 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Today we will consider one agenda item, the regulatory agenda and plan for fall 2016. EPSC staff members joining us today are Mr. Duane Wray who is the Deputy Executive Director of Safety Operations even if his card does not exist yet. He did move recently into that role. Ms. Patty Politzer, Supervisory General Attorney in the Office of the General Counsel. Dr. George Borlase, System Executive Director for Hazard Identification and Reduction. And Ms. Patricia Atkins, our Executive Director. Before we turn to five minutes of questions for each commissioner, I'm just going to ask our General Counsel to give us a little bit of the rules of the road since this is the first time we have tried to walk the line of discussing a document that is under official use only but in a public setting consistent with the Sunshine Act. So Ms. Boyle, if you would please talk about what we may or may not do, that would be helpful. Thank you. Sure. Basically, I just want to remind everyone that while the commission is discussing its policy with respect to the regulatory agenda, we're not discussing the underlying document because that document won't be released for several months as part of the government-wide unified agenda. So it's pre-decisional at this point in terms of when it will be released to the public. So the commission can discuss general policy with regard to the regulatory agenda and issues embodied in that document. But the document itself, since it won't be released for several months, is not something we will be discussing in specific detail. To the extent, if I have to remind folks, I will try to gently do that, but that's the expectation that we will keep the underlying document confidential until it's released to the public. Thank you, Ms. Boyle. And before we move on to asking staff questions, I do want to give commissioners and opportunities for any point of order or clarifications of Ms. Boyle if they do. Commissioner Adler, do you have any? Commissioner Robinson? Commissioner Burkle? I do not. Commissioner Moherova, great. Okay, so now we'll move into our normal round of five minutes of questions for the commissioners of staff. And I'm going to start, please, with Ms. Atkins. And first, thank you for the work that goes into this. I know there's a lot of work to take all of the different documents that the commission has blessed publicly through the years and to update the documents to make sure that we are consistent. We don't have to comply with the executive order that this comes from, which is 12-866 from 1993, but we do try to comply with the spirit of it. And so in section 4B of executive order 12-866, it talks about that each agency shall prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. Do you feel that the reg agenda that staff has sent up is consistent with this direction? I do, Chairman. We certainly look at our operating plan. We look at the mid-year activities. We also look at our budget performance request. And then staff also looks at the status of the various projects that we have. And in looking at all of those, certainly we make the call that this is what we were going to forward to the commission. So at this stage, we feel as though that we have accurately reflected. Thank you. And I do want to commend Commissioner Morozovic in particular because it was his urging of providing some of the impetus behind us, taking a deeper dive into this. And he and I have had discussions about the purpose of the executive order and some of the guidance that's been issued by OMB and OIRA within OMB. And it is, as I mentioned to him this morning, it has been a good exercise in going back and reading documents as a refresher, including the executive order and some of the guidance just to make sure that even though, as I mentioned, we're not legally required to comply with the executive order, that there is a sense of the spirit of it. And part of that, based on some of the guidance that I've seen, certainly the most recent guidance that OIRA has put out talks about being realistic about timelines and being realistic about being able to dedicate resources in the next calendar year or the next 12 months to these projects. And I'm not saying are you definitely going to take a specific regulatory action, but are you comfortable that of the items that are listed in here, that staff will be moving forward, putting forth, taking some action, dedicating resources to these items? I am comfortable with that. Certainly it requires us to sort of develop, to review, to work on, and that's certainly the intention of the staff in the upcoming fiscal year. And the last thing I want to ask about, there are two anomalous rules in here that those who've been following the commission closely know that are probably, I call them anomalous, they're not quite the normal rules, the way staff works on something in that I view them as being more commission driven than staff driven. And those are the voluntary recall notice rule and these proposed 6B revisions. The dates that were selected, and I'm not gonna get into the specifics, but the dates appeared not to be identical to other dates that were selected. Can you go into some of the thought process, please, for why those two rules appeared differently? I believe you've hit on it in terms of commission driven. Certainly 6B and the voluntary recall rule are areas that the staff felt that the commission should direct those in some way. We certainly have more control over some of the other activities that are in the regulatory agenda, but we felt that the date that we set was appropriate, and if it was certainly the will of the commission, then certainly they could take some action. And I continue to be optimistic that the commission, either in part or in whole, could come up with compromises to those rules, and if that were to happen, and I'd like to see that happen during this fiscal year, would staff be in a position to execute some of the parts of it in terms of redrafting or sending up new packages based on that commission direction? We certainly would be available to do that. Great, thank you, commission around there. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm gonna join you in praising our colleague, Commissioner Mohorovic. One of the delightful things about working with him is that we reach a point where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and we can be quite heated in our reasonable disagreements, but he has brought a number of policy issues to the agency that would not have been brought forward and might well have been neglected if he hadn't raised them. So I think he's a terrific colleague, and I hope we continue working in the same good spirit, and I would add the same, by the way, for my colleague, Commissioner Burkle. Just, I don't have a question, I just have two quick opening comments. First of all, with respect to the 6B and the voluntary recall rules, I've played a role in developing those proposals. I know Commissioner Burkle is going to advance a proposal on those, and I did wanna say in the spirit of the comments you just made, that I think the commission has been walking around the chairman in particular with a bull's eye on our back about these rules. I think there's an enormous amount of merit to the rules, but I'm also a realist and I can count votes, and it does seem to me that the time has arrived for us to move to a compromise. So in that spirit, I just wanna tell my colleagues that I am planning on circulating proposals, both for 6B and voluntary recall rule that I hope will be compromises that they will all consider very, very seriously. So again, I'm sorry to see the bull's eye that's been on the chairman's back at several congressional hearings. The only other comment I wanted to make is about the reg agenda in particular because I don't know how other people use it, but I know I use it just as a reference point sometimes to say how long has this pending rule been sitting around at the agency? And one of the things that makes me so sad is to look at the number of rules that have been pending at the agency for five, 10, 15, 20 years. And to me that's a reflection not of the fact that they lack merit, it's a reflection of the fact that this commission has been budget wise, squeezed so tightly that it's very difficult for us to free the resources to work on these rules. And what makes me sad is there are individuals out there who have been and will continue to be sickened, burned, maimed and killed because we have not been able to step up and finish these rules. So I like that because it reminds me what our chore is but it also depresses me because it tells me that we don't have the resources to do what's necessary and we have some really cumbersome procedures that we have to follow in order to promulgate rules. Commissioner Robinson. Even though we're not required to do this, I think this is a good exercise that we do this reg agenda because it really provides the public with a transparent snapshot of what at this particular moment this agency is working on. I was gonna start somewhere else but I'm puzzled by the both the chair's comment and commissioner Adler and assume that they've spoken together about this voluntary recall in six B rules. Ms. Adkins, I'm gonna address this question to you but if somebody else could turn the lights up it would be helpful. I frankly don't know what that means that it should be commission driven and not staff driven. I mean everything this agency does is commission driven and staff takes directions and I don't even know what that means that there's a bullseye on the chair with respect to these rules. My understanding from the information that I have and some of it's been very public is that even though the commission directed staff to give us a proposal with respect to a package with respect to these two rules that the chair had made it clear two years ago and continuously since then that staff was not to work on this. Do I misunderstand that? And if so, why have you not been working on it? I think you are accurate and he has certainly publicly said that safety activities would take priority and if indeed there was staff time available to work on those two rules then we would certainly, we would do that but as I said I think publicly you are accurate. And I think that I've made it pretty clear and I think pretty explicitly so why I think these rules are very, very much about safety and I appreciate that we have a difference of opinion on that but given the comments that were just made by commissioner Adler and by chairman Kay is it my understanding that the directions have now changed that you're going to be working on this? Because that was one of my questions because there's an 11-16 date on that and I would be absolutely delighted. I know that there's controversy in this but controversy should certainly not stop us from jumping into this and figuring out what we can do that will help in public safety with respect to these two rules that have been languishing for two years. I have not received any recent directives. I'm sorry, can I interrupt for one moment? I just want to caution commissioner Robinson to not refer to the underlying document if you could speak generally. I apologize, I meant to just be referring to the rule, thank you. We have not received recent direction to work on either of those two activities. All right, so given what was said today are you going to be working on those? If we are given direction to work on those, we will. By the chair. By the chair, by the commission, we will work on those. Does the up plan and the reg agenda for the last two years that directed staff to work on these, is that not commission direction? That is commission direction. Okay. Certainly from in my opinion, my perspective, the chairman certainly does guide in many ways the activities of the staff. And as I said, there's been public comment by him that we should work on other activities that he believes are higher priority. Correct, okay. Dr. Borla is just very quickly the, as I understand it, the items in the reg agenda that have dates on them are ones that you are cautiously optimistic. We're actually going to be able to finish in the next 12 months. Do I understand that correctly? Correct. Good. And the next one, I don't know to whom to even address this question, but there are some projects that are just listed with all zeros and my understanding is that these are projects that are on the agenda because at some point there was an NPR but basically the commission has decided not to do anything but something would be needed to take it off the agenda. So it stays on the agenda until we give direction. Is that right? Maybe I can address that. Oh, it's okay. Thank you. So I think those items are actions that the commission has begun initiated some kind of rulemaking action has issued in our proposed rule or something like that. So they continue to be open rulemaking. The commission takes some action to terminate a rule. Okay. And we would need to affirmatively take an action to remove them. Okay. Thank you so much. I have nothing further. Mr. Berkel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of the staff for being here and for putting together the reg agenda and for all of your hard work on this issue among many other issues. And to my commissioner, to my colleague, commissioner Morozovic, I guess thank you for asking. No, I'm just kidding. I won't be as profuse in my accolades as my colleagues. You know, actually it's a good opportunity for us to get together and to- It's inversely related to your- Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. My questions have to do with voluntary recon 6B. And so I'm trying to understand the way it was handled last year versus this year. Were they, is it different with this date, with the dates that have been put in? As far as the approach- Yes, the approach that was taken using the dates. The approach has not changed. As I had mentioned earlier that we're, you know, certainly looking at the operating plan, other documents, talking to staff about the ability to work on, review, develop those projects. So as far as I'm aware, the approach has been consistent. Well, let me ask a different way then. So does the staff's choice for the dates that are in this document reflect what commissioner Adler just mentioned about reaching compromise or? I think, let me go back to, I think commissioner, if I can suppose, commissioner Adler was saying that he was going to, in the not too distant future, suggest something to the commission related to either one rule or both of the rules. But we have not received any specific information about what that would be. I think he once certainly wants to discuss it with his colleagues before we would move forward with anything that the commission was directing us to do. Thank you. I just want to call my colleagues' attention to the fact that we've been directed by Senator Moran's office to, in a public hearing, let his office know if we intend to make any movement with regards to voluntary recall. And I would say that this timeframe in the reg agenda certainly would reflect that or so it would seem. And I think they've been very clear about voluntary recall as well as 6B, that 6B is Congress' preference. They have given us a tremendous amount of discretion to gather information, but also we have a legal responsibility to protect that information. They've made that clear, they've had opportunities to change that law, and they haven't. So when we talk about changing 6B or, as you pointed out so aptly, it is commission driven, these two issues, or voluntary recall notices. I think we have a responsibility to the Hill and they're waiting to hear whether or not we are going to do something about these two issues. And I would just end by saying that as recently as July 14th, staff was up on the Hill to Senator Moran's office and to the committee folks advising that we were not going to take action on voluntary recall. Anything we have done to date is consistent with what we have said to the chairman. So I just put all that out there. I have grave concerns that we've decided to move forward on either one of these issues. We have responsibility to let the Hill know that. Thank you. Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank all the staff for their hard work on this, and especially the staff who contributed to the arrangements of making a decisional meeting on this matter. I very much appreciate it. I know it was a short timeframe and a lot to look at and review in short periods of time. So thank you very much for all of those efforts that went in and thanks for my colleagues for their appreciation. I similarly appreciate the dialogue and the interaction that we have with each and every one of my four colleagues on every matter before the agency. I don't have any particular questions for staff. So big sigh of relief from the panel. But Mr. Chairman, in order to maybe help you with your phone that might be ringing, I think I might have heard this from you. If you could maybe clarify it, if you wouldn't mind yielding to a point that I thought I heard you said that you wanted to try to reach consensus on the two rules we've been discussing. This fiscal year, did you mean this fiscal year, 16, since we're still in it, or did you intend to mean 17? I meant the fiscal year reflected in the document in front of us, which is 17. Oh, okay. So people will see that when it eventually does come out. If it does. Oh, if it does too, that's right. Thank you very much. That's all the questions I had. So I'd like to go another round just to ask a couple of clarifying questions based on Commissioner Buerkle and Commissioner Robinson's questions. So I must add consistent to be clear. The staff has not been given any direction specifically related to Commissioner Adler's potential proposals to undertake any more work, meaning Commissioner Buerkle's concern that we have not notified the Hill has not yet been triggered because there hasn't actually been anything, correct? That's correct. And as far as I understand it, you are not privy to, I'm not privy, you're not privy to whatever Commissioner Adler is considering. I am not, nor is the staff. Okay, and Commissioner, thank you for that. And Commissioner Robinson raised the idea that the commission had directed staff to undertake work, which is true for basically any of the work directed in the operating plan, correct? Correct. And is it also accurate that all of the items that I have been very clear about of what my priorities are are also commission-blessed items in the operating plan, meaning I'm not substituting in my direction to you items that are out of the blue that I'm making up. I am basically just choosing items that the commission blessed and pursuant to the authority vested in the chairman and the Consumer Product Safety Act, prioritizing which activities staff addresses first of that commission-blessed list, is that correct? And that's correct as well. And so from your perspective, and feel free to disagree with me seriously, do you believe from a safety perspective, from a core agency mission perspective, the work that I prioritize, table saws, window coverings, ATVs, the 104s, portable generators, do you think that those are more important from a safety perspective or less important than the voluntary recall notice rule and the 6B rule? And this is my opinion. This is just your opinion. I would say that those are more important because they are, from my perspective, directly affecting consumers, families. We've certainly looked at it from injuries and deaths associated with those particular topics and projects that we're working on. So I do find those to be items that directly impact our mission. More so than the other two. Correct. Dr. Borlase, do you disagree with that? No, we evaluated based on a number of injuries, deaths and assessing priority. And the other ones you mentioned all have the injuries and deaths associated with them. Mr. Ray, any disagreement with that? Mike, thanks. No disagreement. And none of this, by the way, is to say that there's no merit to those particular rules, voluntary recall and 6B. It's just all relative, which I've also been public about. This is not to say that they don't have merit. I do think that they have merit. And I'm open and very eager to see what Commissioner Adler might propose. We just have very limited resources, as Commissioner Adler mentioned. And I do think it's important working with OEX, working with senior staff, that we do continue to prioritize those safety rules that will have a much more direct impact on safety. Thank you, Commissioner Adler. Well, I will disagree with the chairman. I think that the 6B and the voluntary recall rules have very, very strong and immediate and direct impact on safety. I'm not prepared to say that with respect to any of these items you went through that these rules would take dominance, but I do think it's possible to work on both. And for those who are looking for a conspiracy, there really isn't one. I hadn't thought about floating a compromise proposal, although I have discussed possible compromises with all my colleagues from time to time. But until I'd seen Commissioner Burkle's intention to put in an amendment on these two items, I hadn't really thought about floating a proposal, but it dawns on me that the time is, at least from my perspective, right, that it will still take a majority of my colleagues to agree that we would even take up these rules. And I have no problem, Commissioner Burkle, with Notifying Senator Moran, I think that we do have an obligation to, when the Hill asks us for information, to share that information. So I thank you for the reminder. I do think that the time is ripe for us to fish or cut bait when it comes to these rules. So it is my hope, especially with my office, trying to follow the example set by Commissioner Mohorovic, that if you have a proposal, you actually do the work yourself and you circulate it and you do the research so that you can put a proposal for the commission. I would not want somebody telling me that I can't do something because the staff has to do it. I think that it's the role of a commissioner when he or she has a proposal to float that they do that. And I think all the commissioners have done that. So that's my only comment, at least until we get to Commissioner Burkle's proposal, if we get to that, because I have some substantive comments about the two rules. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson. I feel like I'm in a courtroom and I can't object to leading questions that the Chair asks of the people who answer directly to him. But I'm gonna try to stay on topic here. Ms. Atkins, the projects that the Chair has listed require EXHR resources, right? EXHR, but certainly we engage other areas within the agency. I understand, but the voluntary recall in the 6B is about compliance and OGC resources, correct? I would also say that OCM is involved in, certainly the voluntary recall. Of course, but they're not involved in the EXHR, the table size at this point, right? For example. Are you talking about OCM? OCM, yeah. They are not. Right, so we're talking about completely different animals in terms of resources at the agency. And I very, very much agree with Commissioner Adler that when we talk about getting information out to the public and when we talk about our recalls that they are very, very much concerned with safety and there's absolutely no reason with the resources of this agency that we can't go down both the routes of addressing the projects that the Chairman has listed and that all of the commission is concerned with and all of the commission is to make clear they're concerned with and also pursue these two critical rules that can be so important to safety. And I'm very heartened to hear Commissioner Adler say that it's time to fish or cut bait. I really think that too often here we run from disagreements. And I think we're all adults and we have thick skins and we have reasoned ways of discussing things. And I think that it is time for us to discuss if there isn't some way for us to come to a compromise on this. And thank you so much Commissioner Adler for taking this project on. Appreciate it. One question and again I don't know to whom to address this, but could somebody quickly explain to me what the analysis is that staff undertakes to decide if they designate an item as a potential significant regulatory action in the Reg Agenda? Maybe that's human's policy. I can address that I suppose. So the term significant regulatory action is defined in the executive order 12866. That has several criteria. The clearest one is a monetary amount if a rule is expected to have an impact, an annual impact of $100 million or more. And while I understand that because of the language, but what do we do to decide if in fact the project we're talking about would fall into that category? So what we've done generally is look at the proposed rules that we've issued in the past from most of the proposed rules that the commission issues at least under the consumer products safety act and certain other acts. The staff has to prepare a regulatory impact analysis along with a proposed rule. So we use that as a basis to decide whether it's a significant regulatory action or not. So prior to that analysis, we wouldn't classify it. Correct. Okay. I think that's all. Thank you. Commissioner Berkel. The chair has asked that I yield in 30 seconds. Thank you very much. Just to be clear, the general council's office supports all of the EXHR rules, correct? Or would the general council like that? Meaning all of these rules require OGC resources that would otherwise be spent on other items. Correct. Okay, and also, can you just give 10 seconds, Ms. Atkins, of what it means for senior staff what the 6B clearance process means so that even if a different part of an agency drafts the underlying portion, what it means from a resource perspective to the senior managers to have to spend the time trying to clear that package, how laborious that can be and what they can't otherwise do with their time and how once something comes into 6B, the clearance process that's used at the senior staff level, what that really means. And I just happened to, and Commissioner Robinson was not fortunate enough to be the executive director as I was, so I have a unique experience of having lived through that and what that means from a resource perspective. And that has informed my viewpoint and I apologize, Commissioner Burke, I'll make up the time for you, that has informed my viewpoint as to what went into choosing the priorities, knowing about the clearance process and how laborious that is for the executive director's office and the senior staff. Certainly, well, obviously there's a lot of activity that goes into an effort before it even gets to 6B in terms of the clearance process. So there are other aspects before we get it that have to be cleared and reviewed by the AEDs before we see it. There are probably about anywhere from five to seven people who look at the final packages in 6B. Certainly there are small packages, maybe five, six pages, but then some of the packages, as you well know, range from 50 pages to 150 pages or even more. And we read everything. And then as we're making comments by the five to seven people who are reviewing it, then the staff has to go back and address those comments. We will then also look at what they have responded based on the comments that we have given. And then we could not be maybe satisfied with what they provide to us. So there is a major back and forth that occurs in 6B. And it could go on for weeks. And thank you for that. And I do apologize. Commissioner Buerkle, I'll just wrap it up by saying, what I heard her say was three minutes, not 30 seconds. Those five to seven people are the five to seven senior most people at the agency from a staff perspective. They are, that's correct. And when you're doing that in 6B, you're either doing that at night as I had to do it, or you're doing it during the day and it's very difficult to find the time to do anything else for those big packages. That's correct. I apologize, Commissioner Buerkle, I yield back. Thank you. It's okay. I just want to be clear about these dates again on voluntary recall in 6B. Because quite frankly, when I looked at this, I thought it was just an error that for some reason these were being treated the way the rest of the things that we really don't have a date certain and the constraints of this document. So those dates were put in inadvertently rather than we are going to do something. So I'm wondering who made the decision to treat this differently than it was treated last year and to put this date in for 2016? Certainly staff submitted the dates and then we do the OEX review of the dates and this was the first, what I'll just describe as available date, to attach to 6B and also the voluntary recall rule. I think given, as I've said, it was what we viewed as more policy directed and also commission driven. That seemed more appropriate to just take the next date. We didn't want to presume to go to the end of the fiscal year. We didn't feel as though that was something that we had as much control over as say some of the other activities that have similar dates as 6B and the voluntary recall rule. Well let me ask this because at my office and I know other offices as well have put a lot of time into what the chairman publicly announced a workshop on recall effectiveness. It seems to me that workshop would certainly be relevant to any rulemaking and what we would do going forward with the voluntary recall rule. And so it seems a bit premature that we would put a date in here for November. I take that back, I could see Mary over there. She had her hook out. And so it seems a bit premature that we would put these dates certain into the reg agenda when in fact, at least on the voluntary, the recall effectiveness workshop, that may have some relevance in our rulemaking. I know you described them as date certain. I think they're estimated, they're approximations in terms of the dates. Well I understand approximation but it would seem like that approximation should be more, certainly makes sense in terms of a workshop that is gonna happen, we don't even have a date for that yet. So it would seem that then the timeframe in the reg agenda would be beyond the recall effectiveness workshop. And I don't think that's reflected in the document. And the only response that I can give commercial commissioner Berkel is that if that date is unacceptable, then the commission certainly has the, certainly the authority to get different suggestions. Thank you very much, that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Morozovic. Nothing, brother. Mr. Adler, anything else? Nothing, thank you. Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Berkel, anything else? Commissioner Morozovic. Great, okay. Thank you to the staff for those responses. We're gonna now move to considering any motions. Are there any motions to consider for amendments? I do have two amendments, Mr. Chair. Very quick, if you'd like to see what the first one in describing it please. And then I'll ask for a second. So my first amendment is to change the due date of the briefing package for voluntary recall notices to 9.30, 2017. Is there a second? Second. Having heard a second, we'll now move to consideration of the motion. I feel like I've said what I needed to say, but I will yield three minutes to you if you'd like to speak more about your amendment. Thank you, I am going to offer a second amendment and my comments will be a combination for both of the amendments. So, however you may be. Open for you taking the time to need to describe amendments as you wish. So, well, should I offer my second amendment and handle them jointly? No, let's do one at a time, please. But if you can describe them both, but we'll procedurally just do one at a time, please. So my second amendment is changes the due date of the briefing package for the amendment to regulation and information disclosure under section 6B, also to September 30th, 2017. And I'll ask for a second after when that amendment comes back up the next time. You can take the time to describe your amendments and then we'll move to consider the first and then I'll ask for a second on the second and then we'll move to consider that. Very good. So both of my amendments deal with scheduling the briefing packages for final regulations. Specifically, both seek to postpone the due date for certain briefing packages until the end of the fiscal year. The first amendment concerns the scheduling for the so-called voluntary recall notices rule and the other amendment deals with 6B regulations. Frankly, and this is no surprise to anyone if I had my way, neither one of these regulations would ever be finalized. Not in the way at least that they're being proposed currently. Both were roundly criticized in public comments. We have tried before to move them off the agenda entirely but there's not a commission majority unfortunately to do that. The chairman has indicated that they are not a priority for him and he has pledged to give the chairman of the Senate oversight committee a heads up if he decides to move ahead with any of them. Imagine my surprise then, and I will say I was surprised and as I just mentioned, I just thought it was sort of an error that these two issues got lumped in with some of the other higher profile and safety issues. But when these two items showed up with due dates in November of 2016, a very short period of time. My intuition and again I will say that they were assigned a November date by mistake. I think they got lumped in with some of the other EXHR projects. But apparently I was incorrect with that assumption. What they say about assuming. So I've heard this morning that we suggested that this is how we carry over, we handle our carry over projects. If they aren't finished by the end of the fiscal year then they are assigned an early date in the next fiscal year in the reg agenda. But this is not how we've handled these rules in the past. And I don't think we are handling the carry over rules in the same way slings for instance, shows a completion date of September 2017. Excuse me, Commissioner Buerkle. You could just refrain from discussing the specifics of the underlying document. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Finally, as the chairman announced and I just mentioned that we are planning on having a public workshop on recall effectiveness. I've always thought that that workshop would cover some of the topics that a voluntary recall and the information we gain from the workshop certainly could help us resolve some of the authority outstanding issues with this proposed rule. If that is true then it's another reason I think that we should not be showing November 2000 that we should not be showing this date as a completion for the voluntary recall rule. Thank you. So we'll now move to or we'll now turn to either questions for Commissioner Buerkle or comments on the amendment. And I'll just briefly say that from my perspective and I can't speak to I think staff that an excellent job of explaining from why they, those are the dates they did or how they carried it over. Nothing's changed from my perspective. And so if there's any concern, Commissioner Buerkle, that staff is either implicitly or explicitly signaling that they are moving forward on these two rules, either on their own initiative or from direction from me, that is not accurate. The position that I've taken remains, I am encouraged as you know, I've been pushing for potential compromise at the commission level now for the last almost two years. I'm encouraged that Commissioner Adler is willing to move forward with that if and when that happens. I think that that will coincide well with a recall effectiveness workshop and we can consider any proposals that he might put forward on that rule in conjunction with it. But I do agree with him that it is time for the commission both to save staff resources and in large part because the controversial portions of those two rules really did derive at the commission level. I do think it's time for us to move forward on those and I'm very pleased to hear that. And so hopefully that means more to you than whatever dates may or may not appear in this particular document. Commissioner Adler. First of all, thank you and thank Commissioner Buerkle for a very thoughtful proposal. I will say that if I had ever thought for a second that the recall effectiveness workshop would be used as a basis for not making progress or not moving forward on the voluntary recall rule, I would have been much less enthusiastic about doing it than I am. That said, I think that it is useful to make sure that anything we would do by way of amending the proposal that's before us should be consistent with issues that are raised in the recall effectiveness workshop. I think the recall effectiveness workshop is gonna be much more aimed at coming up with new approaches, more novel and creative approaches for recall effectiveness that I don't think will have much relevance to be quite honest to our voluntary recall rule. But if somebody wants to demonstrate to me that there is some relevance there, I'm certainly open to hearing that. I think the voluntary recall rule is something that needs a little bit of history. And the history behind this is that this was not a commission initiated matter. It was something that in particular, our Office of Communications was asking for clarification in the approaches that we took with respect to how we negotiated recall settlements and it was designed to expedite and make the process more efficient. The merits of that remain and the language that I had proposed with respect to making recall agreements, voluntary corrective action plans, legally binding was something that did not come from Scott Wilson and any of his staff. It's something that came from me. I don't think there's still an enormous amount of merit to it. I'm not gonna apologize for any proposal that I made, but as I say, I'm a realist. I think that what we need to do is, and I will confess I am a serial compromiser and I am unabashed and unashamed to say that. So what I'd like to do is to get as much of the substance and the merit of the voluntary recall as we possibly can and move forward with it. And I think that this is something that we can discuss and elaborate once I've actually put my thoughts down in writing and shared them with my colleagues. Thank you. Will Commissioner Adler yield? Sure. So that's true. What the original, the genesis of this package came from OCM and the interest was in facilitating the recall notices were put out. And I would say beyond that, then it was what the commissioners proposed that created the fire storm. It has caused all the controversy and caused really a tremendous amount across all spectrums of industry and the concern with regards to disclosure of information on six B roll and also a voluntary recall. That was commission generated and the commission can take credit for all of the firestorm. I would agree with every word you said, except when I pluralize the word spectrum, I say spectra, but injecting a small note of humor. But I think that's exactly right, Commissioner Burkle. And so therefore we should not try to avoid the fact that this was a commission generated proposal. And therefore it, I think it's incumbent upon us who offered these amendments to work with one another to see if we can't come up with something that would be satisfactory to the commissioner, at least resolve it one way or the other. Commissioner Robinson. Since I'm the only other commissioner who's been a commissioner long enough to have participated in this with Commissioner Adler, obviously Commissioner Burkle participated in the discussion, but I certainly backed Commissioner Adler's proposals for the amendments to the voluntary recall rule. But let me just say this, and I will, since we're separating the voluntary recall rule from your proposed amendment on six B, I will stick with that. My perception from this chair is that what happened on this is that there was a firestorm, although I do have to say that when you talk to any individual lawyer, he or she cannot keep a straight face in saying that a negotiated agreement that is reduced to writing the both parties sign is not legally binding. They certainly as a group have come out with this, but that's not the point of raising, of raising that that seems to be the point of conflict. The point is this, yes, we have controversy, so what? This is absolutely no reason to put this on the back burner and say that we don't have the resources to address it, which I think has been the case with too many issues in the last two years. As I'm hearing the commissioner speaking, I think we have three of us who very much want to put this back on the front burner, and let's have a debate on it. Let's figure out what compromises we can make. All of us sitting up here have compromised on a number of occasions. I think that's a reason that this commission is as strong as we are. We do come to agreements, and if we don't agree, then we don't agree, that's Syllevi. But I think that the idea of not addressing it because it's potentially controversial is something that makes absolutely no sense, particularly given the business of this commission. So, Commissioner Burkle, I appreciate why you're trying to put the date into September of 2017, but I cannot agree with this because I think it's something that after all this time of languishing, that it's time to take it on. And if we end up with a 5-0 decision on a compromise, great. If we don't, we end up with some vote that's not a unanimous vote, so what? That's what we do, but it's time for us to make a decision because the voluntary recalls are probably 90% plus of what we do here, and to make sure that our rules are clear for the stakeholders, that they're clear for us is something that is absolutely essential to us doing our jobs of protecting the public, so I cannot support this amendment. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I look at this amendment before us right now, in plain and simple terms, Commissioner Burkle is suggesting that in our future unified agenda, we reflect this one item as showing that we'll have a briefing package at the end of the fiscal year, right? That's the language we have in front of us, whereas in previous versions it demonstrated going final, final rule at a certain due date, and one can look at any of our past unified agendas to look at that, so what she's doing right now is trying to put a date when we're going to get to this purpose, when we're going to get to this matter, and this matter has been suggested as not being staff-driven, but commission-directed and commission, it's been derived by the commission, so it's perfectly appropriate for us, the commission, to be clear with the public in terms of when we're going to have this matter resolved, because if you look at our instructions for the unified agenda, and I'm holding in my hand here the instructions from our administrator of Oira, Mr. Shalansky, and with regards to the unified agenda, the instructions to the commissions of the following. The timetables, that's exactly what Commissioner Berkel is referring to here, with her amendment, the timetables that appear for each entry in the unified agenda are particularly important for the public understanding of the timeframes for participation in the regulatory process. Please take all reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of timetable information, but what we also heard today, which is a surprise to me, and that's why I'm glad we have these decisionals, we're not allowed to get together like this, unless in this kind of a form. That Commissioner Adler has some thoughts in his mind, and he plans on sharing with the commission to seek some compromise on not just this matter, but the other matter with which Commissioner Berkel has a suggested amendment. And I'll note that in the timetables, this is the 2000, I just quoted from the 2006 version, it's kind of funny to see that when Mr. Shalansky first was making these suggestions, I noticed the slight nuances and differences. In 2013, he asked that we make a sincere effort to ensure the accuracy of timetable information. So I guess sincerity was far too much to ask for the commissions, for the different commissions and agencies, so now he's just asking us to take reasonable steps. And I think what Commissioner Berkel has introduced is a very reasonable step here. If this is commission-driven, commission-directed, how can we ask the staff to look into our minds? But I'm afraid I might get the backhand of my colleague, Commissioner Berkel, if I would also suggest that if somebody has something else in mind, when they're going to try to seek compromise, now is the time to set the date. Because after all, the purpose of this unified agenda is for the public to be able to engage. It uses the word promoting predictability. We don't want to spring things on people. We don't want to give the false impression that we're going to get to something. That's why, Mr. Chairman, I was asking for that specificity with regards to the current fiscal year we're in right now, FY16. Would the commissioner yield for a question to you? I will. I won't take three minutes. How is it more accurate, if Commissioner Adler plans on circulating something that could end up prompting the commission to move more quickly, how is it more accurate to put a later date than an earlier date? Wouldn't it be more likely to spring something on the public if they're expecting the end of next fiscal year versus something sooner? Well, that's why, Mr. Chairman, I was afraid to get the backhand of my colleague, Commissioner Burkle, if I was suggesting that Commissioner Adler provide an amendment to her amendment with regards to a different date. And I know that Commissioner Adler can't foresee whether or not he'll be able to achieve compromise. But this effort is all about our most sincere, reasonable effort when we're going to get to this. So Congress, so the public can engage. Because after all, the regulatory process, in its purposes, are for public engagement. This should not be an insider ball thing. And that's the whole purpose of all this. That's the purpose of all these regulatory agendas. So Commissioner Burkle, I apologize if I've argued, perhaps, against using the end of the fiscal year, but if that's what Commissioner Adler has in mind as an appropriate date, then I would suggest maybe that he get behind Commissioner Burkle's. But without mentioning any proposed dates at all, I think that at the very least, we shouldn't be trying to spring something on some and raise some concerns with the date, other than what we've normally done, which is kick this rule back to the end of the fiscal year. So that's why I'm in support of the current, but would be open, my mind is open to hearing an alternative if somebody has something that better achieves accuracy. I want the public to know when we feel, we think we're going to address this matter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burkle. Thank you. Well, thank you for your comments, Commissioner Morović. And I think the language used is reasonably expect in terms of, and so I think I would ask the staff, do we reasonably expect that some action will be taken by the date that's indicated in the voluntary, excuse me, in the reg agenda? Commissioner Burkle, are you saying for the entire reg agenda? I, for the, on the specific topic, voluntary recall that I've raised in this first amendment. I don't know that I can respond to that given what the commission has already said and Commissioner Adler that he is looking to share something with his colleagues about the voluntary recall rule. Certainly when we put the date there, again, it was one that, it was the next available sort of date in the various ones that we have. And as I said earlier, it's the will of the body. To make an adjustment to the date. And just as sort of additional background, it's, I think it was said, will it be done by a certain time? And usually it's, well, not usually, but I'll say when we're looking at this, it's the work or the review or the development of an activity that we're looking at, not necessarily that it is the end date that we will have a rule, but if I'm correct, then I can ask either Patty or our general counsel to say or to weigh in that you have to start the work, you have to develop, you have to review, you have to be working on it. It's not necessarily that we will complete. Am I accurate to the general counsel? If you're talking about what the purpose of the regulatory agenda, I do think the language is in terms of what's, and this is in our preamble, what's under review, what staff is working on. I don't, even though we do projected dates, I don't think those dates are meant to be, well, none of it is meant to be binding. So I do think the concept is that we're reflecting work of the staff. Okay, thank you. So that I'm saying could something start at the date that is listed for this activity? It could, depending on the timeframe for Commissioner Adler's engagement of his colleagues. Thank you, and I apologize because that question may have been out of turn since we already had our opportunities to ask questions. I do wanna just comment on Commissioner Robinson's comment. I'm not afraid of a fight. I'm not afraid of discussion. I'm not afraid of debate. I've tried getting this out of the agenda every which way because I think it's bad policy for the agency on both counts. So I'm not afraid of, I just am realistic in knowing that I'm in the minority here. And so my options are limited and so that's why I've chosen this route. The only final comment I'll make and thank you for the amendments is, I think that Commissioner Mohorovic has raised the timing issue. And I do think that without getting into the specific dates that may be in the package, it's better to alert the public too soon in my mind than too late. And it seems that the package is more likely to tell somebody that something might happen before it happens than where the amendment would tell them, they don't have to worry about it. They don't have to pay attention to it. They can come back in a number of months and then tune in on those particular rules with an expectation of then maybe something would happen and they may have missed it at that point. So I do think that the amendments unfortunately are not consistent with alerting the public and giving the public a timeline that they should be paying attention to. So with that, unfortunately I won't be supporting either of the amendments, but I have no more comments at this time on it, Commissioner Adler. I did wanna make a quick comment. I have not given up all hope in getting Commissioner Burkle's vote on a compromise proposal and I hope she will look at it with an open mind. And I'm delighted to engage in any discussion about it to see if we can't reach a mutually acceptable compromise. With respect to the timing on this, I would say sooner rather than later. In fact, I've been thinking about this, I think we all have for years and I've actually even sat down and done a draft of what I think a compromise might look like. So it's not that far off from me actually having a written document to share, but this is also something that I feel an obligation to run by staff and to run by my colleagues. So rather than doing it precipitously, I'm gonna try to make sure the process works, but trust me, it will be sooner rather than later. Once I decided I was gonna do it. And it looks like Commissioner Mohorovic wants to, oh, you had your hand on the button, so I thought, okay. Mr. Robinson. I was not for a moment suggesting Commissioner Burkle that you are not up for a robust conversation or as you call it, a fight. Quite the contrary. I think that, in fact, Commissioner Mohorovic and I had this conversation yesterday that at least the three of us very much want to either get it off the agenda or take care of it. Let's have this conversation. Let's have the debate. Let's figure out what the compromises are. And this morning is the first time I've heard that Commissioner Adler very much wants to do this too. So I am delighted and I look forward to it and we'll get it off the agenda one way or the other if we can get four of us together. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My disappointment with our approach to this is generally and specifically with this matter, with regards to the timing of the voluntary recall rule, we refuse to make a sincere effort for accuracy. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, your approach for me to summarize it was, well, we'd rather air very, very soon so that people would become aware that they wouldn't be sprung on them. But that's exactly contrary to why we have this document. The language and the spirit of why we have these agenda is to promote predictability. So in order to be predictable and allow the public to have the benefit of predictability, we have to strive for accuracy. That's not strive to put an earlier date on something so that when it transpires six months or eight months later, we certainly didn't do it too late or we're trying to allow people to manage their resources. And this is something that maybe outside of government happens constantly in the private sector for almost 10 years. I had to constantly do this with capital authorization requests for new equipment to predict what type of revenue it's going to yield and the cost and what kind of figures public sector companies constantly have to be able to try to do their best to predict with analysts what their future results will be from a business practice. This is all that we're being asked to do. But I mean, I think it's unfortunate that we don't have a majority that really wants to strive for accuracy. So I know it's difficult. I'm looking down the dias at Commissioner Adler who has some thoughts in his head and I know it would be difficult to put a number down on that. But I wish he did. And perhaps if this amendment fails, perhaps he would put an amendment in which would be his best effort. So it's not trying to be too early. We're trying to get as much as we can to the bull's eye on this matter. So I'll support this effort because I think it's at least Jackson better to open. But yet I think what the clear takeaway is here that the unified agenda or any timetable put next to these particular matters and then this one in particular is not done with any sense or desire to achieve accuracy. Thank you. Commissioner Berkel. Well, I just, my concern is that for years now, less since this rule came out in 2013, we've been, the chairman has been saying to the public, it's not a safety priority. Therefore, I don't see any sense of urgency into taking this up. And so now to have it, this date in the reg agenda is of concern to me. And so I just think it makes far greater sense to project it out and then to see and to work with my colleagues and to see if we can come up with some compromise. But to let the public know, as Commissioner Morović says, give them some certainty, some predictability in what we're talking about today. We will work hard to come to some compromise and to get rid of the more controversial and make this a reasonable package so we can affect recall effectiveness. But it seems by putting in this date, we are not being clear. We are doing a 180 on what we've been saying for years now that this is not a priority, this is not a safety priority. Therefore, it's gonna take a back burner to so many other issues. And I think that to me is troubling and to Commissioner Morović's point, regarding public information and certainty, that concerns me. So continuing the discussion, Commissioner Morović, I'm gonna yield if you're willing to answer a question. I'm just curious to know, since I think we both share the same goal, which is to strive to be as reasonably accurate as possible from a public notice perspective, what I'm missing is why you think a date at the end of the next fiscal year is more accurate for this particular package than an earlier date? I don't know if it's more accurate at all. I think all we've told the public with regards to this rule, which has garnered I think more attention than anything else on our regulatory agenda in the two years that I've been on the commission. Anyone looking through our previous attempts will see that our previous agendas will see that we consistently put at the end of the fiscal year we're going final with this rule. So we've had this in the sleeper hold where we do the Jedi mind trick to say, oh, those are not the droids you're concerned of and we just kind of do this kind of bait and switch or it's a magician's act here in terms of being accurate. And I would just like to say, even if I don't like the rule as it stands right now in its language, I think it's more important to be honest with the public of when we tend to get to it because people feel strongly about this rule positively or negatively and they should have the opportunity to engage with all of us. That wouldn't curtail our ability to dialogue and seek compromise and perhaps a middle ground. But I think any date if it's completely arbitrary is just that, it's arbitrary. At least with this approach, it's the same arbitrary approach that we've been doing agenda after agenda. Sorry for I'm sure you didn't intend to. No, that's okay. I think you hit it on at the end with the driving philosophy for you was just to maintain the same arbitrary. But it does sound, and I'll turn to Commissioner Allen for his time, but it does sound like he intends to move relatively quickly. Thus the date that may or may not be in the package might actually be more accurate than the date that's being proposed to Commissioner Allen. Yeah, I have no control over what the other commissioners do. I only have control over what I can do. And I'm telling you what I can do is to have something circulated within a matter of weeks. And so I'm hopeful given the discussion today that folks wanna get this addressed and resolved whichever way we do that. And so I don't really call, I don't like the phrase bait and switch. I don't even like the term arbitrary. I like the term a judgment call. And it's my best judgment call that the number that is in the regulatory agenda now is a far more accurate number, at least from my personal perspective than the number that Commissioner Burkle has floated. But I appreciate her raising the point because actually as I say that was the catalyst for me deciding that damn it, I am gonna circulate something and let's address it and get it decided one way or the other. Commissioner Robinson. I would only say that's Commissioner Adler in light of the fact that you and I are the only two remaining soldiers standing who supported the amendment. You have a superb staff and I do too. And if you would like any assistance from my staff and coming up with a compromise on this that we could propose to our fellow commissioners, I'm happy to have my staff help. Greatfully accepted. Commissioner Morova. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and with all due respect and apologies to Commissioner Burkle, I'm not going to support the amendment, Commissioner Burkle, because for the first time, this commission has said loud and clear that the date that will appear in the regulatory agenda is thoughtful and it's real. And that's gonna get real attention. I think if we didn't have this dialogue and I appreciate it, Commissioner Adler, you saying that that in your mind is your most accurate depiction of when the agency will be moving on the voluntary recall rule, that will send shockwaves and that's okay. Shockwaves may be good, shockwaves bad, but the point is is those shockwaves should go out because of the controversial nature of this rule, I'm sure will be immediately notifying the Hill who have expectations that we would do that. Immediately I recognize that also in testimony I wasn't invited to appear, but I did see that on behalf of the commission that we committed to have full engagement of the consumer interest with regard to this proposed regulation. We would have full open engagement with the business community, which was the quote that subcommittee chairman Moran used during the hearing. So I want to see this really flushed out and have this put in the light of the day in that when this eventually does appear in a matter of days, it will get the attention it deserves. And let's pile it on. We already had a pretty active and robust ambitious agenda for the fall. And this is gonna be the icing on the cake. I'll remind you it's football season, Commissioner Adler, and you're a basketball fan primarily. So I take a little bit of umbrage to that. I wish we could have gotten to this in the springtime. But for that reason, with all due respect, Commissioner Berkele, I'm not going to support the amendment because I want to see one that is accurate and I'm confident that the way Commissioner Adler as bracketed by our general counsel and not mentioning any specifics with regards to any proposals that are put before the commission, but since I'm privy to those, I know it's going to make heads spin. And I think that's what I would like to see come out of the regulatory agenda. To me, that's the purpose. Thank you. Commissioner Berkele. I'm not sure where to begin. First of all, I feel like Commissioner Morovic, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But be that as it may, my suggestion was gonna be to Commissioner Adler, is there a date now that Commissioner Morovic has decided he's gonna vote against my amendment? Maybe we should talk about when we could reasonably expect something rather than, I just frankly think in what Commissioner Morovic and the purpose for this decisional meeting was transparency and giving the public the opportunity to know what the heck we're doing and give them a fairly, and I think we've got to be realistic. This, the nature of this document is not gonna be date-certains. The nature of this document is, it's your second, you know, it's your best guess. It's a difficult to come up with these dates. Just given the guidance we got from Ms. Williams on the dates that are used, the nature of the document, the fact that we can't put in dates, you know, the earliest dates we can put in, so it isn't gonna be accurate. That's just the nature of the document and we have to accept that. You know, part of my problem with all of this is that we're a far nimbler agency. You know, it's troubling. We could be more accurate, but the guidance and what we're hearing doesn't allow us to do that. But, you know, if we wanna bring this on, we can leave this date in there if we wanna move it out, so it is when we can reasonably expect to talk about compromise, then that's something we could talk about as well. The Commissioner Yielding, to Commissioner Adler. Yes. I'm not gonna give a specific date because I haven't looked at my calendar in great depth and I didn't realize we would be focusing on it, but I can tell you it'll be within weeks and not months that I will be glad to, that I will be circulating. And as I say, once I've done that, that's beyond my control. Then it's up to the Commission as a whole to decide when they wanna put it on the agenda, whether they wanna put it on the agenda and how we resolve it. But I will promise you that it would be within weeks. And so the date that's in the reg agenda, you're reasonably certain that it'll be before that date. I'm quite comfortable with that. Thank you. I have no further comments on the amendment. Commissioner Adler? Commissioner Robinson? Commissioner Morro-Rovey? Commissioner Berkel, any last words on the amendment? Having heard no further discussion, we'll now turn to consideration of the First Amendment from Commissioner Berkel. Commissioner Adler, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Robinson? No. Commissioner Morro-Rovey? No. Commissioner Berkel? Aye. And I vote no. The noes are four and the ayes are one, the amendment is not agreed to. Commissioner Berkel, if you could just briefly explain, please, your Second Amendment and then I'll ask for a second on that one. So my Second Amendment has to do with the disclosure of information, fondly referred to as 6B. And I would just change the date, the due date of the briefing package for an amendment to Regulation on Information Disclosure and Dissection B to 9.30, 2017. Is there a second? Having heard a second, we'll now turn to discussion on the amendment. Thank you as well for this one. I think that most of the comments, bless you, most of the comments that I made, I think apply, I do think based on what Commissioner Adler has suggested that he will be circulating or intends to circulate, and he's nodding in affirmation that within the next few weeks that this date that appears in here, or may appear in here is actually more accurate than the proposed date in your amendment. So all the comments that I made for the previous amendments stand. The one difference, though, is that, and it's not about being afraid of fighting or anything that's not accurate. It's really about resources and when the Commission has time to turn to these things, which is why I'm so pleased that Commissioner Adler is willing to move forward with a potential compromise because the Commission pool of resources that Commissioner Mohorovic has tapped into in his office, for instance, where the Commissioner Robinson has tapped into in her office with her proposals, that's a different pool of resources than the staff resources, and I'm much more comfortable for these two rules in particular since the controversy has generated from the Commission level to have the offices absorb those resources as opposed to staff. So I think this is good. I've been asking for two years to have compromise come at the staff level, or at the Commission level at least in an attempt, and it's a positive that might actually happen. This rule in my mind is different in that it's the statute that for me personally is the problem. I have said this many times before, I think 6B, the statutory provision in the Consumer Product Safety Act is the most anti-consumer safety, anti-transparency provision that I can think of that we deal with, or really any health and safety agency deals with, and it's actually inconsistent in my mind with the entire purpose and the name of the Consumer Product Safety Act to have this provision in there. I've been here now for six years. I've seen it do what it does on an intimate level, and I am comfortable that the act itself, the provision in the act actually harms consumer safety definitively. The reg, which was adopted, I'm sure Commissioner Adler can give us a history lesson on when the reg was adopted many years ago, certainly exacerbates that problem. There's no doubt about it. And I do feel that it's a worthwhile effort for the commission at the commission level with commissioner office resources to tackle trying to modernize the reg and to undo many of the unnecessary provisions that tie our hands. So I welcome that. That to me is the ideal situation that we don't force staff to have to put aside their work, general counsel's office in particular, on the safety rules that they're trying to help with to have to deal with this. This is our burden to deal with and I'm encouraged to hear that we're gonna try to deal with it. I won't be supporting the amendment but I will be very supportive and my office will be very supportive, not only of continuing to try to explain to the Hill why the act needs to be repealed but in the meantime, why our reg needs to be modernized and improved at the same time. Commissioner Adler? Having looked at the history of the Consumer Product Safety Act, one of the things that's always struck me about Section 6B is that it was enacted over 40 years ago and it was really enacted because the Congress was mad at the Federal Trade Commission and so they punished us for what they were angry at the Federal Trade Commission for. And the interesting thing to me also is that if this were such a wonderful provision for public policy and promoting good public health and safety, why is it that after 40 some years we're still the only agency that has a provision like this? I think the answer is that that which was an impulse for the Congress 40 some years ago has become an entitlement for industry. You will never, never hear anybody from the media or from the consumer community praising, supporting, doing anything other than criticizing 6B. And I've always been struck by the irony and I'm not intending this in any way personally against my colleagues but just generally speaking, those who hold themselves out as conservatives, those who hold themselves out as skeptical about government, those who hold out the fact that they don't trust government to step in and regulate our lives are thrilled to see the government acting as a sensor. The government acting as the data nanny for what information gets released to the public. It's unheard of to me and it has immediate and direct consequences on safety. Every time we issue a press release that we know that we have had discussions with companies about what will go into the press release and what won't. And it is to the credit of the staff that they have been fairly aggressive in standing up to companies that are invoking the potential of 6B lawsuits that we don't have weaker press releases than we come up with but we've all seen press releases modified because companies fuss and invoke 6B that is never done by other agencies. And whenever I hear people say, well, you don't believe in fairness and accuracy that infuriates me because that's not the issue. The issue is public health and safety. That's what I care about and this impedes and undermines that. And just one last point. With respect to 6B, I completely agree with the chairman. The issue really isn't our reg. In fact, I've had a number of discussions with colleagues in the business community as commissioner Robinson was saying offline talking about that. And they yawn when we talk about this draft proposal on 6B because mainly what it is is just an update to reflect the fact that we're in the digital electronic age and this was written back when people were writing letters and communicated in different fashions. That said, I'm still prepared to try to compromise to see if we can't reach something that all agree with and I only wish that we could push further in modifying 6B but it is a statutory provision and it's one because it's a statute we comply with and I think we do it conscientiously. Commissioner Robinson. Well, I share the opinion of my fellow commissioners who have expressed their so far about 6B. There's nothing we can do about that without congressional action and that is not what is in the reg agenda. What our regulation does on the other hand is Congress gave us a hoop to jump through and we added three additional hoops and all we're trying to do is do away with the ones that have absolutely nothing to do with the statute and drag these our communications into the 21st century. Listening to Ms. Atkins describe what we do for 6B, some of those steps being ones that are pursuant to the regulation and not pursuant to the statute only makes the point stronger that this is something we need to deal with now and when you look at over the past three years I've been a commissioner the number of occasions when we have not been able to communicate to the public things that we should have been able to communicate and if we didn't have our reg we could have done it much more efficiently and getting that information out how critical it is to safety. It makes it the point even stronger that we need to deal with this now. So I cannot support putting this off for the same reason that I don't support changing the date with respect to the voluntary recall rule. This is the first time that I've heard the chairman express that he thinks that these changes to 6B are related to safety and the past he's taken the position it's not related to safety so it's been put on the back burner and I'm absolutely delighted at that. So hopefully we will be able to move this to the front burner and deal with it in the tiny little way that we can just bringing our communications into the 21st century from what exists in our regulation. Commissioner Moherovic. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman first of course the point of this amendment is about timing and about what kind of information will reflect to the public in terms of when we might be taking this particular matter on and for the same reasons in the prior amendment I won't be supporting the amendment to move back the date to the end of the fiscal year. Though I might wish that that would have some effect I don't think changing that date in the unified agenda will for my democratic colleagues from pushing forward on this bill. If we were successful in putting through a date of the end of the fiscal year I don't think that'll change realistically the timing of course our general counsel pointed out the fact that it's not binding it's not. So being a guy from the Boston area we take Paul Revere's ride with a lot of pride and I think that this particular regulatory agenda might garner some more interest than it usually does in our sector of consumer product safety when the public sees the timing with which the agency in one way or another expects to get to these particular matters and with this 6B rule and how it's been derided here at the hearing in response to some of the comments not specifically but from Commissioner Adler and Commissioner Robinson with regards to their feeling and the chairman with regards to their feelings about 6B. Let me read of course the quintessential element of 6B from the act which is the commission shall take reasonable steps to assure prior to its public disclosure there of that information from which the identity of a manufacturer or private labeler maybe readily ascertained is accurate and that that disclosure is fair in the circumstances and reasonably related to effectuating the purposes of this act. That does not sound like bad public policy to me to make sure that information that comes out from the public and I say that only in defense of what was portrayed as how could conservatives be against this and other information that should have been put out but couldn't well was it not able to be put out because it was inaccurate to me that's a good thing. You know the government's got the ability to bully it's got the ability to coerce and we have the ability to malign reputations and have significant impacts on people and reputations and on corporate performance so to ensure that anything that comes out from the CPSC is accurate and fair in the circumstances are some ideals that I am very well in support of. Now I will also say that these two rules and with all due respect I apologize for moving on a little bit with the voluntary recall rule. These have been a little bit gremlin rules whereas in their original fuzzy format they were just a little bit mischievous but then through amendments water got put on them or they were fed at night. I don't know what it did and they turned into these disasters that many predicted would burn down the equilibrium of consumer product safety that we know and appreciate today. So whatever we get back to whether it's original versions or the versions as they were amended remains to be seen and I look forward to the dialogue and the negotiation and I will say this that while I mentioned it's the majority that will be interested in pursuing these rules especially in a very short timeframe. Predictions about midnight regulations might be coming true while these rules were told to be in a sleeper format it looks like they may not. So those that are that are checking predictability might wanna look at the record on that as well but I also wanted to say in the spirit of openness and dialogue that I do not believe that this that these matters will be discussed and negotiated only amongst the majority. I do believe that all of the commissioners will make every reasonable effort to work with each other as we consistently do. So the partisan aspects of what I mentioned I hope you'll take that into consideration and not that I feel that I won't be part of the discussion. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Birkel. Thank you Mr. Chair. So let me if I might ask Commissioner Adler because I had understood and we've had conversations with regards to compromise on voluntary recall notice. It's a bit of news today that you're willing to make a proposal for compromise on 6B. I am and my memory is worse than yours so I will always defer to your memory but I thought I had mentioned in passing that I was interested in proposing compromises both on voluntary recall and 6B but that is absolutely my intention. Thank you. So I will just and certainly I will look forward to getting that those compromise offers. I did just a couple of things about 6B and some of the comments that were made here today. You know in 2008 when the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was enacted Congress had the opportunity to change 6B to change the way we disclose information and they consciously made a decision not to do that. So I think that the bar for us is extremely high. We're a data-driven agency and what Commissioner Morrovic just mentioned about fair and accurate disclosure of information should be something that we are embracing. Do we want to just put out information that's not accurate that is based on emotion rather than fact or science? I don't think so. The credibility of this agency will go right down the tubes and I don't think one person in this room or in this agency wants to see that. We should be embracing 6B as the information that we are putting out is accurate and fair. That's what we're about. We're about data-driven agency. I don't think it's anti-consumer safety. I think we do a disservice to the consumer when we put out information that is not accurate, that is based on hyperbole, that is based on an initial reaction rather than taking a deeper dive and giving the opportunity to the regulated community to speak back to us about what is right and what is wrong about that. It's nice to think we know everything, but we don't. And I think we're taking some moral high ground when we think that the regulated community doesn't want safe products and doesn't want their consumer to have the information about a product that might not be safe. And we do better, we always do better and we act more effectively as an agency when we work in communion with and in collaboration with the regulated community because we can act in isolation. And when we're talking about putting out information that is not fair and accurate, because if we're not willing and we don't, we want to discard 6B and we want Congress to change the statute, then that's what we're saying. We're saying that fair and accurate is not what we're interested in. We want to just act quickly on impulse. Well, we have a higher, I think, a higher responsibility to the consumer that that's not what we want to do. And I just will take exception to Commissioner Adler's comment about attorneys yawning. I don't believe that one, and based on the comments we got both on voluntary recall as well as 6B. There wasn't anyone out there who were yawning on either one of these comments. The number of comments that were generated on both of these NPRs was tremendously significant. There is a tremendous amount of concern and discussion about these issues. And many thoughtful comments have been submitted to us on both of those NPRs. And I take an awful lot of time to travel around to talk to the regulated community and consumer groups and we have spent a lot of this summer doing just that. And maybe not here in Washington, although you hear it here in Washington, but when you go out into the regulated community and you talk to the attorneys and the compliance people for these companies, they are concerned. They are concerned that information might be disclosed from this agency that isn't fair and accurate and they haven't had a chance to weigh in on it. They are concerned about that and they're also concerned with the voluntary recall rule. So I don't take either one of those lightly. And as I said, I will look forward to receiving Commissioner Adler's compromises and then we'll go from there. I'm going to turn to Commissioner Mohova for some follow-up. But I do want to say as a general matter and I would imagine that my colleagues agree with me, I don't think that anyone believes that the CPSC and the staff cannot be fair and accurate without the statute. I don't think that's what's standing in the way of inaccurate and unfair statements just going out willy-nilly from the agency. If there is, and that's something unique to our hiring process or something that's going on here, that FDA, FTC, EPA, all these other agencies somehow don't have this restriction on them yet there's not the same concern that they won't be able to control themselves. I think everyone agrees with that principle and I'm confident that the staff in particular would actually treat it no differently. But we also have to recognize that the practice of what happens with 6B is very different than often what's written in the statute and the specter of it has taken on a life in part because of the reg, but also in part because of the way it's been interpreted. And for me, one great example, Commissioner Morović, since you talked about fair and accurate, I'm curious how you would see this working in practice. So we decided to open up an investigation on a matter and a media outlet reaches out to us and says, are you investigating? Under the statute, 6B, we cannot confirm that at that point. We are required to go to the company and to clear a statement with them, at least run the clock out that says we are investigating. How does the company know that that statement is fair or accurate since they don't know what we're doing? How are they in a knowledgeable enough position in your mind to add something meaningful to that discussion when they have no clue whether investigating or not? Would you be comfortable answering that question? Or I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And you mentioned that we have the complete ability to be fair and accurate and consistently without a statute requiring us when we are speaking about a situation that identifies a manufacturer, a private labeler, that is the constraint with which the statute kicks in. One needs look no further than the matter before us today in our ability to be fair and accurate. We've all stated, except for this one, these two matters with 6B and the Voluntary Recall Rule, those are the only matters with which the public, when they eventually look at our regulatory agenda and our unified plans, will have any sense of confidence that the commission believes in those dates. We have admitted here that these things are aspirational, that we're gonna throw everything in there. And one needs look no further, these come out every six months. You just look at what it said six months ago, did we complete it? Nope, what do we do again? Kick the dates back the same time. So we have a culture through these formal documents contrary to what Oira and the executive orders ask us to do, we have a culture of purposefully being inaccurate. And even though it hurts me to not be able to support my colleague, Commissioner Burkle's amendment, to me that would have continued the culture of disinformation, purposeful inaccuracy by the federal government. Now, of course, in our rulemaking, we don't talk about specific companies. So we're not bound by 6B in terms of being fair and accurate. Here, we're allowed to be nilly willy and just go ahead and put whatever we want in these particular dates and we don't have to worry about it. So you're asking me to accept the fact that in the absence of 6B, we would continue to be fair and accurate. And I don't think we would. And I think this contributes to the general de-legitimization of our federal government. I think this contributes to why people will think and come up with sayings that we all know, oh, politician, they're lying when they move their lips. I mean, all of those. I mean, we ought to embrace it and accept it because it's part of a culture that we continue. I've got some other motions. I think they're going to fail. That will get to becoming, to be being fair and accurate. And I think we'll only prove to ourselves that we're going to refuse to be fair and accurate, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And the question that I asked, do you have an opinion as to how 6B helps further fairness and accuracy when a company is asked to opine on something that they actually are not in a position to know the truth or lack of truth, though? I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding again. And I recognize that Commissioner Buerkle and I were the only ones that were elected to office. And one of the first things they teach you is answer the question that you want to answer and not the question that maybe you were asked. So maybe that's the difference on why I was successful in small ball 20 or 20 years ago or 15 years ago. I appreciate that. And we were asked twice actually. But I think that your non-answer to that reveals the flaws with 6B. And if you, I'm comfortable to go to the Hill with you if you're willing to go with me, to find a way to preserve the spirit of fairness and accuracy in 6B, but not tie the public's hands when it comes, or the agency's hands when it comes to disseminating information that we are comfortable is fair and accurate that delays getting that out and impacts public safety. Are you willing to at least go to the Hill with me and talk about changes to the statute? Chairman, I don't think I'm allowed to say no if Congress compels me to appear before them. I've never been invited in all these different hearings that are planned, so I guess that's a reflection of Congress's desire to hear from me. But I will give you some red meat, honestly, in terms of 6B, okay? And then looking at the previous version of the rule, that was before the agency. I think in the spirit of making the office of the secretary in particular more efficient and up to date with the 21st century are certainly things that we should absolutely aspire to in terms of some of the other elements, I'll have to think about them a little bit more closely to give you the fair and honest answer that you deserve. But I'm unprepared to talk about and give a major speech about my total feelings about 6B. I know Commissioner Adler can do it like that, but for me, I take a little bit more time and homework to do it. Commissioner Adler, that's your cue. Well, first of all, I did wanna go back in a little bit of history because 6B has become a weight around our necks that I don't think Congress ever really intended. I think when Congress wrote that, what they really intended was to say, anytime the commission is the initiator of information release, that's when this review should take place. Unfortunately, as we know from time to time, Congress doesn't write words that carefully. And so when we said we're not going to apply 6B to the release of information in response to the Freedom of Information Act request, we thought we were on solid ground until we went to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said the statute is the statute and the statute applies across the board, including FOIA requests, which means that to pick an example from our last discussion, if we have a document that is simply a list of 50 companies and somebody makes a FOIA request for that document, we have to send out 50 different, separate FOIA, excuse me, 6B disclosures to companies and we have to redact 49 of the names for each one of those releases. And that adds, and you can look at the annual FOIA report that we submit to Congress, 6B costs us hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of staff time and months and months and months of waiting to process information through 6B. And the fact is, stuff that is just in our shelves that we're acting more as a library than anything else, we still have to process through 6B. I really don't have a problem in the spirit of compromise of saying, please just remove these FOIA burdens that we have to bear and let's impose on ourselves that if we initiate the information release that we follow these procedures, and I just wanted to add one thing, what you read from 6B is not the language that bothers me, what you read, what you didn't read is the language in section 6B2 which says that if the commission is going to release information when somebody has objected, we have to give them notice five days before we release it and if we're going to release the document, they then have the right to go into court to sue us to borrow us from disclosing that information. That's something unlike any other agency and that's where the burdens arise. Companies just casually threatened to bring a lawsuit and they force us to sit down and at least ponder and think through what we're going to release when it comes to corrective action plan publicity and other things where I'm losing my train of thought because I'm getting excited but it seems to me that there is a reasonable compromise to be reached even with respect to legislation. I'm not going to hold my breath. Well, Commissioner Edler yield. I will. So I think we find yourself again in the same situation. The original 6B proposal was a reasonable one that brought the agency into the 21st century using electronic transmission of information and would certainly assist the office of the secretary in facilitating FOIA request. It was then the commissioners, as my colleague mentioned, feeding the gremlins or however it all happened that changed this package into the highly controversial package that it is today. And so I think that's very important to notice, to take notice of. And secondly, that CPSIA did change a bit of the 6B and it did shorten the amount of time for disclosure of information and it did say to us in case of an emergency, in case you need to act quickly, you have the tools to do that. But again, at that opportunity when they could have gotten rid of 6B completely and how we disclose information they chose not to and I think we need to be aware of that. Yeah, and if I might regain my time, you're absolutely correct. This was one of the most hotly contested items within the CPSIA. And it was clear that there was just so much opposition because industry viewed this as an entitlement that other critical elements of the statute were at risk and so Congress did that which I think we should be doing and they compromised. That's not to say that this is a decision that was made in my judgment on the merits. It was made on the basis of political muscle and on the basis of political muscle they pushed as far as they could in modifying 6B which is one of the delightful things that brought us the database which I think has been an extremely useful mechanism. But to tell me just because Congress didn't abolish it completely means that on the merits that the better argument prevailed, this is not one I agree with. This is one where it was pure political muscle. Mr. Robinson. See if I can drag everybody back to the reg agenda. What we're talking about here is whether the amendments to our regulation under 6B is something that we think can be finished in a good faith estimate in November of this year. And I'm understanding that given where we are and everybody's opinion about trying to compromise this that we should be able to do that. So I will be voting against this amendment. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're laughing about how many cats have been running out of bags here. And so maybe through no fault I think of anybody participating today. It's been a quite awkward. I love your metaphors. Yeah, yeah, so anyway I do want to say one thing. You know, we're on the subject of 6B and I'm not going to use five minutes, but in terms of some of the ways that we can make our operations as I said work more efficiently, where in the spirit of 6B we are retaining that, but yet eliminating some of the redundancies that in the 21st century make no sense. Those are areas that I very much look forward to hearing commissioner Adler's thoughts on the subject and others in the commission as well. And I'll also point out something that I'm reminded by constantly when the subject comes up. There is so little that we can do in some situations with consumer products outside of consumer information. Products around the street, products are in people's homes. We can't take a standard to change those products. So we're relying upon our ability to communicate with the public. And Mr. Wolfson, the Office of Communication does a fantastic job with the resources that they're given, but there was one tool in the toolbox that remains missing and that is a Facebook page. I don't have a Facebook page. I've never even been on Facebook, but I hear it's pretty popular. And many agencies have Facebook pages and it drives a tremendous amount of attention and reattention to some of the commission's information and educational campaigns. Many have stated or speculated that perhaps 6B in the way Facebook's works is the imposition why the CPSC is unable to have a Facebook page. In the short term, I hope Sheryl Sandberg leans in and changes her policy to accommodate the CPSC for the better of consumer product safety. But also, I'm reminded by that, Commissioner Adler, because I do think that while not being on it, I recognize that it's a power to extend our safety information, which is critical and sometimes the only way that we can do that. And many have considered or thought that 6B was the culprit inhibiting us from doing that. And it's not just Facebook, but that's one example that always stays in the back of my mind. I'm happy to yield, Commissioner. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can I weigh in for a moment? Is that an accurate or unfair? No, and not to you, sorry, not to you specifically. I think we have gone a bit astray from the agenda that is before the commission and it's vigorous and robust debate is probably appropriately tabled for another day. And my recommendation is that we return to the discussion before you. I agree with that. And I do thank Commissioner Robinson as well for raising that point. We've enjoyed it. And with that, any last words on the amendment, Commissioner Birkel? I do not, thank you. Hearing no further discussion on the amendment, I'll now call the vote. Commissioner Adler, how do you vote on Commissioner Birkel's second amendment? No. Commissioner Robinson. No. Commissioner Mohorovic. No. Commissioner Birkel. Aye. And I vote no. The noes are four. The yeas is one. No, the ayes is one. The amendment is not adopted. Are there any further motions or amendments to the underlying package? Chairman, I have a motion. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your benefit and those of our colleagues in our pre-reviews here, there is an item for a motion that's been circulated which identified as item 3C that I will choose not to move at this point in time. So for my colleagues' benefit, I will be referring to what you've been reading as item 3D on our agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we call the regulatory agenda generally is really three documents. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, to explain the amendment. That would be great. And then I'll call for a second and then I'll give you time to further discuss it. Thank you, Chairman. The regulatory agenda is really three documents. The regulatory flexibility agenda, the regulatory plan and the unified agenda. My first motion concerns the regulatory plan. In 1993, President Clinton issued executive order 12866, which called for each agency to produce a regulatory plan each year of the most important significant regulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects to issue in proposed or final form in that fiscal year or thereafter. And he did ask through the executive order that both that IRC's independent regulatory commissions like ours also participate in this activity and I'm pleased to see that while we're not bound by 12866, we choose to do so. The order defines significant rules in part as those that may, and may is the key word here, may that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or those that raise novel legal or policy issues. This is the test with which something gets placed on the regulatory agenda or not in simple form. The agency responsible for publishing the plan, OIRA, has noted that the $100 million economic effect could come from a regulatory or a deregulatory action, deregulatory as well. So this is about OIRA's role as a co-leader that can help the public quickly understand the most significant regulatory actions going on across the federal government. And in past versions of our CPSC regulatory plan, we had just one item, the upholstered furniture flammability standard that has been in the work since 1994. That proposed rule would certainly have an economic impact well over $100 million, but the question is this, do we honestly believe honestly that that's the only one? So for starters, the rulemaking begun by petition to ban window coverings with accessible cords would have an economic impact of at least $200 million. And probably well over half a billion dollars. Similarly, our rulemaking on phthalates is certain to have an economic effect well in excess of $100 million. Moreover, that rule itself repeatedly describes its reliance on a quote, novel process, end quote. They use the word novel in a quote novel approach, end quote, to calculating risk. It's right in the wheelhouse of exactly what's prescribed in 12866. Since raising quote novel legal or policy issues, end quote is a separate trigger for inclusion in the regulatory plan, our phthalates rule should be in that document. Even if it had no impact, it is not. It has not been in our previous versions of our plans. And I fear perhaps that it may not be in the plan before us today. Again, however, the regulatory plan should include rules that reasonably may have a $100 million effect in that spirit, we should also include at a minimum our ongoing projects on portable generators, table saws, projects that may call for significant design and manufacturing changes that could easily hit the $100 million mark. We're also reviewing two of the most significant rules in the agency's history, our open flame and smoldering mattress flammability standard, 1633 and 1632 respectively. And as Oira points out in its yearly call for plant submissions, quote, all important items related to any existing regulations under agency review should also be included in the regulatory plan, end quote. The goal of the regulatory plan is to make sure the public knows about all of the big deal rules that the entire federal government is working on, including CPSC, the furniture flammability rule is unquestionably a big deal, but it is not the only one in the spirit of openness, transparency and public participation and facilitating that public participation, including being able to participate in a way that's anticipatory. We need to make our plan more reflective of reality. I don't wanna make mountains out of regulatory molehills, I don't, but we should acknowledge the mountains that are right in front of us. So Mr. Chairman, I move the commission direct staff to amend the CPSC-REG plan at our rule makings on window covering, stalates, table saws, generators and our ongoing rules on mattress flammability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Murovic. Is there a second for Commissioner Murovic's amendment? Second. Second and a third. Having heard that, we'll turn to discussion on the amendment, I'll just say briefly, I appreciate the effort. I do think it's a bit premature in particular to most of the rules in there. It might be that that information ends up coming to light and staff packages in terms of the economic analysis, but I don't wanna prejudge what the performance standards will look like and I think window covering is a perfect example. We are all hopeful with the announcement by the voluntary standards body in the last month or so that they intend to really go after the hazard patterns. It's entirely possible if they are successful with CPSC staff and consumer group participation as well as retailers that whatever proposed rule staff might come with as a result of that to deal with any remaining, if there are any remaining hazard patterns, might be very tiny. We just don't know. And so I think that you're onto something in terms of making sure that we put it in the agenda. I just don't think that the trigger has been hit for many of them. So for that reason, I'm gonna oppose it. Commissioner Adler. I also wanna thank Commissioner Mohorovic in particular for raising this point. When we were talking about it, I was reflecting on the fact that there used to be a time when $100 million was a lot of money. Just as back when they were writing the constitution, 12 bucks was a lot of money. So they figured for jury trials, it's gotta be at least a mountain controversy over $12. So I'm not prepared to support Commissioner Mohorovic's amendment, but I'm not prepared to say that he's wrong on the merits. But the thing that makes me very nervous is doing this is not cost free. And there are some baggage that comes along with calling something a significant rule or a major rule. And it isn't just this executive order. There's executive order 13579, 13563, 1360. There are a number of implications that are raised by calling something a significant rule and a major rule. So I wanna reflect on it. I wanna think about it. I am not rejecting your argument. I'm simply saying at this point I am not prepared to agree to it, but I think you've raised a very, very important point. One that merits reconsideration certainly when we get the mid-year review. Commissioner Robinson. As we discussed, Commissioner Mohorovic, I'm not going to support this, but for very different reasons than my fellow commissioners. We have a process which Ms. Pollitzer has explained to us for deciding if something is a significant regulatory action. And we only designated as that if staff has made findings and done an analysis that puts a particular project in that category. There's been a briefing package, as I understand it, on the economic effect of a rule on upholstered furniture are one significant regulatory action. My information, although having spent way too many years in a courtroom, I know there's a problem with quadruple hearsay, which is what I'm reporting, but my understanding is that staff spent quite a bit of time last night going through what we've done, what analyses have been done with respect to window blinds, phthalates, table saws, portable generators, and mattress flammability standards and found that we have either not engaged in that analysis yet, or we've engaged in it and found that it was under the $100 million mark. And so based on that information, I think it's premature to do this. It isn't because of any guesses on industries like window blinds, which have a long way to go to get where we need them to be, but it has nothing to do with guessing. It has to do with the fact that we need the analysis and findings as Ms. Pollitzer explained to us. And certainly if in the future, we're going to be getting packages in some of these areas and in the future when we have the analysis done, it may very well be that staff decides that it may have over a $100 million impact. And when that analysis exists, then of course we should amend the reg agenda, but I think it's premature now, so I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Buerkle. Thank you. I will be supporting my colleague's motion and his amendment to this reg agenda. I agree that many of these projects, perhaps all of these projects would satisfy the criteria for inclusion into the regulatory plan, but ultimately, and I want to make this clear, that I hope it's not going to be necessary that we adopt a mandatory standard for any of them. And I hope and would really encourage voluntary standards would be adopted and they would prove far more appropriate and sufficient. However, if we do come to the point where we adopt a mandatory standard for any of these, it does seem that these will be significant and deserve to be recognized and flagged in this part of the agenda. So I thank my colleague for his motion. Commissioner Marovic, any final word on your amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in response to some of the debate, first of all, I appreciate all the time and thoughtfulness discussion that went into these amendments. I know that you know that this is something that's relatively important to me, relative, being the important news, it's not the end of the world, but I would like to see us aspire to best practices. And what I would say in terms of consideration of why some of you have indicated that you're not willing to add other items to the regulatory plan because it hasn't received the regulatory impact assessment, which has finally determined a particular rule to be a significant rule. And I would suggest that, of course, I always remind everybody that I don't need reminder that I'm the only non-lawyer here, but as a former legislator, the words we often paid attention to was shall versus may. And in terms of what makes the cut, the word is may. May, may, may, may, may, not is, not is, we've determined it to have an economic impact of $100 million or more. May, significant regulatory actions, I'm quoting 12866, it means any regulatory that is likely to result in a rule, that may, not does, not that has been proven to, not that has found through a regulatory impact assessment. We've gone to that step with the upholstered furniture rule, which is why everybody has confidence in including that in the regulatory plan. But I think we're being less transparent than we perhaps could be because we're refusing to see the word may, and we're inserting the word shall or is, with all due respect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any further comment on the amendment, Commissioner Adler? Commissioner Robinson? I would only say that the may still has to have, in my view, a process to decide if it may have the effect. Whenever we get the economic analyses in any package that comes to us, they can only say that it may have this effect. They cannot say ever it shall have this effect. So may is always what's used, but it's the fact that it's lacking the analysis that is my objection. Commissioner Berkel? No. Commissioner Mohorovic? Having heard no further discussion, we'll turn to consideration of Commissioner Mohorovic's first motion. Commissioner Adler, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Robinson? No. Commissioner Berkel? Aye. Commissioner Mohorovic? Aye. And I vote no. The nays are three, the yeas are two, the amendment or the motion has not been adopted by Commissioner Mohorovic. Do you have any more motions? I do, Mr. Chairman. If you could take three minutes to explain it, please. I'd be happy to. I'll try to speed read again. I know we've had a longer hearing than maybe many have expected. In addition to establishing the regulatory plan, Executive Order 12866 also created the concept of a unified agenda. This was the subject of the previous amendments considered by Commissioner Berkel. Now the unified agenda is a one-stop regulatory shot to provide a snapshot of what agencies across the government were doing. In each agency, we put together a list of its activities, send that list to Oira, who would collate the list and publish them as one big regulatory playbill. Oira consistently reiterates that the unified agenda should give readers an appreciation of what agency plans do in the near term. The next year, it's a look at every action, bigger, small as opposed to the regulatory plan and the regflex analysis. That an agency is close to actually taking. Oira specifically discourages agencies carrying idle rules over year after year, urging them to remove those rules from the agenda in previous documents and instructions, quote, unless they realistically intend to have the resources to take that action over the next 12 months, end quote. This does not withdraw any rule. Whether something exists on the unified agenda or it is not published as part of the unified agenda doesn't withdraw any rule by its existence potentially on that unified agenda. It merely lets the public know what we're likely and unlikely to get to those rules in the next year. Of course, we as an independent agency are not required to comply with executive order, but we have wisely and commendably chosen to do so. To be useful to the order's purposes, however, we need to participate in the order's terms. This is inconsistency with what Oira has asked us to do. In fact, it's precisely what Oira has asked us not to do. I feel strongly that we should participate in the unified agenda process, that it gives the broader public not just close watchers of the CPSC an opportunity to understand what the agency is doing and weigh in on it. But the unified agenda's goal of spurring meaningful public participation is only achievable with meaningful agency participation. And that's what I would like to see us strive for. This would not withdraw any rule nor would it delay any rule by a single day. My motion would merely instruct staff to put together an agenda that accurately describes the agency's intention. To that end, Mr. Chairman, I move that the commission defer action on the regulatory agenda fall 2016, direct the executive director in consultation with the associated executive director for hazard identification and reduction and the office of general counsel and such other staff offices as the executive director sees fit to evaluate the items presently indicated in the regulatory agenda fall 2016 to be published in the forthcoming unified agenda prepared by the office of information of reg affairs identifying the items among the groups specified in two way for which after consultation does not believe the agency can reasonably achieve in 12 months presented to the commission not later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, reflecting all agenda items identified in 2B and marked as long-term actions rescheduled the regulatory agenda fall 2016 for a vote by ballot to be due sometime at a point of time that's acceptable to the commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Morozovic. Is there a second? Second. Having heard a second, we'll now turn to discussion on the motion. I think the key language for me, Commissioner Morozovic, and we've had discussions about this certainly of what you've offered. This is the one that I'm most empathetic to is the standard that you set in your amendment, which is that does not believe the agency can reasonably anticipate achieving, you use the word achieving the stated action. From my read of the guidance documents of the underlying executive order 12-866, the material that you've provided, I think that creates a standard that's actually higher than what is required by or asked of of ORIRA. I go back to the language I read at the beginning that comes from section 4B and this is the unified regulatory agenda from 12-866. Each agency shall prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. I see under development or review as being the standard that staff is supposed to meet in preparing this regulatory agenda and I think as we heard from the executive director, Ms. Atkins, staff did that and they stand by that. So it is accurate from their standpoint and they do intend to continue that these rules are under development or review and that's why they're in there and my concern is that you've created a standard that's higher than that's called for and the unintended consequence of that is, well, first of all, I think that if staff were to follow the guidance that they've followed the first time and your amendment were approved, nothing would change. We would get back from the executive director's office the same package we already have in front of us because I think they stand by the accuracy of it. If they followed the direction that you gave them and went with reasonably anticipate achieving the stated action, my concern is that they would end up not including things in the regulatory agenda that they do intend to continue to work on and the public would be less informed at that point. I know you don't intend for that to be the result but I do have a concern that that might be a result. So for that reason, I feel comfortable based on what the executive director stated earlier that this amendment while in spirit, I agree with it that the staff should continue to be consistent with the directions or the guidance provided. I think they have done that and so I don't think that this amendment would actually make a difference in terms of the regulatory agenda in front of us. Commissioner Alder. Yeah and I did want to just distinguish a little bit between the executive order and the Oira suggestions. Let's be clear what the executive order calls for in a unified regulatory agenda. It requires a regulation identifier number, we do that. A brief summary of the action, we do that. Legal authority for the action, we do that. Any legal deadline for the action, we do that. Name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official. That's what it calls for in the unified regulatory agenda. That's what the executive order asks us to do and that is what we do. Now it is true, there is guidance that has been provided by Oira over the years but talk about language. This isn't even May versus is. This is please keep in mind. These are optional, these are suggested. Please consider, please consider this. In other words, it is providing us advice and it is asking us to consider these things which I think we've all done. But the thing that makes me nervous is that if we were and I do agree with the chairman on this, if we were to adopt the Mohorovic standard we're really adopting a more narrow or a broader depending on your perspective approach than what is called for in the executive order. We are working on these things. They are under review and I'll tell you there is something that makes me nervous about in effect putting some things and identifying them as back burner when it's not clear that they would be back burner. And this is another point of sadness for me. The idea that the world out there is saying, oh, we're not gonna do anything to promote or enhance safety with our products unless it's clear the commission is on the verge of writing a mandatory standard. I think what we've done in our regulatory agenda that I really like is we've said to the world, here are the projects that we think are important, here are things that have safety implications. Don't make us be the only players in this. And so I find it sad that companies would say, well, I set my workload according to what is listed in your regulatory agenda. I expect better of that from our friends in industry and for the most part, I think they rise to that. But I don't like the idea of sending a signal that these are things that are backburnered when they're not necessarily backburnered in my mind. They're things that we want to have industry take note of and respond to. Mr. Robinson. I'm satisfied from Dr. Boyles' and Ms. Adkin's testimony that they have reviewed this carefully and they've given it their best faith effort to give us work that is they're working on right now or they plan to do in the next 12 months. I think they've gone through the process that is expressed in the amendment and they've expressed their confidence in this agenda. So I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you. Commissioner Virkel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's really unfortunate that we have to submit our input to OMB. There's so many weeks before publication and essentially what's prematurely, I think it goes to the sort of the intrinsic inaccuracy of the document because of that limitation. But we are sending it far ahead of the publication date. And in this matter, we're really just hopefully weeks away from receiving our ops plan for 2017, which is a detailed look at what we will be doing over the next year. And I think that's gonna be a far more accurate depiction. I am hopeful. So without the benefit of the ops plan to try to reflect in the reg agenda, what's gonna happen, it's difficult. So it is a little bit of poking around in the dark to try to get into pinpoint those dates. And it's obvious to say, as Commissioner Mohovic pointed out earlier, we are gonna have a very busy fall. And now, in light of today's hearing, we're gonna have two more issues to deal with on voluntary recall and as well as 6B. So, and I will look forward to your documents. But I do say that if there are projects in this reg agenda that are not ready for prime time, then I would encourage the staff to reflect that and to not have them be in this document. But I will be supporting the amendment. Commissioner Mohovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the dialogue today and previously. I'll point out a couple of things in response to some of the arguments made against this amendment today. First of all, the chairman read a section of, section 12866, the instructions on the unified regulatory agenda. But he cleverly stopped where there was an and in the sentence that you read. You talked about the regulations under development review at a time. And then you left off the rest part which was and in a manner specified by the administrator of OIRA. Well, we've got that. We get instructions from the administrator of OIRA. Let me see if any of this sounds familiar, people. In recent years, a large number of unified agenda entries have been for regulatory actions for which no real activity is expected within the coming year. Please remove these items from the agenda. Bullet two, many entries are listed with project dates that have simply been moved forward year after year with no action taken. It's like a, I mean, it's like a joke. I don't know how you guys don't look at that year after year when we sign off on these things and don't find that hysterical. Unless you realistically intend to take action in the next 12 months, please remove these items from the agenda. So we heard testimony today that was, oh no, this is our best effort at accuracy. And we're acting like we don't have experience. I've been on the commission two years. I've seen four of these things and we can go through what was published, what was completed, what was published, what was completed and the same ones are just wrong. So to say, oh no, no, no, I feel confident that this is accurate because I asked and they said it's accurate. Do you ever bother to say, well, how do we consistently get these wrong? I mean, it's unfortunately, that's because there's no accountability in government period. We have no accountability to our regulatory agenda. Nobody's gonna call us on it. Chairman doesn't get any letters saying your regulatory agenda is a complete disinformation campaign. So I got a feeling that this is, well, I think people have stated their opinions. We're not going to change it for the better this time. I'll try to keep leaning on us a little bit more so maybe we can act in the better spirit of what these agendas are supposed to reflect for the public, not for our benefit, for the public's benefit. So with that, I hope maybe some minds might be changed, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Overett. The last thing I'll add on is I just, I think it's not a fair characterization of staff. I do think that there's a difference between achieving a stated action, like I mentioned, meaning an NPR and not working on it. I think often there is a lot of work that goes on that just falls short of being able to produce a briefing package or an NPR or a final rule. And I think for the public's sake of notifying the public, like I said, the flip side is to take these things all off. And that implies that nobody's working on it or they're not working on it. I think that in the spirit of the executive order, we are continuing to work on it. And to follow up on Commissioner Adler's point, it's a budgetary reason. It's a resource reason. We would love to get more done. And we are saying that these are the things that we need to get done, and if Congress will, and if you want to support it, if you want to really get these things off the agenda, you want to support our budget numbers even more vocally. I'm happy to go with you to the Hill to say we need to double our budget so we can finally clear off the reg agenda. If that's what you're saying, I'm all for it. Can you yield a moment? Absolutely. Thank you, because I don't know if we need another round. I want to make it clear in terms of my displeasure with this. It's not at the staff at all. This is our agenda. This is the commission's agenda. The commission is voting on this. Chairman, thank you in a dialogue. You brought to my attention different independent regulatory commissions of different approaches. Sometimes it's merely the chairman you've identified. Sometimes it's just staff. If just staff did this and sent it, then I would have some problems with the staff's work. This is not, my criticisms are not at all of the staff's work. It's at the commission's work here. So let me be absolutely clear. These dates, what we submit because it's a commission vote, any problems I have with them is problems that I have at the commission level. Clearly and only right there. Verena. Yeah. I hear you. Chris, are there anything else on the motion? Well, in terms of items in guidance that are not read, I would also commend to Commissioner Mohorovic's attention. Again, the notion that these are suggested steps and in making that point, the director of OIRA said, please consider whether the listing of such entries still benefits readers. And it's my view that this does benefit readers. And therefore I'm perfectly comfortable in spite of reading these suggestions to say I'm, what we're doing is consistent with those suggestions. So I'm perfectly comfortable with leaving the reg agenda the way it is. I should also add that I heard one other idea from Commissioner Mohorovic that I hope we can explore in the not too distant future in terms of additional items. And that is whether the commission ought to move to adopt Facebook, but that's a discussion for a later day. Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Mohorovic, while I do not think that sending this back to staff to revisit it is the answer. I share with you your frustration that as you said, the same ones continue to have the wrong dates. And I do think that it's a commission problem, not a staff problem. And I discussed some of this with Mr. Ray in a meeting several weeks ago when he took over his new position in now being the new J. Howell. Based on the information that I have sitting in this seat, what I frequently see happening is that we have a path forward's been identified, work's been commenced, but the moment there's the slightest indication of controversy, whether it's inside the agency with staff disagreeing with each other or outside the agency or both, somehow a pause button gets pushed or we get stuck. And it, and I don't, the project just languishes and inertia sets in. And some of these projects that we keep setting dates on have literally been years. Certainly all three years that I've been a commissioner, that I've been anxiously awaiting being able to get a package and address this. And I do think that it's a problem within the agency that we need to address. And I'm not sure how we do it. I don't think sending it back to staff to have them fill in dates is the answer. But what we need to do is, in my view, not be so concerned with having some controversy. That's what we're here for. That's what our job is. And to have healthy discussions about ways in which we can find some forward momentum on some of the projects that we have been working on for years and years and years and just keep going around. We just keep treading water. And I could make a pretty significant list of those projects. And so I do sympathize with your frustration and I share it. I just don't think that this is the answer. Mr. Berkel. I have nothing further. Thank you. Commissioner Marvorelvic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Robinson, I'll consider it a friendly amendment. If you don't think this approach is the right one. And instead, you would like to just defer the final passage of this. And we can have at it in a different fashion other than what I've prescribed here. I say that with genuine sincerity, and I'm happy to yield to you if you'd like to do that. I don't mean to put you on the spot right now. You look like you wanted to say something, so I'm giving you that opportunity. No, it's not putting me on the spot. I just don't think that the reg agenda is the way to address this problem. And so I wouldn't do it in the form of an amendment to the reg agenda. But I do think it's something that we should discuss and see if we all can't find a way to address this. Thank you, Commissioner. And Commissioner Adler, I think, made the perfect point in bringing up elements of Executive Order 12866 and also pointing out that many of these are suggestions for independent regulatory agencies. And I think you're making a terrific argument for something that I believe in strongly, that the executive orders of regulatory best practices is defined in Executive Order 12866 and 13563 should be codified, and Executive and Independent Regulatory Commission should be subject to them and any actions that they take that are not in compliance with those executive orders should be subject to judicial review. That's not making much of a case for this amendment right here, but I think I've said all I could on the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Morozovic. Hearing no further discussion on the motion, we'll now move to consider it. Commissioner Adler, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Robinson? No. Commissioner Berkel? Aye. Commissioner Morozovic? Aye. And I vote no. The nays are three, the a's are two. The motion, the second motion by Commissioner Morozovic has not been adopted. Are there any more motions or amendments? Hearing none, we'll turn to final consideration of the underlying regulatory agenda, not amended by any motion or amendment. Each commissioner will have up to five minutes to discuss it. I have no further comments on it, Commissioner Adler. I have no further comments. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson? I have to say, Commissioner Berkel and Commissioner Morozovic, when I walked into this today, I shared Commissioner Berkel's opinion that she expressed initially, that I think I thank you, Commissioner Morozovic. But I think that this has been a very healthy exercise. I am absolutely delighted that it looks as though voluntary recall in 6B is gonna have some forward momentum, the thing I hate most in life is inertia. And I look forward to coming to a resolution on that. I know we have disagreements, so what? So I think, yes, we should inform Congress. Yes, we should dive in head first and debate these issues and see what we can resolve. So I'm delighted with that. And I think this has been a very healthy forum in which to have that discussion. I mostly, at this point, just wanna thank staff because I know that this was something that got added and added with hours and hours of time devoted to it. Janna, particularly, I know you stayed up most of the night last night making sure, as I understand it, making sure that we had tracked down what economic actions we had taken with respect to specific projects. And Mary Boyle, thank you so much for you and all of your staff and certainly to those in front of us. This has been a lot of effort, but I think it was time well spent. And I think we're gonna be a stronger commission going forward because of having had this discussion. Thank you. Commissioner Buerkle? I have nothing further at this point. That was very dramatic. Commissioner Mohorovic? No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything else except for the close when you wanna get to that point. Great, so having heard no further discussion on the underlying package, we'll now move to final consideration. I move to approve the staff's regulatory agenda and plan for fall 2016. Is there a second? Second. We'll now move for the vote on that. Commissioner Adler, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Buerkle? No. Commissioner Mohorovic? No. And I vote aye. The ayes are three, the ayes are two. The staff's regulatory agenda and plan for fall 2016 has been approved. We'll now turn to closing statements. Commissioners will have up to 10 minutes. In fairness to staff and the time and thank you for sitting there. And I know it's not easy, especially when the restroom is so close yet so far. So I'm gonna file a written statement. I just do wanna thank you very much. Thank Alison Steinle of my office, in particular for all the work that she did to help prepare me for this. Commissioner Adler? I have almost nothing to add to that other than to join in the thanks to the staff for an enormous amount of work in a very short period of time. Particularly wanna thank our executive director who took upon herself to coordinate a lot of activity in addition to the work that Janophong Swamidas did. Wanna thank my own staff for the incredibly hard work they've done. And particularly wanna thank Commissioner Mohorovic and his terrific staff for sitting down and having a very, very thoughtful and meaningful dialogue. I think we're better for that. And I thank you. Mr. Robinson? I only wanna say in closing, I wanna reiterate that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at our reg agendas for the last two years and our op plans for the last two years to realize the projects we're stuck on. And I really hope that we can spend some effort at the commission level and at the leadership level, the staff figuring out with those projects how we can find a path forward. But thank you again for all of your effort. Commissioner Birkel? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of thoughts here. First of all, my appreciation and thanks to the staff for those of you who are sitting here and for Mary Boyle and OGC for all of the work that this put upon you. We thank you for the work and for the extra work that having a decisional cause. So thank you. And your hook probably has gotten worn out from getting us off the dice. But thank you, thanks for your guidance. I wanna begin by saying that I do share Commissioner Morović's concern that the reg agenda should give the public as helpful insight into what we're doing and what we expect to do as possible. I don't think it's because OIRA or OMB or anyone else tells us to. I think it's because we know that we owe it to the public to let them know as clearly as we know what projects we'll be handling and taking on during the next year. But I do wanna warn anyone who follows our agency closely that the reg agenda will never be a clearly accurate depiction or a complete story of what we're gonna do. First, as we've heard today, some of the OMB requirements on content and timing means that we are obliged to submit information that's almost certainly wrong. The many November 2016 deadlines, for example, are purely artificial. They do not reflect what we expect to happen but just what OMB requires us to do. Therefore, much of the information is inaccurate, at least when we submit it into the best of our knowledge. Second, the regulatory agenda, the entirety of the reg agenda fails to capture what I think is one of the most important aspects of our work, namely the focus on voluntary standards. One of the unique things about our CPSC is the statutory preference for voluntary standards instead of mandatory regulations. This colors everything we do. And so when looking at the reg agenda, we do not see, or do we have insight into all of the work that's going on in the voluntary standards arena. But the reg agenda is not designed to capture this aspect of our work and I understand that. Or even the work that they may have on major regulatory actions. For this reason, the agency's operating plan is and will continue to be the better way to understand what it is we plan to do in the next upcoming year. We should make the reg agenda as good as it can be but the operating plan is the place to look for really an accurate depiction of the big annual picture that will be coming up in 2017. Again, thank you to all of the staff and thank you for having this hearing. Mr. Moverovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed today. Well, first of all, with the thanks to Mr. Chairman, to all of the staff, to my colleagues on the commission, to especially my senior counsel, Mike Gentine, for his work on this in short periods of time. I hope you're very proud of the comments that were cast in your direction from my colleagues on the commission and I echo them as well. Although I am disappointed, I cannot persuade my colleagues to join me in making the changes I believe are necessary to improve the accuracy and thereby the legitimacy of our regulatory agenda. I wanna thank them all for the thoughtful discussion about regulatory best practices or the lack thereof. As each of us on this commission has pointed out in multiple occasions, we're a tiny agency. We have enormous reach and virtually every American uses one or more products in our jurisdiction virtually every day and our successes and our mistakes are felt by hundreds of millions of people and they deserve a fair opportunity to help us achieve success and avoid mistakes. Government and regulatory policy should not be a game open only to insiders. As executive orders 12, 866 and 13, 563 have made clear, one of the hallmarks of a responsible regulatory state is public participation and an open exchange of ideas. For this to happen, the public needs to know what actions the agency plans to take in order to know when to participate and what ideas to exchange. This is not a partisan issue. This is not an industry versus consumers issue. This is a good government issue from mom and pop companies to moms and pops who have made consumer safety their lives calling the people who want, who have the right to talk to us, need to know what to talk about and they need to know far enough in advance to make the best use of their limited resources. The flex agenda reg plan and unified agenda are specifically and thoughtfully designed to ensure our stakeholders have the opportunity to engage with us. Each is tailored to a different audience, the small business owner, the economic watchdog, the general student of government. They are readily accessible and supply information in clear, consistent formats. They can be powerful tools to make sure everyone who is interested in an agency's activity, not just insiders who follow the agency on a daily basis, can understand what's going on and then decide for themselves whether or not to get involved. Those tools, however, are only as useful as the information that goes into them and the information, unfortunately, I fear the adage, garbage in, garbage out is far too applicable. Sometimes Woody Allen might be right that 90% of success is showing up, but when it comes to a document whose purpose is to clearly articulate to the public what we intend to do in the next year and what significant rules we're considering, I don't think showing up is even a fraction of success. Submitting an inaccurate agenda is no better than submitting no agenda at all and in fact it may even be worse. The Washington Post ran a column just yesterday predicting a rise in the number of tax cheats and one of the reasons that they gave was for growing distrust in the government. Thankfully, we haven't contributed to that distrust in any of the more scandalous ways some have, but telling the world we intend to accomplish a huge laundry list of tasks. When we know it's unlikely we'll finish more than a handful of them, saying year after year, quote, we'll get right on that and quote, is misleading at best, deceptive at words and only furthers the impression that government can't be counted on. We should be honest to the public and to ourselves in what we can reason about what we can reasonably get done and then we should do our best to get it done. We should say what we mean and mean what we say and to the extent that we've done this successfully in the past, look no further than our previous versions of these documents, look at what we've said we'd get to. Oddly our agenda is both over inclusive and under inclusive. The reg plan is under inclusive and that it with a straight face tries to tell stakeholders that the upholstered furniture flammability rule is our only significant regulatory project. When we know the proposed window covering rule and others would have economic effects that would make them significant and the proposed phthalate rule relies on novel policy issues that makes it clearly significant under order 12, 8, 66. I mean heck, the chapter report and the NPR used the word novel five times. Five times not enough to get it clear but it used it five times yet apparently that didn't mean it was actually novel. I don't know if it was saying it was a novel. It's almost as long as a novel but I think they were using novel in terms of novel policy or legal matters from my reading of it. It's certainly long enough to be a novel so maybe I just misunderstood. The unified agenda by contrast is over inclusive. It lists every rule we would like to move not just the rules we think we actually will be able to move. It is that grievous sin we accuse companies of committing a data dump, the evil data dump. Rather than calling out for the benefit of the public what projects do matter in the next year will matter in the next year. We're burying them with all the other projects that could matter which coincidentally is just about everything. The only way for the public to peer through our static and figure out what really matters and what is just for show is to hire high powered lobbyists to translate. And I think we kind of have confidence in that rely upon it. It's like oh well those that really do know well they've got the resources to know, they've got the resources to have consumer advocates that pay close attention to the agency or high powered lawyers. We're contributing to this Washington insider paradigm rather than making government more accessible to ordinary people. Of course despite our best efforts the next year will certainly look different on the other side of it. Life is what happens to us while we're busy making other plans. And events will dictate deviations from even the most thoughtfully created agenda. I recognize that. We will never perfectly predict our actions 12 months or even 12 weeks in advance. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse to frustrate the purposes of the agenda setting process by not even trying. I firmly believe my colleagues want a regulatory process in which every member of the public, consumers, businesses, technical and scientific experts, everyone can meaningfully participate and help steer us towards sound decisions that effectively protect consumers. But public participation doesn't just happen. As any business owner will tell you hanging an open for business sign out front isn't enough. You have to give people a reason to want to come into the shop. You have to communicate. And our failure to provide a meaningful, accurate, timely regulatory agenda is a failure to communicate. And we shouldn't be surprised when that failure contributes to a critically broken United States regulatory system. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the commissioners, to the staff who participated or who attended to anybody else from the public as well as to those who viewed online. This concludes this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.