motions. Industry just found its reply briefs in the Fifth Circuit this week and explicitly declined to renew their request for a stay of our rule. It would have been rejected for a third time because this rule is impermeable with challenge, and that's particularly true once our rule goes into effect next month. At that point, no judge will stay this rule because the ensuing bloodshed would be on their hands. They've seen the cautionary tale of magnets. There, our rule started saving lives, and when a three-judge panel of zealots stated, kids started dying again. Now that there's evidence that that level of callous extremism costs real lives, there's no more pleading ignorance, and no judge will want to do the same thing. So that fear, I don't share it, and it mustn't ever cloud our decision making. Convenience. The industry standard is a compromised position. Many have been persuaded to line up behind it. It may save some lives, and so the thought goes, it's better than nothing. That might be a more persuasive argument if nothing was the alternative. If we didn't have a much stronger rule set to go into effect next month, but we do. It will be in effect next month. Now is the time to have some backbone. Now is the time to have some courage in our convictions. Now is the time to save lives. It's not time to settle for the paltry offer before us. Please, let's do the right thing. Let's not condemn a single child to death because of out fear or our convenience. Please reject this favor to an industry that's refused to do a favor to our children or their safety. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Do any other commissioners have anything for the staff? If not, then thanks. Staff is dismissed. So at this point in time, or putting the matter as proposed by staff to vote, I'm going to entertain any motion commissioners to amend the staff proposal. Commissioner Feldman, do you have any amendments or other motions? I do not. Thank you. Commissioner Trump, could you have amendments or other motions? I do. And again, first, I appreciate the indulgence for the lengthy speech up front. I do have a number of motions here. So I thank you for your indulgence again. I'd like to call up Trump commotion one. Is it all right if I describe it? Okay. I've got grave concerns that the staff's briefing package answers the wrong questions. It doesn't address whether we're obligated to adopt the ASTM standard. It doesn't provide any analysis of our product safety other than to say that the CSU rule is much stronger. It doesn't explain why the commission should sacrifice safety to adopt this standard. And it doesn't analyze our options in the event we reject the ASTM standard. I don't believe that any of us can cast an informed vote without answers to those questions. So I move to remand the staff to prepare a briefing package with the analysis we need to make an informed decision here. Specifically, I move to adjourn and to defer action on this matter until staff has presented an updating briefing package that adds analysis addressing the following questions. One, to sturdy compel the commission to adopt this rule. Two, if the commission is not compelled to adopt the industry rule, should the commission nonetheless adopt it? Three, how do the safety effects of the industry rule differ from the safety effects of the existing CSU rule, particularly concerning the safety of children up to 72 months of age? Four, if the commission is not compelled to adopt the industry rule, does the existing CSU rule meet the requirements for a rule promulgated by CPSC under sturdy? Five, if not, what modifications would be required? I ask for your support in adopting this motion. Is there a second? Second. Second for the motion. Having heard a second, we're now going to consider the motion, recognize the commissioners, ask questions, make any comments with respect to each motion or this motion, and then go back to Commissioner Trump at the end, each commissioner will have five minutes per round. And I'll start by recognizing myself. I mean, I understand the desire to protect our clothing storage rule. I think, as you said, everybody agrees that it's stronger and staff work tirelessly to develop that rule. But after the commission acted to approve the rule, the commissioner did pass sturdy, and that's what we're here to consider today. And I think that the package itself went through and answered the questions that are set before us. And at this point in time, I can't support the motion. Commissioner Bellman. Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of the package that's before us as is, and therefore, I'm a no on the motion. We've heard from advocates, including folks that are here today, as well as industry stakeholders, Congress, every one of them is supportive of the package that's in front of us today. We've had this ballot for a month now. The commission's been working on this matter in earnest since October of last year. And this has been an issue that's before the been before the commission for over a decade. Yet my staff and I received the language of these motions and amendments less than 24 hours ago. We haven't had the time to do the due diligence required to make sure that there aren't any unintended consequences with any of these proposals. And to my knowledge, my colleague has not even shared these language with with any of the stakeholders. So I don't know how this would impact the underlying proposal. I see Mr. Horn shaking his head in the negative. Most importantly, I haven't received input from people like Mr. Horn from industry or others about their merits and whether or not these are constructive changes. So based on what I understand to be my colleague's opposition and adopting the the ASTM rule is required by sturdy. I'm concerned that these amendments aren't designed to improve the final product, but rather to delay and frustrate the work of the parents and the advocates who have lost children and of our staff and industry as well. Therefore, I'm going to know on this motion and other proposals that are altering the consensus product here before us today. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think my colleague for his motion, I've carefully considered it and your other amendments. And I appreciate as I know you do that people of goodwill can come to different conclusions on this issue. And that is where we find ourselves today. Reaching a different conclusion on a very difficult issue. Understanding that and based on a consideration of a number of factors, I cannot support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump gets doing thoughts closing. No, I will just say this, you know, you raise the outside groups. You're right. If we stick our finger in the air and see which way the wind's blowing, it's a steady gust against what I'm suggesting today. But sometimes we're called to make the tough decisions and rely on our expert technical staff here in the agency who knows who knows how to handle this issue and has put forward the best solution. So that's all I'll say there. But I thank you for your consideration for all of you. Thank you, Commissioner. Having no further questions on this motion, we're going to move to vote on the motion. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Tromka? I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle? No. And I vote no as well. The S's are one. The noes are three. The motion is not adopted. Commissioner Tromka, you mentioned you have other motions in amendment. I do. I'd like to call up Tromka motion two. And again, I'll be blunt here. But we're talking about unprecedented. It's unprecedented for the Commission to publish a direct final rule on a hugely controversial topic with enormous health and safety implications in an area where we have discretion. And that's exactly what we're being asked to support today. And look, if the Commission wants to adopt the voluntary standard, that's our decision to make. But we should at least hear from a broad range of stakeholders before we go down that road, as you pointed out recently there. Yes, there are some external comments in the briefing package, but those privately solicited comments are no indication of what we might receive in an open and public comment process. When we published our proposed CSU rule, we opened a 75-day comment period, and we got back valuable comments that were used in shaping our final rule. I have many specific questions for public comment here. We need to give the public the same chance to weigh in. Specifically, I moved to adjourn and to remand this matter to staff to prepare for the Commission's consideration, a draft notice proposed rulemaking with the 75-day comment period, and the following questions for comment at a minimum regarding adoption of the industry rule pursuant to STERTI. One, the appropriate definition of CSU under the requirements of STERTI. Two, whether the industry rule includes tests of all CSUs. Three, whether the industry rule protects children up to 72 months of age from TIPO related death or injury. Four, whether the industry rule protects children generally from TIPO related death or injury. Five, whether the industry rule includes tests that adequately simulate dynamic force. Six, whether the industry rule includes tests that adequately simulate real-world use conditions. And seven, whether the industry rule includes tests that adequately simulate the weight of children up to 60 pounds interacting with CSUs. The list of proposed questions represents the minimal requirements for us to understand the decision before us, so I move for the adoption of Trump promotion too. Is there a second? Second. Having heard a second, we're going to turn to questions and comments from the commissioners. Five minutes. I'll start with myself. I appreciate the motion that you're pointing forward and the thoughts behind it. Again, I think in this case, the questions that you're raising really have been asked, answered in the briefing package before us, and that there's been robust engagement by stakeholders on this as well, including consumer groups and as others have mentioned, the parents of people whose children have died in the process. So at this point in time, it will be going, it would be under saying that emotions actually go back and start a rulemaking. We're here at this moment to determine whether or not the under sturdy, the voluntary standard meets the requirements of sturdy, and therefore I'm going to have to vote against the amendment or the motion. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I indicated earlier, I'm a no on this motion. And Commissioner Boyle. I don't have any questions. Thank you. And Commissioner Tromka. No, thank you. Having heard no further questions or comments, I'm going to turn to consideration of the motion and a vote on the motion. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Tromka. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. And I am a no as well. The yeses are one, the noes are three. The motion is not adopted. Commissioner Tromka. I'd like to call up Tromka motion three, please. When our expert technical staff drafted the CSU rule, they spent years working on its scope. Scope sets the bar for whether something is required to go through any safety testing at all or whether it can enter our homes regardless of the dangers it may pose. Even with the greatest safety test, a bad scope creates loopholes that can be exploited. The CSU rule scope is based on objective criteria that could easily be measured, like volume and weight. In fact, in response to concerns from industry, our staff narrowed the scope of the CSU rule over time to carefully target the types of units we would need to test in order to protect kids. The whole process was based on staff's analysis of tip over incident data, reasonable assumptions about foreseeable incidents and feedback from the industry along with other stakeholders. But the industry's rule, the industry rules scope that we're considering today has big gaps. Under that standard, just by changing the marketing of an item, anyone can avoid the need for safety testing at all, even if they know that for a fact that families are using the item in a child's bedroom to store clothing. I don't think that we should rubber stamp a bad scope just to rush this through today, risking lives in the process. And Congress agrees with me on this one. In Sturdy, Congress directed us, the commission, not the industry to specify a scope reasonably necessary to protect kids up to 72 months from injury. In this proposal, we've accepted ASTM's definition of scope, but it's a completely separate matter. You could cleave this off and take our definition of scope along with adopting that rule if you so choose. So specifically, I moved to remand this matter to staff to prepare for the commission's consideration, a draft notice proposed rulemaking that maintains the definition of clothing storage unit that was adopted by the commission under the existing CSU rule. I ask for your support on this motion. Thank you, Commissioner. We'll now move to questions and comments on the amendment starting with myself. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a second for the motion? Second. Having heard a second, we're going to turn to consideration of the motion. And starting with five minutes around to reach the commissioners, the questions or comments. I'm going to start with myself and say that for the reasons we've talked about before, I am still in favor of going forward with this underlying package and can't support the motion. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I indicated earlier. I'm no on this motion. Commissioner Boyle. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump, did you have additional? I don't. Thank you. Having heard no more questions or comments, we'll move to consideration of the motion. And Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Trumka? I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle? No. And I vote no as well. The yeses are one. The noes are threes. The motion is not adopted. Commissioner Trumka? I'd like to put up order for consideration. Trumka, amendment one, please. In enacting the study at Congress said for the rigorous test that the minimum, that at a minimum must protect children up to 72 months of age from tip-over related death and injuries, the industry written rule protects 0% of 72-month-olds and fails each of the problems of sturdy. Given the legal vulnerabilities inherent in this rule, we don't know if the court will sustain it. Therefore, it's unwise to stay the implementation of CPSC's CSU rule. This amendment removes the stay of CPSC's CSU rule and sets an effective date for this direct final rule of five years from the date of publication of the Federal Register to provide industry with ample time to comply. Is there a second for the motion? Second. Having heard a second for, actually, the amendment moved to consideration of the amendment with questions from commissioners or comments. And for my own, recognizing myself for five minutes, can't actually reconcile the instructions that were in sturdy from Congress with the amendment itself. And so I'm not going to be supporting it. Commissioner Feldman? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the reasons I indicated earlier, I'm a no on this amendment. And Commissioner Boyle? I don't have any comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump, did you have additional? The only thing I'll add on the reconciling is the language is dirty allowed says we're not allowed to have an effective date of the voluntary standard if we adopted any sooner than 120 days after promulgation. So they're not inconsistent. Noted. Any other comments or questions? None for me if that's what you're then I would move to consideration of the the amendment and as for the as in days, Commissioner Feldman, I vote no. Commissioner Boyle? No. Sorry, Commissioner Trump. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle? No. And I have a no as well. The yeses are one, the noes are three, and the amendment is not adopted. Commissioner Trump. I'd like to put forward for consideration from commitment to again, given the legal vulnerabilities inherent in this rule, we don't know if the court will sustain it. So it's unwise to stay the implementation of CPSC CSU rule. Further, if we adopt this industry rule today, it'll go into a fit won't go into effect for over four months, plus whatever time it takes to publish in the federal register. And if we stay CPSC's rule, that's going to leave kids unprotected for at least three months in the interim. If we don't stay it, we can protect kids in the intervening months before this industry rule takes over. This amendment simply removes the stay of CPSC CSU rule. Even if you want to adopt the industry rule, we can start protecting kids sooner. And this is a vote on whether we will do that. Is there a second for the motion, for the amendment? Second. Having heard a second move to consideration of the amendment, recognize commissions in turn. Again, I appreciate that the the amendment thought process went into it, but I cannot support it. Commissioner Feldman? Thank you. This is Trumpka 2? Yes. Yes. For the reasons I indicated earlier, I'm a no on this amendment. Commissioner Boyle? I don't have any comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Trumpka, Jane? I don't. Thank you. Having heard no further comments or questions, moving to consideration of the amendment, ask for the votes. Commissioner Feldman? I vote no. Commissioner Trumpka? I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle? No. And I vote no. The S's are one, the no's are three. The amendment is not adopted. Commissioner Trumpka? I'd like to put forward for consideration Trumpka Amendment 3. Sturdy requires that we determine whether the ASTM standard protect kids up to 72 months from tip over related injuries or deaths. In other words, it requires that we assess whether Sturdy meets a minimum level of child safety. That's what we're doing today. And if we say that it does, Sturdy also allows ASTM to come back to us in the future with revised standards anytime it wants, which we will have to review and adopt if they meet the same Sturdy requirements, not unlike our 104 process. If we determine today that the current ASTM standard meets the Sturdy requirements, I think it'll be because the ASTM standard provides the barest minimum level of protection required to meet the elements of Sturdy. And I want to make clear that while we keep an open mind about all future rulemaking, we cannot accept reductions in safety relative to the baseline of safety required under Sturdy. So with that in mind, I offer Trumpka Amendment 3 and I understand that my track record has not been great so far today, but this is one that I would expect unanimous support for to match our 104 process. So thank you for your consideration. Is there a second? I second. Having her second, we move to consideration of the amendments. I would note that in the package already that Trace states that the commission does not anticipate approving through the standard revision process of Sturdy any changes to the ASTM standard that would reduce the level production for protection for children up to the age of 72 months of age from tip-over related death or injury because this is really addressed in the package. I don't plan to support the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you for the reasons I've stated I'm a no on this amendment. Commissioner Boil. I don't have any comments. Thank you. And Commissioner Trumpka. Just briefly, we do say in the package something along these lines and we say that we don't anticipate doing it and I'm just asking us to say we won't do it. Any other further comments? No, thank you. With that, having no further questions or comments on the amendment, move to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Commissioner Trumpka. I vote yes. Commissioner Boil. No. I vote no as well. The yeses are one. The noes are three. The amendment is not adopted. Commissioner Trumpka. I'd like to put up for consideration Trumpka Amendment 4. Typically when we receive a briefing package for rulemaking, CPSC staff provides commissioners with a recommended course of action supported by comprehensive scientific research. CPSC CSU rule briefing package was voluminous. We see it here. And it included an exhaustive assessment of the mechanics of the rule. For the industry written rule we're voting on today. It didn't have all that. But I take issue with one section that it did include. There's an entire section of the document with industry letters offering conclusory statements that the industry rule meets sturdy. We can't include those. There are no evidentiary value and we didn't do a comment period. So we're left with a one sided record from industry and its allies and that's not fair. This amendment strikes from the package. The section entitled consultation was great stakeholders. Thank you. Is there a second for the amendment? I second the amendment. Having heard a second move to consideration of the amendment, starting with questions and comments. The reasons started before I'm not prepared to support this amendment at this time. Commissioner Feldman. Likewise, for the reasons I indicated earlier, I'm a no on this amendment. Commissioner Boyle. I don't have any comments. Thank you. And Commissioner Trumka. No, thank you. Having heard no further comments and questions, we move to consideration of the amendment. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Trumka. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. And I vote no as well. The EAs are one, the Nos are three. The amendment is not adopted. Commissioner Trumka. Thank you. I'd like to call up Trump Amendment five. The package twice adds descriptors for an individual from outside the agency that wrote us letters. It's very unusual for us to add honorifics to describe the third party. Here we call them quote an independent product safety expert and later a quote product safety expert. Those assessments may be true. They may not. I don't know the person. I have not had the chance to assess their credentials, who they work for, or whether they have any conflicts. So I believe that it would be inappropriate to blindly call them independent or a product safety expert. This amendment just deletes those two references. Is there a second? I second the amendment. Having heard a second move to consideration of the amendment. I don't have any questions at this time. Commissioner Feldman. No, for the reasons I've indicated I'm a no on this amendment. And Commissioner Boyle. You don't have any comments. Thank you. And Commissioner Trumka. Thank you. We move to consideration of the amendment. How do you vote? Commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Commissioner Trumka. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. And I am a no as well. The yeses are one. The noes are three. The amendment is not adopted. Commissioner Trumka. I'd like to put forward for consideration from Amendment 6. The story requires that at a minimum a tip over standard must protect children up to 72 months of age from tip over related death or injury. The industry written rule protects 0% of 72 month olds. The only justification this briefing package provides for the assertion that the industry rule in fact does protect any number of 72 months olds is the unsubstantiated statement within the ASTM standard that says quote the test methods are intended to simulate the dynamic force from possible interaction of a child up to 72 months. That's it. So this amendment adds important context to page OS 11. It replaces the sentence at the top of OS 11 that currently reads staff therefore assessed that the commission could conclude that the standard protects children up to 72 months of age. With staff therefore assessed that the commission could take what the standard says it does at face value and conclude that the standard protects children up to 72 months. Thank you. Is there a second for the motion? I second the motion. Having heard second moved to consideration of the motion. The reasons I've stated for in the past. I don't support this amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Likewise for the reasons I indicated earlier I'm a no. Commissioner Boyle. I don't have any comments. Thank you. Commissioner Trumka. No thank you. We move to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. I vote no. Commissioner Trumka. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. I vote no as well. The yeses are one. The noes are three and the amendment's not adopted. Commissioner Trumka. I'd like to put forward for consideration Trump commitment seven. On the bottom page OS 11 it says quote staff noted that Sturdy appears to use 72 months and 60 pounds interchangeably. This in the structure of Sturdy suggested that Congress considered 60 pounds a representative weight for a 72 month old child. Without a clear indication of congressional intent I believe it's inappropriate to jump to that conclusion and to speculate that the drafters of Sturdy purposely use 60 pounds and 72 months interchangeably. This amendment strikes that assumption the one time that it appears in the package. I'm moved to consider. Is there a second for the amendment? I second the amendment. Having heard a second for the amendment we move to consideration of the amendment. I don't have questions. Commissioner Feldman. Now for the reasons I've indicated earlier I'm on no on this amendment as well. Commissioner Boyle. I have no comments. Thank you. And Commissioner Trumka. No thank you. Having heard enough of the questions or comments moved to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. I vote now. Commissioner Trumka. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. I vote no as well. The yeses are one. The noes are three. The amendment is not adopted. Commissioner Trumka. Thank you. I'd like to put forward for consideration Trump Commeminate. On June 3rd 2022 CPSC expert technical staff assessed that the tests required in the industry standard do not simulate multiple factors that are demonstrated to decrease stability and simultaneously occurred during known incidents in the real world such as open and filled drawers, placement of a dresser on carpeting and dynamic interactions with the child like climbing. As a result of the differences between the industry standard and the real world conditions staff previously concluded quote staff assesses that these changes if enacted would not adequately address the hazards because they fail to address multiple real world conditions simultaneously. As the briefing package makes clear one has to take a very specific reading of sturdy to find that this element is met. So to accurately reflect CPSC staff's assessment this amendment deletes the sentence on page OS 13 that reads staff assessed that the STM stability test utilized tests or a series of tests that represent real world conditions and replaces it with the quote staff had already used in their assessment elsewhere in this briefing package quote staff assessed that if one reads sturdy section 201 C2B as allowing test or a series of tests that separately and independently simulate real world conditions including carpet surfaces loaded drawers multiple open drawers and dynamic forces rather than requiring tests for all of these conditions simultaneously the commission could conclude the STM F2057-23 satisfies section 201 C2B. Is there a second for the motion? I second the amendment. Having heard second by the amendment we move to consideration of the amendment as I recognize myself and for the reasons stated before I'm prepared to support this amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you for the reasons I've stated I'm I know on this amendment as well. And Commissioner Boyle. I don't have any comments thank you Mr. Chair. Commissioner Trump could have anything else? That was my last amendment so thank you for your consideration. Commissioner Feldman I appreciate you seconding those I do appreciate that so so thank you all for thinking through this. Having heard no other comments or questions move to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman how do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Trunca. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. I vote no. The guesses are one the no's are three the amendment is not adopted and Commissioner Trunca I think you just said that you don't have further amendments. Commissioner Boyle did you have amendments? No I don't. Hearing no additional amendments or motions I move to the determination that's ASTM F2053-23 sorry F2057-23 satisfies the requirements of sturdy section 201 to publish staff's direct final rule is reflected in the same. Is there a second? I second the motion. Having heard a second we can move for a vote. Commissioner Feldman how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Trunca. I vote no. Commissioner Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes as well the guesses are three the no's are one the motion to determine that ASTM F2057-23 satisfies requirements sturdy section 201 and to publish staff's draft direct final rule passes. Commissioner the commissioner said ASTM F2057-23 means requirements of sturdy section 201 direct staff to publish direct final rule in the federal register. At this point in time we're moving to closing remarks and each commissioner will have 10 minutes for closing remarks and I'm going to begin and you know you know obviously everybody has here strong views and passion for this and that is absolutely appropriate the the hazard we're trying to address has existed far too long and you know after two decades of hard work by advocates by parents by the CPSC staff we are moving forward and as I mentioned I'd like to thank the parents and CPSC staff and coalition and consumer groups that have worked on this issue. It's because of your work that we are here today and it's because of your work that thousands of unsuspecting parents and caregivers and children are going to be protected from unsafe furniture. CPSC's new rollback by sturdy will have significantly reduced tip over deaths and injuries and provide peace of minds to families across country. Today we voted to require manufacturers to make safer clothing storage units starting 120 days after publication of the rule in the federal register and I would say the CPSC is going to be actively monitoring the marketplace and enforcing this important safety standard and I would expect industry to be working as quickly as possible even before the rule goes into effect to meet those standards. Commissioner Feldman do you have any closing remarks? I do thank you Mr. Chairman. Today we are taking an important step forward towards adopting the consensus standard for clothing storage units is the new mandatory standard. This is a great day. It's a long time coming. First I again want to recognize the families who have lost children to furniture tip overs including those involved with with parents against tip overs. Despite the delays and the efforts to filibuster today is your day and we should celebrate that. The commission's actions today are a direct result of tireless advocacy of these groups over the years and they deserve to take satisfaction in their accomplishment. This is a hard fought win. There's nothing we can do today that will ease the loss that these families have endured as a commission and as human beings I'm afraid that's simply beyond our power but it's squarely within our power to help avoid these kinds of tragedies in the future. I believe that today's actions will do that and it gives me hope I do hope that it gives the these families some solace. I want to acknowledge the work of the commission staff and thank them for their dedication and perseverance. The ASTM consensus standard sets clear guidelines to protect children from furniture tip overs and establishes new obligations for furniture makers. This should have happened sooner. The delays and the confusion that have ensued have helped no one. Nevertheless, the commission has heard from the parents, safety advocates, furniture makers, members of Congress, all of whom support the adoption of ASTM consensus standard and we're now nearing the end of this long process. This is a strong safety standard. It will be durable. It will end the uncertainty of litigation that we're currently face and there will be fewer tragedies because of that. So thank you. Thank you for your hard work and thank you for your advocacy. I'm happy with what we've done here today. Thank you, Commissioner Trumpka. To the staff of this agency, I offer a weary but very heartfelt thank you. You did absolutely everything you could to save children's lives. You're the experts in this field. You care deeply. You crafted a rule that would have done so much good in this world. And to you, I'm also sorry. I'm sorry that I couldn't do more to make your solution a reality. You deserve better. Children across the country deserve better. They deserve your protection. But don't be deterred. Please keep your head up because keep and keep doing the fantastic work that you do because it is driving progress. And you've got my promise on one thing. When you put forward solutions, I will never support any step to weaken them. I may try to make them more protective, but it's a one-way ratchet. I will never support any step to weaken them whatsoever. To my fellow commissioners, while today we disagree, I respect you. I understand why you've made your decisions. And I know that you're always making the decisions that you think are best for consumers as you always do. Sometimes our visions will diverge as to how to get there. But I know that each of you wants to save lives and all that we do. People of goodwill, right, Commissioner Boyle? I like that. But let's carry this memory forward. Let's not let this loss be in vain. Let's remember just how bitter this pill was to swallow. To take pride in putting forward a rule that was going to save so many lives and to have it yanked out from consumers right before it went into effect, only to be replaced with a half measure that will cost some children their lives. Let's never let this history repeat itself. When we get to the final rule stage somewhere else, and someone wants us to accept an industry solution with, say, 50% or 87% as effective as another, let's roundly reject it. Let's never put another life at risk by accepting a solution that's worse than one we can adopt. And finally, to the industry lobbyists who made this all possible. Today, your clients will sing your praises and might even give you a high-flown resolution. You'll go off and celebrate that you saved your clients a few bucks. You won't be thinking of the children that will die because of what you did. But just know that some of us see through you. I want to leave you with this thought. It's an excerpt from one of my favorite books and one that's very personal to me, Spoon River Anthology by Edgar Lee Masters. It's a book of poetry set in a graveyard of a small town. Each person from beyond the grave is reflecting on their lives, their victories, their choices, and their regrets. Here are the enduring thoughts of the character John M. Church. I was attorney for the company Q and the indemnity company, which ensured the owners of the mind. I pulled the wires with judge and jury and the upper courts to beat the claims of the crippled, the widow, and the orphan and made a fortune there at. The bar association sang my praises in a high-flown resolution and the floral tributes were many. But the rats devoured my heart and a snake made a nest in my skull. I hope I am never compelled to share that passage again. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In October 2022, the commission voted to issue mandatory safety standards for clothing storage units. This important rule, incorporating strong protections for children and for consumers more broadly, was the product of tremendous work by dedicated and talented CPSC staff. I'm incredibly proud of that work and of the unwavering advocacy for safety that our team of professionals led by Dr. Kristen Talcott brings to this long-standing problem. Their efforts have laid essential groundwork for progress as the commission navigates the complicated legal landscape we now confront. After the CPSC rule was finalized, but before its effective date, Congress enacted sturdy. That law does not align with the rule the commission adopted. Instead, Congress chose to give CPSC a new set of directions governing both substantive requirements for protecting children from hazards of furniture tip overs and the process for developing a tip over safety standard. To facilitate the process sturdy requires our staff, including our legal experts, spelled out the ways in which the commission could reasonably conclude that the performance requirements in ASTM F 2057-23 protect children from tip over related death or injury. Their assessment differs from the analysis that supported the CPSC rule because it follows the process and the criteria mandated by Congress in sturdy. As I considered the question now before the commission, I balanced many factors that a policymaker must take into account, including staff's assessment. And based on these factors and recognizing that people of goodwill could decide otherwise, I have concluded that it is reasonable to determine that ASTM F 2057-23 meets the requirements of sturdy. Let me repeat, we would not be here today without the incredible staff work that spurred improvements to the ASTM standard, which, for example, now incorporate real world scenarios such as tests to simulate use with carpet and open drawers, requirements absent from previous versions of the industry standard. That is progress and what we are doing today will make a meaningful difference for safety. We will now be protecting children who were not before protected. Making a difference today does not stop us from making a difference tomorrow. Protecting consumers, especially children, does not end here. Indeed, the rule simply sets the baseline for what happens next. For me, that means ensuring that the agency pursues vigorous enforcement using all the tools at our disposal, including robust e-commerce surveillance, heightened activity at the ports, and stepped up compliance inspections. It also means that firms that fail to comply with the mandatory standard should bear the full weight of the law, including penalties and other available sanctions. Many parents who suffered the unthinkable support this action today and have to some degree placed their trust in industry. It is up to industry to live up to that trust. So to industry stakeholders, I say don't delay production, don't wait for the effective date, don't parse words to avoid responsibility, don't do the bare minimum. Bring your products into compliance now and continue to improve and innovate for safety. The excellent staff work and support of CPSU's rule provides a roadmap to go beyond the standard we are adopting today and I for one will be very disappointed if the furniture industry and other stakeholders fail to give serious consideration going forward to staff's scrupulous analysis of the potential hazards for consumers and especially for children. We will be watching and I urge those in the consumer advocacy community to be watching too. Finally, the five-year waiting period sturdy imposes on additional mandatory rulemaking should not be taken as a green light to maintain the status quo. We cannot experiment with the lives of children and wait to see what happens. We must the agency industry and consumer advocates be vigilant. We cannot let down our guard. We owe it to our children to do nothing less. I may have the last word on the dies today but let me be clear today's action cannot and must not be the last word on this issue. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Commissioner Boyle and thank you again. I echo all of the commissioners thanks to staff for the work they've done on this for for many many years and with that this concludes today's decidable meeting of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We're gonna