 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission We have one item on our agenda this morning a Decisional matter on the FY 2019 mid-year review CPSC staff members are with us this morning in case there are any questions for staff in the opening round Mr. Dwayne Ray our deputy executive director for safety operations and Mr. J. Hoffman our director of financial management. Good morning to both of you this morning They are at the table But additional staff are in the audience as well should their expertise be needed or there any questions for them Each commissioner will have five minutes for their questions, and we can go multiple rounds if necessary Following questions for the staff We will then turn to the consideration of the mid-year proposal This morning. I do not have any additional questions for either one of you commissioner Adler No questions. Thank you. Missioner K. No, thank you madam chair Commissioner Bealco. No, thank you commissioner Feldman. No questions at this time. Thank you Well, you're you're both You can leave and for the moment. That's correct, and we will proceed with our Discussion of the 2019 mid-year. Thank you both very much for being here We're now going to turn to the FY 2019 mid-year review as proposed by staff and any amendments to the proposal So this morning I will begin with my amendment as Usual at mid-year all of the commissioners have their own ideas about which projects Identified by the staff should get the highest priority We decided I think Pretty much across the commission to omit one project known to all of us as n-cares This project represents a forward-thinking way to get valuable information on exposure to consumer products This information I think would be helpful in rulemaking and prioritizing our work In my opinion, I thought that this project is one that's worthy of the high priority given to it by the staff But it also comes with a very high price tag and that makes it challenging to take that over some other Perhaps more safety related initiative IS staff during our briefing whether it would be possible to launch some sort of an n-cares Project as a pilot, but it was difficult First of all, it was going to remain Expensive not quite as much as the entire project would have but the risk would be An investment if then we abandon it later So the solution for right now is to leave it leave n-cares out of the lineup that was presented in our original Package that came up to us from the staff Without n-cares, it is likely that most of the remaining projects will end up being funded in this Viscule year if approved projects will be funded in priority order subject to sufficient availability of any Unexecuted balances and acquisition feasibility My amendment my amendment reflects I'll call it a rough consensus among the commissioners in the order of projects and how they How they are listed in the table this morning? however, I will say More likely than not with the removal of n-cares most of these projects will be funded and Quite frankly the order in the amendment is not what I would have done on my own I would have preferred to see as staff had put it in safer products gov Up at the number four level it was moved down to a lower number in the list But again the hope is it will get funded But in the spirit of compromise and comedy Within the commission offices. I think it's important that we try to settle on something that we can all live with So I will make a motion on my amendment We need a second a second it. Thank you very much Having heard a second. We'll now move to consideration of my amendment commissioners may ask their questions and then you come back to me and or yield me your time for any questions you might have and And we'll have each commissioner will have five minutes per round of questioning missioner Adler I don't have any questions, but I do have several quick comments. First of all The two first projects there. I assume are really worthy projects. I've had them explained to me several times and in all honesty I'm not certain I understand them completely But I fully trust the staff who have put these together Including the staff's commitment that they're moving into uncharted territory here. And so in the event that they find That they've drilled some dry holes I don't think they should worry about that But I think they should then be willing to come back and report to us that Some of the initiatives in this are probably not working out and I'm fine with that. I just wanted to signal that I also want to Thank the chairman for and my fellow commissioners for the spirit of compromise that we approached Listing these priority projects in I don't know whether you would call it a Sophie's choice a choice between a rock and a hard place choosing between two members of your family, but When you have to select among worthy projects it gets to be very very Painful and so many of these are worthy projects. So the listing in priority fashion absolutely does not reflect The priority I would put them in either Chairman Burkle, but I do appreciate your spirit of compromise and the spirit of compromise of my colleagues So I'm prepared to support this. Thank you very much commissioner Kay. Thank you madam chair I don't have any questions either. I'm going to echo commissioner Adler's comments I do really appreciate your leadership on this and Putting together a list that works for all of us and recognizing as you said it wouldn't be the list You would have come up with Probably may not end up being the list any of us would have done on our own But I think in it we can all see something that we're happy with and that's good enough for me So I plan to support it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much commissioner Kay commissioner be welcome Well acting chair Burkle I think I'd like to help you out with your comment that you would have preferred to see the safer products.gov Moved up to number four. I would move to amend your amendment to do so and move everything Behind it down because I believe that we've had two hearings on this matter and to put it in the slot that it is I think does not give it this the attention that it absolutely needs and So I would move to Move it into slot number four I'll need a second. I'll second it. Is there any discussion on this amendment commissioner Adler? I'm going to oppose the amendment again because the minute we start tinkering with this It's like one of these jerry rig things you remove one brick and the whole thing collapses Because I can think of things that I would move up even beyond safer products I think you make a good point about the necessity of doing this. I will say that the price tag for this Is five hundred and ninety thousand dollars that wouldn't have been what I thought we were Committing ourselves to do when we talked about modernization, but I'm assured that it is a complex Undertaking to do that because so many of the parts are moving parts that are connected to one another so While I am reluctantly prepared to commit To the expenditure of these funds. I am not prepared to start tinkering with this Without including some of the things I'd like to tinker with and then I think we we probably would fall into some kind of controlled chaos So I'm going to oppose it Thank you, madam chair and thank you to commissioner Bayako for the amendment to the amendment And let me just if I can offer my thoughts on why I'm going to oppose it too And it has nothing to do with the merits of the safer products Proposal it and it has to do with where we understand the cutoff financially and what we get funded and what wouldn't and that's my concern and so My understanding is as we have it now And of course madam chair, please correct me if I'm wrong that roughly we would expect to get through the nine projects Maybe 10 And have those funded But my concern is if we move safer products up It could potentially put at risk some of those lower level projects and the one that I'm most concerned about is lithium ion batteries And I and I appreciate that madam chair You moved that up earlier in this that was one of the accommodations that you made because we've invested so much appropriately in this Area as we should it does these products for all the value that they offer To present some pretty serious risks and it's been good for the public that we've spent the time on this So I would be concerned about What this would do to the funding of some of the items if this were moved so Feeling comfortable that safer products still should get funding under the current list I'm going to go and as will the rest of the project. I'm going to go ahead and oppose this But please don't take that as a Statement of anything that you've offered it really has to do with trying to preserve the delicate balance of what would get funded. Thank you Thank you commissioner feldman I have no questions at this time. Thank you Mr. Bioko, would you like to respond to any of the concerns? I would Actually, I think that in looking at the the large number and I do think it's a large number on safer products dot gov But I also think there's a Significantly large number on atv stability and rollover which is also a good project But we've been working on that for quite some time And it's a large amount of taxpayer funds contributing to a project that deals with only one class of products Whereas safer products dot gov applies to everyone and it is something that needs to be done has a in my opinion a broader reach a a more A more effective way if it's done right and that's why we would Spend the money on getting it up to speed It has it has a broader reach and it serves and helps more of the american consumer than one particular type of product and therefore I think it is absolutely something that needs to be funded needs to be done we told our witnesses at the hearing that they had You know legitimate Points and I don't want to go back on that so I would I would counter one one other point that I do want to make is I too commissioner k am very focused on lithium my own batteries and was Disappointed to see that it ended up in the number eighth slot because I had it much higher thank you, and Before I call the vote my comment at first of all, let me express my appreciation I really do appreciate that you would be willing to move that up The safer products dot gov modernization I am confident as I look at these numbers If we get down to item number 10 and perhaps we can call mr. Hoffman back to the table But it looks to me like if we have funding through item number 10, which gets us to about 3.8 million At the very at the least so Conceivably we could go beyond that this the sheet here Talks about four million fifty five thousand dollars The estimate of these projects so I have a confidence that this will get funded and so in the interest of Not having the entire All of the is as commissioner adler said all of the bricks fall. I'm concerned that we Continue with our plan having full confidence that safer products dot gov modernization will get funded Because I think to commissioner biacco's point. We had a hearing Here and we brought in the public to comment on the importance of safer products dot gov It is something that we have been asked to deal with to look at to modernize to make sure we're Letting consumers know that it even exists We're contemplating other ways to put the information about the platform out So that the consumer will know it exists and rather than complaining to their online About a safety issue to their to the platform They will think that safer products dot gov exists and it will only enhance and enrich our data so I But given my confidence level with regards that it will get funded Mr. Hoffman, I don't know if you have anything to add to that question or to that Okay, it looks to me that we have about 3.8 million if we fund through item 10, so That gives me a confidence level that safer products dot gov will be funded If I'm if I might respond if that's the case then I believe we should send a message that We are taking seriously from a priority perspective safer products dot gov and move it up into the spot that I believe And Marie you mentioned what you've preferred to see it in number four So if they're all going to get funding, let's put it in a a priority spot To make sure that we're communicating. We are serious about this Thank you And if I can respond to that my concern is is that if we move it up And and I have a confidence level that it will be funded at this level That I won't get we won't get support for your amendment And then we will be in a situation where It stays the same and we may lose some support and for the package as a whole Okay, well, let's see what kind of support we have Thank you. So we will take a does anyone have any other questions or concerns We will take a vote on the amendment to the amendment Um Commissioner edler, how do you vote? No commissioner k. No commissioner baoko. Yes commissioner Feldman. Yes, and I vote No So the nos are three the eyes are two And the amendment to the amendment does not pass We will now proceed back to my amendment Are there any other comments or questions about My first the first amendment to the mid-year So I will call a vote on On amendment what we're calling amendment number one, but it is the list of the Of the projects that would be funded in mid-year commissioner edler. How do you vote I vote I? Missioner k. I Commissioner baoko. Yes Commissioner Feldman. Yes, and I vote I the eyes are five the nays are zero So amendment number one passes Are there any other amendments here this morning on the mid-year? Yes, madam chair Uh, I have an amendment which has been distributed. I to the commissioners It's a joint amendment from commissioner k and me and it relates to the addition of a project In mid-year on children's clothing storage unit tip over hazards from section 104 You all see the amendment and if I might just say a few words about this First of all, excuse me commissioner other we need. Oh, I'm sorry. I need a second amendment. I second Thank you very much I Realized commissioner k realizes that a majority of the commission voted down this proposal to have the commission develop a 104 rule for children's clothing storage units What we are proposing today is different From our previous proposal at the budget time This proposal simply seeks a listing of a 104 rule as d a T r which is data analysis technical review in the mid-year as an additional option for consideration As staff works on the rule to be developed under section seven and nine Let me be clear. This proposal does not seek any additional funding or staff work in fy 2019 Beyond that which is currently underway with respect to the section seven section nine rule What we're proposing is to be prepared for the day when staff has completed all the technical work for a safety standard And the commission is then contemplating the next step should it come to pass As commissioner k and i believe it will that the necessary staff work After the technical work is done from epidemiology econ OGC to complete a section seven and section nine standard will take many many more months if not years to do We would like for the commission at that point once the technical work is done to be able to take an interim step Of drafting a 104 rule quickly with minimum fuss without significantly slowing the work on a section seven and section nine rule What I want to say is keeping the option of doing a 104 rule will guarantee that our friends in industry will take the commission's commitment To safety seriously which I doubt that they're doing now We hear reports from the ASTM committee and it's all negative news and it's all oppositional on the part of the industry If we were to take this action that will set the stage To alert the industry that the commission is serious and a broader standard is coming And I just want to remind people why we feel so strongly about a 104 rule Which admittedly will not cover all of the products in the market, but it will cover a significant number of them This is something that can be done quickly efficiently without exposing the rule to a likely legal challenge Or maybe to say a likely successful legal challenge unlike a rule developed under section seven and nine And one of the things we've seen with section seven and nine rules and I guarantee we will see it in this case The industry is going to wait till the penultimate moment before we mandate a section seven and seven nine And nine rule and then they will come in with a highly flawed last minute Study that we need to do and they will insist that we stop until we address the issues that they've raised and then they will submit a Voluntary standard that will be a 60 solution that they hope will just barely cross the bar for the commission Under its statute to have to defer or to rely on that. We've seen this time and time again I think we should say we are not prepared to do that. So our Motion our amendment is let's keep our options open for a 104 rule to be a first and significant step Towards safety. It won't cost anything, but it will send a strong signal to the market that we're serious about protecting kids Thank you commissioner edler the commissioners and We will have our opportunity to ask questions of you and then following those questions You will have time to Answer those questions As commissioner edler pointed out The commission did vote against adding this project to the 2020 budget and I've not changed my mind on this project Within this context of 104 I think everyone up here in the dais is committed to solving the problem of tipovers each one of us Have have different ideas and thoughts and have pursued this vigorously I think that the proposed entry into the mandatory standards table is a misnomer Section 104 is not about children's products. It is about durable nursery products Also called the durable infant and toddler products I question whether there are any Clothing storage units on the market today that are specifically designed to be for infants or toddlers As we all know and recognize this is a very broad issue as we contemplate Dressers at a lower height and many of the other issues with regards to this issue This would just address a very narrow group of those dressers Even if there are I know of no voluntary standard that specifically addresses such clothing storage units In my opinion then the amendment does not fall within our legal authority under section 104 The staff is not planning this work in the current fiscal year Therefore staff can't undertake this work unless they are relieved of a different project that is currently required under the operating plan And I will say to that Unfortunately here at the CPSC Our bench is not all that it's not very deep. And so when we take staff working on a project, it's probably going to be related to Tipover issue and that means that would be taken away from an issue that's in the ops plan that we've identified as an agency That's a priority and must be worked on to work on this Um And having done that that would require I believe under An offset within and I don't think anyone has been identified For all these reasons I will continue to oppose this amendment, but I want to thank my colleague for Contemplating a solution to this issue. It's something that each one of us up here at the dais takes very very seriously Commissioner k Excuse me. Yeah, may I ask a point of clarification? um With regard to this particular proposed amendment and the ones that are going to be followed Following I apologize. Commissioner may I go? We will get to you after no no no no my question is is this a um Are these amendments to the mid-year or are these amendments to the op plan? That's I just this is an amendment to the mid-year With implications obviously for the op plan as are many of the proposals So when you say on page nine, you're really referring to the op plan, right? Yes Okay, so I guess that's why I'm confused when it be it's probably form over substance But um, if we're moving on an amendment it would be an amendment to add this language to the op plan Uh, this is a point that we have debated a number of times and I have very strong feelings about this So many of the decisions that we make with respect to resources ultimately come back to the op plan My view is we can raise any issue at any time As long as we understand that when we voted on an issue that it will be actualized or materialized In the op plan But the idea that we should tie our hands And only once a year be able to talk about the commitment of resources is not something that I agree with I don't think that's what I'm asking. I I was just wondering if it shouldn't be titled Um, I think it's fine if you want to propose an amendment at any time frankly I just wanted to make sure that I understood where it went I said it was just a point of clarification Thank you commissioner k Thank you, madam chair. Uh, thank you to my fellow commissioner adler for jointly offering this I wanted to just talk about the practical aspects of why we're offering it because I agree with the chair that we all are focused on trying to resolve tip overs and Being as comprehensive as possible about it from my experience And commissioner adler laid out some of the ways that this goes down That the status quo is not working I think we can all agree on that that what we're seeing Occurring right now in the voluntary standards process is not a path to success and certainly not a quick path to success and so what will be the dynamic that will change that And historically what has changed that is when the cpsc staff Has a breakthrough a technical breakthrough and then brings that technical breakthrough to the voluntary standards body and then also Starts to work on a rulemaking associated with that technical breakthrough. We saw that happen with With rovs we saw that happen With portable generators and up until that point We were told the agency was told the public was told that It was not feasible wasn't possible to do x and the staff has always proved that x is possible and feasible And so the point of this amendment at least from my perspective is not actually to create work because it wouldn't create work It would actually make less work for staff and it is only titled the d at r So it doesn't actually add any obligations for the staff for this year And it only reflects the work that staff is already doing under the section seven and nine rulemaking But the relevance of it and I realize this is hyper technical And inside baseball, but the relevance of it is that when staff drafts are rule pursuant to 104 They are freer and have fewer obligations and fewer Findings to have to make and they can focus exclusively on the technical issues that they're trying to solve And so what I think commissioner adler and I are trying to get to here is to free them up To not have to be burdened by those unnecessary findings and to allow them to more quickly Identify the technical solutions and then this is just as relevant get those technical solutions public Because in the event that they have to move under seven and nine It will still take a very long time for them to draft a number of memos associated with findings that are extraneous to the technical solutions Not saying they're irrelevant, but they're extraneous to the technical solutions And that's just time we're not spending of these issues being presented publicly Especially the voluntary standards body and moving this forward. I do think that there is an urgency here that is unique I think that the agency has struggled with this issue for a number of years We all know how the parents are on this issue. We know how the hill feels about this issue There may or may not be legislative relief coming And I think we should be doing everything we can To be taking advantage of every tool we have and getting staff Giving freeing them up to move as quickly as possible to present those technical findings without any additional work So I would gently Reject the idea that it would require more work I would actually say it would require less work than was proposed in the operating plan for f y 19 And I think it would Definitely be the step needed to break this currently unsuccessful status quo. So that's why I'm again offering it with my colleague. Thank you Thank you. Commissioner Bioco No comments. I haven't made before Commissioner Feldman Thank you At the outset, you know I want to state that I appreciate the dedication that my fellow commissioners are Bringing and continue to bring to this issue in in Looking for creative solutions to a very serious problem that's before the agency and that I think we've been able to find some consensus on previously And I I do think we're all taking this very seriously Ultimately, uh, I'm supportive of the underlying goal here. I don't think I'm supportive of the particular vehicle For the reasons I've stated previously including that a 104 rule would cover only a narrow segment of the market And that because proceeding with a 104 rulemaking would pull critical staff out of The mandatory rulemaking for seven and nine That we've recently unanimously voted to expedite I have concerns about Proceeding with a section 104 rulemaking You could also make the argument that because we're currently because the seven and nine mandatory rulemaking is already in the f y 2019 ops plan, excuse me the f y 20 ops plan That that that we have staff in place to do this work and that any data analysis that's going to be Undertaken in the seven and nine process would inform the 104 process as well So therefore I question the the the underlying need for this if that works already on a path to being completed um, but but I I I I hope that we're going to continue to work together on this. I'm a no vote on the amendment, but I appreciate the effort Thank you commissioner Feldman. Are there any other questions? Yes Thank you. I first of all, thank you for the general support for doing Important work on addressing tip overs and I'm delighted to see that we have a consensus among the commissioners for pushing that as hard as possible Just a couple of record Corrections To say that we would not have the legal authority to do a 104 rule for children's clothing storage units to me Is is disturbing because that is tying our hands for future action in a sense It's uh, it's putting a blemish on some work that we've already done If you look at the parents who've had lost children those children are toddlers and This is exactly the group that both the 104 rule would address and it's the section in seven nine rule would address and that the voluntary standard addresses I would hate to see a precedent where we have such a self-imposed embargo on our ability to employ section 104 In a fairly expansive way The critical thing and and I certainly take to heart commissioner Feldman's concern about the Skewing of our resources this does not require any additional resources For fy 2019 it sends a signal to the world about how serious we are with respect to Tip over hazards and it says to Our friends in the industry something is going to happen You need to take immediate action and you need to pay immediate attention And not engage in the kind of gamesmanship that has plagued this commission for so many years So um, I certainly take my colleagues concerns To heart and I'm going to restrain myself when we get to the inflection point where we suddenly realize that we've spent all this time Doing technical work, which is adequate for 104 rule and for 709 and then the staff is coming in and saying Oh, by the way, it will be another two years before we can complete all the epi work all the econ work all the legal analysis And I will do my best not to say I told you so Thank you, commissioner adler. Are there any other questions for commissioner adler commissioner k I will call the vote on the commissioner k Adler amendment Mr. Adler, how do you vote? I commissioner k. I Commissioner bioco no commissioner Feldman and I vote no The eyes are two and the Nays are three this amendment does not pass Are there additional amendments for the mid-year? I do have additional joint amendments to offer madam chair May I proceed you may proceed, please. Thank you. So I'm going to offer what we're calling joint Adler k amendment number two and I'll briefly describe it and then ask for a second the point of this amendment is basically to provide further Transparency to the public by denoting those goals in the fy 2019 operating plan That staff is currently able to identify as work. We will not meet before the end of the fiscal year So it's staff driven in the sense that staff gets to decide which projects They already know they're not going to meet and I think if they already know that it's important to notify the public Thank you Is there a second? I'll second We will now proceed with questions from the Commissioner Excuse me. I will begin I guess I just have a couple of comments on amendment and it's been referred to as K. Adler two And I I want to just mention a couple things first of all it is true that under the former chairman The staff sometimes did use the mid-year as the occasion for communicating milestones Required by the operating plan had slipped For example, if some of the final rule or notice is a proposed rulemaking We're not on track the operating plan then would be revised to reflect A less I'll call it ambitious goal In this mid-year package, uh, there was actually A more intentional way of looking at how we Use the operating plan, um, but I think the executive director Who puts together along with staff the recommendations to us? Wanted to take a slightly I'll call it a tougher stand And it's not certainly not because we wanted to be less transparent but The old approach could Send a message that there was flexibility and I think What the executive director has communicated to staff and what the commissioners have all asked for if you don't think It's going to be on time or timely. Please let us know that but Not amending the operating plan Is uh, something that we're not at least in this mid-year Was not contemplated I'm happy to say that I think staff is doing a very good job of staying on track despite some difficult obstacles I will mention the lengthy shutdown at the beginning of this year, which really disadvantaged So many of the staff as well as the agency in in order to Accomplish their goals And at the end of the year the commission's annual report will reflect The status of all of these projects and there will be transparency The staff does not support this amendment nor do I And those are my comments commissioner Adler Thank you very much. I just wanted to add a word or two to Commissioner K's very very thorough description of this and of the intent This is not intended to be a criticism of anybody. This is just a recognition of reality This is Sending a signal to the world about what the workflow is at the agency and it's also a way of involving the public in The commission's progress I don't want to rehash old arguments But I have a feeling that language like this will pop up when it comes to tip over very very soon but this is simply for an agency that Holds itself out as one of the most open and transparent agencies an additional way of being open and transparent Thank you. Commissioner Adler Commissioner Bielko I support this amendment. I think that the By not putting it in the operating plan It signals to the public that these goals as outlined in the operating plan will be met And if we know that there are certain goals that are not going to be met I see no downside to letting the public know Of that of that fact. So I would support this Thank you. Commissioner Feldman I have no questions. Thank you Thank you at this commissioner k if I just may go and I I just want to say that I completely agree madam chair with what you said about Um Not changing the goals and none of just to clarify the amendment would not actually change the goals So we're in agreement on that. I'm comfortable with Not changing the goals. I just think as commissioner Bielko said The public deserves to know if we already know something and we just had our priorities hearing We ask a lot of the public to come in and tell us what their priorities are I'm sure there are things on this list that could get denoted as not being met that if we know that information now To commissioner Bielko's point. I don't know why we wouldn't just tell the public that doesn't change the operating plan It doesn't move the goalposts. It just lets the public know. Hey, we're just not going to make it on this one And yes, we do report at the end of the year I appreciate that as well But there's a timing mechanism and that's months and months down the line And I think it's important again for the public to have timely notice once we know it Of when we're not going to meet these goals. Thank you very much. Thank you commissioner k I will call the vote on amendment number two Adler k amendment number two Oh commissioner adler, how do you vote? I? Mr. K. I commissioner Bielko. I Commissioner Feldman. I and I vote no the eyes are four the nays are one The amendment does pass Are there any other amendments here this morning there are there are a few more at least thank you madam chair if I may go Next I'd like to offer What we're calling Joint amendment or joint k other amendment three and this is associated with hazards with inclined sleep products And briefly this the changes that we're proposing would direct staff to implement a three-pronged approach to protect consumers from hazards associated with these products It would provide direction to staff to develop voluntary standards for in infant inclined sleep products that eliminate the hazard patterns Associated with these products and importantly that would be through performance standards It would also direct staff to survey the marketplace for infant inclined sleepers Including products entering the stream of commerce at import and to pursue appropriate actions If the product poses a hazard odd more to say when it's my turn, but that's the point of the amendment. Thank you Thank you. Is there a second? a second We will now begin our round of commissioner k you went to explain the amendment further Sure. Thanks, madam chair. I mean obviously we've recently taken action on these products That I certainly thought was warranted and overdue I've said this before I thought that in retrospect the agency Made a mistake in carving out from the bassinet standard this class of products If we were to do it all over again, I would not recommend that we take that approach I think ideally that this class of products would not bless you would not have A 104 associated with it, but my understanding is that attempts to try to Close out that 104 process or at least the voluntary standard We're not successful So plan b is to say if ASTM is going to continue with having this as a separate standard Then we at least make sure that the staff goes into those meetings with extra Emphasis from the commission that we really need a performance standard to address these products One of the things that we hear all the time from parents is I just assumed if it was on the market that it was safe And as robust and as Protective of the 104s have been I think we all recognize that there are gaps And one of the things that has deeply concerned us all is that products do come on the market Especially sleep products for infants and they fall within these gaps And they have sometimes become deadly for kids And so I do think that we need to accelerate efforts on the voluntary standard If it's going to continue to be a viable standard to create performance standards to address the known hazards And then I think we also need to address the vacuum that currently exists on the marketplace where even though we've taken action against some of these products We've not taken action against all of them There is no reason why more products can't continue to be sold And I would like to see us be more aggressive about Dealing with those products and sending the message that we have certain sleep environments that we feel are Have peer-reviewed scientific basis to recommend we do recommend those sleep environments And we should keep encouraging parents to be Using those sleep environments while using our enforcement authority to deal with those that don't provide that same basis of safety Thank you, madam chair Thank you commissioner k commissioner ailer. Do you have anything to add to commissioner k's comments? I do and I thank commissioner k for taking the lead on this. I think this is a worthy project to undertake, but I do want to voice a word of caution Commissioner k said if it's going to continue to be on the market I wouldn't want anybody to read this motion as blessing the continuation of a standard for inclined sleep products and I think the Devils in the details and I think we've gotten the details right because it calls for peer-reviewed evidence-based infant safe sleep Practices. I have a feeling that when they've investigated this thoroughly They will probably draw a conclusion that infant inclined sleep products Probably shouldn't be on the market and I wouldn't want anybody to misinterpret the intent of this amendment Thank you commissioner ailer. We will begin our round of questions. I will begin First of all, I think just as with the tip-over issue. This is an issue that has been before the commission it's something we are all gravely concerned about and we have Began to deal with it in the two recent recalls that have taken place as I see this amendment I see three components to it the voluntary standard direction Compliance direction and import surveillance direction I think on the voluntary standards direction the operating plan already contemplates work on this issue And our recent recalls of infant inclined sleepers reflect. I believe a new thinking On the part of staff I have discussed this issue with the executive director on and talked about a number of approaches Going forward including which category Of products should continue to exist or whether it should have markedly different performance requirements And as commissioner k pointed out, I have talked with Many of the consumer groups and many of the constituents out there as well as parents And this is an issue that they are begging us to take a closer look at and I believe because it is in the The 2019 ops plan it is Staff is doing that work that I think we are aware we need to be there has already been a voluntary standards meeting last week And staff of course participated I think as to the compliance and the import surveillance aspects of the amendment I can assure the commissioner and my my colleagues up here at the dais That these steps are already being taken. We are looking very closely for non-compliant Out in the marketplace today as we speak as well as those products coming into the country these these activities are already occurring and so I think that this Given what is going on within the agency. I really don't think the amendment serves any further purpose At this point commissioner bieco Commissioner feldman, I have no questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you commissioner adler or k. Would you like to respond? Then thank you. Thank you. So we will call the vote Commissioner k. Or adler. How do you vote? I? Commissioner k. I Mr. Bioko I'm abstaining Commissioner feldman. No And I vote no there are two eyes two nays and one abstention The amendment does not pass as voted upon We will now turn to the next amendment on our agenda, which is K. Adler number four. Thank you madam chair two more to go on at least for the joint amendment. So as you mentioned Offering joint k. Adler amendment number four, which is involving Including rov death and injury data in the annual atv report And the purpose of that is to Capture staff work or to at least encourage a little bit of extra staff work potentially That is de minimis to include in the atv report for this fiscal year Some information about rov's the deaths and injuries associated with them. My understanding is that in order to Produce the atv report staff already has to sift through this data. So instead of Just sort of not that they discard the data But instead of putting it aside for the purposes of deeming them not atv's just take that same data and publish it And with the hope that in future year, we will see More robust publishing of atv and rov data Or at least rov data We've certainly seen an increase in rov usage and it does seem important that we update our annual reporting to reflect this change in the marketplace. Thank you Is there a second I'll second Commissioner k. Would you like to explain further? I have no further comments. Thank you Mr. Adler anything to add to amendment number four I do One of the disgraceful episodes in the history of the commission's regulation of atvs and rov's was when the industry came in Again at the penultimate moment when the commission was poised to develop a standard a mandatory standard for rov's And they put in an appropriations writer that said we could not expend any resources to do further work towards the mandatory standard Eventually we worked out what may well be a perfectly adequate voluntary standard It was only as commissioner case pointed out just when we were on the verge of issuing a mandatory standard that we seem to get the attention Of the industry It's been several years since we Work with the industry on the voluntary standard and I honestly don't have any Idea whether it's actually reducing injuries and fatalities. So I think making explicit The addressing of rov injuries and fatalities is a is a very very useful step Thank you. Commissioner. We will now begin the round of question by the commissioners. I will begin Let me just I want to clarify a point that commissioner adler just Mentioned about a disgraceful episode with regards to the writer I believe the time and I would have to check my records But I believe the timing of the writer came after staff recommended that we terminate the rule and and provided us with a package That that is not correct, but we can check the record We can check the record on that issue But staff did recommend terminating the rulemaking on that issue but on this specific amendment Staff has advised me they're already planning to include some information on rov's in this year's annual report Specifically they plan to include a table with information on rov incidents That have been identified because they were originally classified as a tv incidents And our staff was able to determine that the incident involved in rov rather than an atv When rovs first came out they were often referred to as side-by-side atvs Some people refer to them that way still Hence it's easy to see how things are can be misclassified In short for the annual report now being prepared and being worked on the staff is not planning to provide extensive Incident information on rov's but only for the subset of Misclassified cases since the staff is already doing what it can do for this year There is no need for the amendment and therefore I will oppose it But I do want to say and I appreciate my colleagues Raising this issue and putting forth this amendment. This is something we have talked about and I believe There is At least from my perspective and agreement that this data should be separated out and I have said that On prior occasions. I do think right now with the limited That it is being done with the subset of the misclassified rovs and atvs However going forward. I think there is This is something the consumer groups have asked for you have asked for and I believe it would Benefit the agency and give us clarity on the data To separate out the rov and the atv injuries incidents. Thank you commissioner bieco. Nothing. Thank you. Mr. Feldman Atvs and rovs are distinct product categories and Especially given the confusion and misclassification between rovs and atvs that we've seen to date I'm concerned that the commission not take steps to further conflate the two Therefore I'm a no on this that said to the extent that that the commission has a purview into Market surveillance with respect to both of these product categories. I'm all for the agency Collecting receiving and being fully transparent with all the data that it collects It would just be my hope that we do so in a way that doesn't conflate Two distinct product categories. So I'd be happy to work with you further I appreciate the amendment and I'm glad that I had an opportunity to review it I support the underlying goal of Data-driven decision-making and transparency Unfortunately, I'm a no but but I hope we can continue to work together Thank you commissioner Feldman commissioner k or adler. Would you like to respond to only briefly to commissioner Feldman's point Which I think is a fair one. There's certainly a lot of confusion We even see it during hill hearings when somebody will ask us a question about one product And we already know that they're not talking about that product and we try not to embarrass them in our answer So that's a real issue. I think that that's probably Ameliorated going forward with separate reports. I'm not asking for separate reports And I'm going to leave it up to the chairman and staff to propose on the operating plan So I think that we'll probably get dealt with I think we're just talking about what happens through major this year It sounds like There will be some Some information put in there So I think we're just going to have to wait and see and hope that that's a good spring board But we're getting close and I do appreciate the momentum in the right direction. Thank you Thank you. Are there any other questions for commissioner adler commissioner k We will call the vote on amendment number four the k adler number four Commissioner adler, how do you vote? Hi commissioner k. Hi Commissioner bieco. No Commissioner Feldman no And I vote no the nays are three the eyes are two this amendment does not pass Is there another amendment we have one more joint amendment madam chair that I'm going to offer now and hope that we can end Batting 500 at least we're we're right now. We're one for three. We're hoping to get two for four So this is joint k other amendment Number five and this we're back to tip over is a slightly different approach And this works under the current Uh rulemaking authority, but really tries to refine the testing that staff is doing And really provide clarity for all because there has been a lot of interest Understandably and appropriately so in the type of testing that we're doing to make sure that when we do provide test results That everyone can have confidence That we've considered all the different scenarios and I think that as we've learned through the tip over process One of the troubling aspects is the agency will think it's moving on one path to solve the problem And then a new incident will occur A very troubling incident and when we dig into that we will recognize that maybe some of the technical solutions that we had thought would be the Salvation or not and that there are new incidents that can occur that can be confounding and the point of this Is to try to get ahead of that and to identify a way of testing that would anticipate those types of worst-case scenario incidents and to be have better more robust testing so that After a year's worth of work a new incident doesn't occur and then we're back to the drawing board again So that's the point of this amendment Thank you commissioner k is there a second second Thank you having heard a second uh, commissioner k. Is there anything else you'd like to elaborate on anything else? Thank you. Thank you. We will begin on commissioner edler. You have something to add First of all One of the reasons I think this is so important is because we don't want to have confusion At least starting with ASTM where they have received a strong signal that uh, if they were to change the standard to be 60 pounds and Under 30 inches that all would be well, and I think this is an important Clarification for them and for the staff. I think the staff Understands this but it's in the interest of transparency to be absolutely explicit That this is what it's going to take in order to have a good tip over standard Which means assessing and crafting Appropriate requirements for the dynamic challenge that furniture has when it comes to tip over incidents So i'm a strong supporter of this Thank you commissioner edler. We will begin the commissioners rounds of questions I will begin um I do want to clarify something that commissioner edler just said and I think it's And i'm not quite sure what you're referring to but i'll just take responsibility for my letter to the ASTM committee and to industry and that is that What was proposed to adopt the 60 pounds and to Consider the 27 inches and above height for clothing storage units Was merely an interim step because of the very issue that commissioner k has raised and that issue is that There are these different incidents and deaths that have occurred that really have i think Changed on some level how staff is thinking about this issue and it certainly opens up a very large door As to there are other things we need to be considering at this point But I don't think now is the time because I think right now We're doing a substantial amount of testing to determine the best way to approach this issue I believe we're on track to complete that work and to promulgate a notice of proposed rulemaking in the next fiscal year Is outlined I'm concerned that the commissioner's amendment presumes the outcome of our testing And directs the staff to do something before we know what the before we know what we are doing and the testing has been completed The amendment is also very prescriptive on certain points And for example, it would direct the staff to develop test methods that account for the weight of the oldest child Victims as well as dynamic testing and other factors These may or may not reasonably coincide in the real world The staff should be allowed to continue its methodical test program Of which this agency has really committed Resources and again this commission Everyone up here at the dais and the staff consider this a priority for the agency to to find a solution for this problem Um, I think that the staff should again be allowed to continue its methodical test program with a view towards developing Strong proposals for improvements to the voluntary standards as well as a possible mandatory standard To commissioner adler's point earlier something will happen. There is there are many moving parts to this issue The sturdy act was introduced. They've reached out to this agency for technical support and we have been Working with them. There are many things happening on this issue Knowing that it is a priority for so many and something will happen And so I think at this point. I cannot support this amendment I think the things that are being done the testing that's being done. We need to let that run And be completed commissure bioco No questions. Thank you. Mr. Feldman My question is for the amendment sponsors Would this project support or inform the agency's ongoing work with a seven and nine mandatory safety standard for tip over I mean, yeah, this would be the The entirety of the work from a technical basis, which To the chairman's point there are aspects of this already in the staff's testing protocol but I think the purpose of offering this is to just make sure that we're covering all of the actual real world Scenarios that have come to our attention and anticipating others as opposed to waiting for those to present themselves Does that help it does and if there's a concern that the testing protocols that are are adopted Are overbroad or incorrect or somehow deficient in the seven and nine process there would be a procedural mechanism for the commission to Revisit that and make adjustments as needed to make sure that Whatever testing mechanism the commission may ultimately adopt to be included in a seven and nine mandatory rule is consistent with our requirement under apa not to proceed with something that's arbitrary and capricious and to make sure that it's Narrowly but adequately addresses the the immediate hazard in front of us. Is that correct? The short answer is yes. If can I expand on that? Of course. I mean you're correct. Absolutely. I mean this would only Be the guidelines for robust technical work by the staff but ultimately whatever they would propose with or without this amendment Would have to go through the same Legally permissible process as required by both section seven and nine of the consumer product safety act and of course the administrative procedures act Okay. Well, I want to commend you for your work and leadership on on taking steps here to advance the issue I feel like I'm repeating myself a little bit But it's hard to overstate how pleased I am that there's some consensus on on on the commission To address this in a thoughtful and forward-leaning way. It's an issue that's been around for some time and I think this is a good amendment that advances the ball in a helpful way and Hopefully puts us in the posture that I think we all hope that we're in To move expeditiously to a mandatory standard here. So I think this is something I can support. Thank you Thank you. Commissioner Feldman. Commissioner edler. Kay. Would you have additional comments? I appreciate the support from commissioner Feldman and from anybody else I just want to try to alleviate the chairman's concerns that we would be adding non real world or sort of theoretical Requirements to the testing it I feel like the purpose and the way we drafted is actually quite the opposite was to take all of the issues we've now become aware of through real incidents And data that has actually been presented to the agency. And so if we didn't capture that I apologize, but I feel like that was the intent of what we did try to do Thank you commissioner k commissioner edler I'm just a quick reminder. None of this work would in any way be inconsistent with the development of a 104 We'll forgive me for saying that And I also think the importance of this and I really appreciate commissioner Feldman's comments is to send a signal Not just to our staff, but it's to send a signal to the outside world about what the nature of an appropriate safety standard should be and There are times when I I think we get Overly prescriptive and we engage in micro management and that does concern me This one. I don't think does that that certainly wasn't the intention So again, we appreciate the support Chair can I just add one more point? Sorry. I do think it's important to say that we and we did Mention at the end there's two key sentences surrogate methods could be used to adjust all of these enumerated Parameters and a dynamic approach could be used as the basis for static test and and while I realize that's a lot of technical Garbled language the point of that was to give staff some flexibility in how they went about this And if they could figure out other ways to do it, of course, we would prefer them to do that Thank you. Any other questions or comments for commissioner edler commissioner k? I will call the vote on the k edler Tip-over amendment number five Commissioner edler. How do you vote? I? Commissioner k. I Missioner v. Elko I Commissioner Feldman. I And I vote nay, so the eyes are five four and the nays are one This amendment passes as written Are there any other amendments or motions for the mid-year does that complete? I'm sorry does that complete your It does thank you for Enduring that but is it are you going to offer yours to withdraw? And figure out the appropriate timing is this would just be an appropriate time to bring up the ombudsman. Okay You will notice that there is not being circulated an amendment on Consumer ombudsman. It's something that we've discussed and my staff has discussed with our colleagues And I did want to say a few words about the notion of a consumer ombudsman and explain why I've decided To withdraw it at this point So if you will indulge me, I just have a few minutes of comments I want to point out for many years that the commission has had a small bus business ombudsman I think that's one of the most successful things this agency's done It's led to greater compliance with our regulations It's led to more understanding of the agency and a lot of goodwill among our stakeholders The time has really come for cpsd to join at least a dozen other federal agencies Who've established ombudsman offices with the primary function to work with one of their most important stakeholders Our most important stakeholders the consuming public There are lots of groups that historically have been underserved by the commission and not just by this commission but by others Parents parents groups civic groups affinity groups public service groups And let's not forget to mention individual commission consumers Who live in small communities across the country and desperately need some focal point for their safety concerns They deserve a friend and a friendly face in washington every bit as much as members of the small business community do I just want to make one Particular point about why this is so important Not that this is the only solution, but I think it's a critical solution To the concern that we heard from the parents against tipovers. These are families that have lost children in tipover accidents Time and again, they told us about how indignity was piled on tragedy after a fatality had occurred When people with the best of intentions were grilling them about the tragic accident But it didn't come across that way it came across as attack And what they would need would be people who have a friendly ear And a willingness to explain why an investigation is so important That's something a consumer ombudsman could do a consumer ombudsman could also serve an important outreach Function for victims and victims families right now if you're a parent who's lost a child to some particular incident There's not really a good clearing house. You may go on facebook You may find things through social media But there ought to be a central place and that could be the consumer ombudsman for Helping to organize and helping people who've suffered tragedies to work with one another What I would like to say is that I'm not offering this because I've had discussions with the chair about what the appropriate point in time To offer a proposal like this is and we have a disagreement I feel that any commissioner can offer anything at any point As long as we understand and I do agree with the chairman on this That when the rubber hits the road where the resources are allocated that occurs when it comes to the out plan So I'm withdrawing this at the moment with the hope and the strong desire that When we get to the out plan that I will have the support not just of the chairman But of all of my colleagues So it's an amendment that I'm not offering But I at least wanted to signal what my concern was and I do thank you for indulging me in making that point Thank you commissioner idler. Are there any other amendments to the 2019 mid-year plan? I do have a motion not necessarily an amendment. That's exactly what I was going to call next. Are there any motions? Would you like to explain your motion? Sure. I will I will read it into the record I am moving the commission to appoint a detail e From the doj the fbi or other governmental agency with the appropriate experience and knowledge To assist inform and advise the commission on matters pertaining to the clearinghouse breach as described below One the detail e shall be selected and appointed by the full commission and shall start immediately upon appointment To the detail e shall review and investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the breach and evaluate the steps taken to date by the agency And will take in the future to address the situation Number three the detail e shall brief the commission on a regular basis as required by the commission Any briefing or portion thereof shall be public if deemed necessary by the commission and consistent with the applicable law The detail e shall notify the commission of any legal interpretations by the office of the general council And that the that the detail e deems relevant to his or her responsibilities functions or recommendations Consistent with this authority. The commission shall have final say on any legal determinations or interpretations associated with the matter Number five the detail e shall report his or her initial findings to the full commission And advise the commission on any and all recommendations on how to proceed the commission shall then vote on the recommendations The detail e shall also recommend and direct the commission on how to best address and fully inform those impacted directly or indirectly by the breach The commission shall vote on those recommendations and direct the detail e accordingly The detail e shall have full cooperation of the staff the agency staff the members of the breach response team And any and all agency employees who are working on the matter And the detail e shall conduct any further activities as may be directed by a majority of the commission I believe that the motion speaks for itself Thank you commissioner bielko is there a second Thank you. Uh, is there any additional information you'd like to add or explanation before we proceed to our questions? There is not. Thank you. May may I Inject a point of order, please Um, I have not seen this precise motion until just now I didn't see a different version of this until four o'clock yesterday afternoon This gets to the point that we've tried At least as a matter of comity if we're going to introduce amendments to circulate those at least 24 hours before commission meeting I feel like I am somewhat caught somewhat flat-footed because I don't really understand the All the nuances of this so at least in the interest of my ability to assess this I would ask that we Take a break of Say one hour for me to go back and assess what the full Dimensions of this proposal are Are there any objections to taking a break for one hour to assess this? motion from commissioner bielko I'm I question why it's needed. It's pretty straightforward. We need somebody to come in here with the requisite skills And and advise the entire commission. These are points that I have raised several times and they have fallen on deaf ears I'm presenting the motion. This is nothing new nothing that any of my colleagues have not heard before It certainly is new to me and uh again so much of what we address has to do with the devil being in the details I don't know the details. I feel the need to Assess and and this to me is Is a fairly big surprise So I renew my request that we take a one-hour break to assess this Commissioner edler. Do you think that if we were if we spend some time asking questions that that would help Explain some of this motion It might but part of it is I don't know exactly which questions to ask I know which questions I was prepared to ask of the earlier version, but I don't know what questions I would ask of this And so I would I would like the ability to sit down calmly To read this through and to see and see whether I have any questions or whether I would want to offer any amendments to this I I suggest that we ask questions for a period of time and then if you still feel the need to adjourn for one hour Um We can we can do that. I have no objection to that as well. This is again This is new to all of us here commissioner k if I just make c clarification on that proposal If it turns out that commissioner addler has additional questions after that Would he be permitted to ask those questions when we resume? So if we go with okay great Of course So I will begin with the questions. I apologize. We do have a second. Okay Um So I guess as in looking at this My first question would be What level of expertise would you envision for this person? In this detaily Well, um as I've raised with you before and as I've been speaking with the doj and the fbi Our sister agencies do have um agents and employees and lawyers who are Who do this on a daily basis? Whether it's for the government or for Industry, this is you know looking into a breach and evaluating it helping an agency who's been through it Shore things up. This is what they do on a daily basis. So this is uh the type of Detail that I would I would suggest As I see it the Six b is unique to this agency and so They may have experts, but do they have experts? That would understand six b and the issue of disclosure And before I get and before I allow you to answer I really do want to say that this issue has been a priority for this agency ever since it occurred and um It is something that the staff and all the commissioners including myself as the acting chair have taken Very seriously and we have devoted Tremendous resources we have um We have made it a priority and along um Not far into the disclosure I asked the in ex inspector general to um To complete an investigation and that is undergoing as we speak he began immediately But I want to go back to um The question about is there someone at goj or fbi who is familiar with six b and understands As unique as that uh statute is to this agency Do they have that expertise to deal with? Yes, they do. They have that expertise. They have financial expertise They have pia i expertise or any other expertise That is necessary that it goes out the door In a in a disclosure of of the nature we sustained And to address your point on the ig the ig has um been issuing reports from as far as I can tell since 2015 and have made recommendations that this agency hasn't accepted So I I'm looking forward to um the ig and doing you know his part and and reading that report But I I am not satisfied with where we are and where how you know to this point what we've done I'm concerned that a lot of the evidence as to what really happened here is gone or um Is gone and I believe we need to be doing this in real time Um, I I appreciate that you're happy with the way the things have been going I have reasonable minds can disagree here and I I don't have a comfort level That it's been handled properly Or completely Thank you. I um I don't think I use the word happy. I don't think anyone is happy at this agency about this issue But we're doing what we must do and that's deal with the issue I want to get back to the inspector general though because I'm concerned Is the feeling that his independent investigation is not sufficient and that he isn't qualified to conduct the investigation Well, um, first of all, this is not his bailiwick Secondly, uh, and I I think that our ig is a terrific honest guy But and Marie you can fire him at any time according to our statute So I don't see that as independent and thirdly we have people within the government who do this on a daily basis I am positive that our ig will give us some recommendations But he is not in the position to do all of these steps that need to be done in an investigation like this So do you envision the ig conducting Completing his investigation and then this person this detail e would come in or do you anticipate that they would be conducting an investigation at the Same time they're two different things But the detail e as I pointed out in the motion shall start immediately upon appointment So whether or not the ig is because has completed his investigation would be running parallel to each other And There is no dollar amount here associated with this detail e Do you have a dollar amount? Are you aware? I do not and it's a detail Details do cost the agency money it would require money not necessarily in this instance Well, I think that we need hr here to talk to us or ogc general counsel To talk to us about whether a detail e it's very difficult to have this discussion and I will Something that is You know on its face. There's just so many questions. What is the cost of getting a detail e? Do you anticipate anticipate an iaa? What is the relationship that we will have with whatever agency so I will answer it this way This is something that Came up yesterday I've done my best to get as much information If what I'm hearing is that you are coming up with excuses rather than progress on this particular motion Then that is indicative to me as to where you stand But I would pause it that all of these you know different this that or the other Canon will be worked out Throughout the process and in front of the full commission and we will address those points as we go This needs to be done and delaying it anymore is only going to hurt the agency further Very difficult to make a decision because I am not weighing in on the merits of this I'm trying to understand what the real life implications are to this agency And I don't see a dollar amount. I don't see what mechanism would connect us with that agency What if the agency doesn't agree to whoever we agree What if they don't agree to testify to the commission on a weekly basis? What if that we're going to have a contract with another government agency? And we have to agree on the terms and they may not agree with these and so if we vote for this motion That creates a problem As well. Um, I my time has expired and I will move to commissioner adler Thank you very much and I I do have a lot of questions So first of all just the clarification I see in number one This person shall be selected and appointed by the full commission Then I go down to number four and I see discussion about the commission And then I go down to number eight and I see a majority of the commission Are those intended to be separate? terms and concepts They're intended to be the same thing bob. Uh, one of my Concerns is that the full commission or a majority of the commission has not had an opportunity to weigh in on several things with with regard to how this Investigation and response plan is proceeding. In fact, I saw an FAQ on our website that I knew nothing about I never looked at never approved it never signed off on that and When I use when I use the term commission I intended to mean all five of us and not limited to just one office And do I well? This is my question when you use the term full commission at one point and you use the term majority of the commission Does that mean it needs to be a unanimous vote of the commission when you talk about full commission? No, it does not it would it would so there's no real distinction between where you use the word full and where you use the word majority This is just a point of clarification. No, so my point bob is that I would like I'm just asking what the meaning is Well, my point is it needs to be selected by and your points well taken I I believe my main point here is that all five of us are involved And that we vote as a as a commission and the majority of the vote as to how we proceed So I can make those adjustments. You just you You suggested that the inspector general could be fired by the chairman. I honestly don't know the answer to that But I guess my question would be Could the detail e be fired by the commission? And if so, would it be for cause or would it be Any decision that or any point that the commission felt that the person ought to be terminated No, because he the detail e he or he or she works for another agency So we have no authority to fire them not talking about firing from their agency I'm talking about being fired as a detail e at this agency Why would we want to do that where there's the whole purpose of this is to get Transparency and all of the facts not just Some of the facts as presented to us. So if you're looking if you're starting off From a perspective of let's see if we can fire the guy That suggests to me that You're coming at this at the wrong I just I would just like an answer Can this person be removed by the commission for any reason whatsoever? Or would there have to be cause If it and not everybody as we know works out When when they are assigned to do a job, I just like that one and if that situation arises A motion can be made and we can consider that but considering it doesn't tell me whether we would have the authority to do that What I'd like before we do this is to know whether this person could be terminated by the commission at will Or whether it would be for cause. I think that would be a clarification that ought to be included in this proposal The the other point that I would request and I would like information that's my understanding is that The detail e would be paid by the commission If the detail e came on board Do we have any idea what the detail e's work plan would be would we not want to ask that the detail e At least give us some sense of what the work plan is that he or she would have and that we at least Would share our vision of what should be done Well, uh, and and that therein begs the question first of all a detail e That that I've been uh researching would not have a dollar amount attached to it Secondly, I I'm going to come back to the same point either we want Somebody with the requisite experience to come in and answer questions that at least this commissioner can't seem to get answered Or we don't so I would encourage you to vote no if you don't want this person here And I would encourage you to vote yes, and in the spirit of cooperation We work together as a commission to get to the answers that we need to have Before I would want to vote on this I would ask either the uh executive director or the deputy executive director to Tell me whether this is uh an expense that the commission would have to or the general counsel Excuse me. Tell me whether this is an expense that the commission would Have to incur. I object to that the these two individuals. This is not their motion It is not for them to decide. They have not done the research and I am presenting it as is Well, you can object to it But the point is I object to your objection I would like to know what the answer to that question is before the commission in some fashion Commits itself to dedicating resources to this work The anti-deficiency act does require that the agency pay for any services that it receives I don't believe that's correct Well, that's yet another question And I think would have to be resolved before I would be comfortable voting For such a broad and comprehensive motion. I see that my time has expired at least for this round Thank you commissioner k Thank you madam chair I do appreciate the The motivation of of why commissioner bianco wants to try to do this Um, I wanted to know I guess a question is are you open to Amendments to your amendment. I know that we've been trying to work to get to a place of common ground I I think there have been some legitimate concerns raised about Making sure to proceed in a manner that is consistent with our statute in terms of hiring authority and appointing authority And I think those do need to be worked out and I would hope you'd be open to that um, I do Agree that there is benefit for us to have Expertise shared across the government for folks who do this on a regular basis. Thankfully, we don't have a lot of experience with this type of Disclosure and so I think that there is a benefit to trying to have additional eyes on it and to Um Learn from the expertise I don't have the same while I understand the chairman's concerns that 6b is unique Uh, I'm actually much more concerned about the pii part and I feel like that's bread and butter for other agencies and it would be useful to Hear from them on it and to make sure that Uh, especially since this might not be our only pii issue, it would be good to have a better understanding of how to handle these things properly um I'll reserve until later some of the other reasons why I'm supportive of this concept But my main question is uh, would you be willing it sounds like we are going to take a break Can we work during that time to try to address? Some of the concerns to make sure that we're not running a foul of our statutes. Yes, of course great. Thank you very much Mr. Feldman I have no questions at this time. I'm I agree with commissioner bioca that the motion here does tend to speak for itself Um, with respect to the point that you raised commissioner k about uh, sensitivity to making sure that we're Particularly with respect to the appointment language proceeding under the statute. Um, this would be section Uh, four f1 Outlines that appointments and supervision of personnel Falls to the chair the acting chair But that extends only to personnel employed under the commission I think there's a legitimate question of to the extent that we're contemplating bringing on a detail that would be Employed under a sister agency whether or not that language of the statute would be applicable here Um, I I don't even think that's an open question. I think the language in the statute speaks for itself But uh, you know, if if we are going to recess It would be my preference that we proceed with a vote here. Um, but uh, but but If this is a a conversation that that that you'd like to continue. I'm happy to continue it Mr. K Sure, I guess I can respond. Uh, yeah, I mean, I think that if we're gonna proceed Uh, out of an abundance of caution and I that sounds reasonable your legal interpretation But out of an abundance of caution, there's probably a way to Fiddle with the drafting to not change the scope and the purpose and the intent behind it But just to be a little bit more buttoned up in terms of not potentially tripping over that issue So that would just be my suggestion and we'll we'll circulate some proposed edits And if they work they work if they don't they don't uh, I don't think that I Totally get the frustration in the time Pressure I do think that uh, if it's the difference between getting it right or not Whether it's an hour a day or whatever. I do think it might be worth Taking that time But if we can get it right or it can be gotten right in an hour then that works out too Thank you commissioner k I have additional questions. I'd like to just Talk a little bit about this morning. Um, so We don't know how much it's going to cost is there going to be any Desire to find that out. Do we know what this entails if we contemplate it? I mentioned this earlier asked this earlier an IAA and mo you what is the mechanism with the agency So amary let me put pose pose it this way the agency's had detail ease in the past And if what I'm hearing from you is that these Um, you know small issues that we all know we can work out Are is what's going to stop you from voting then don't vote for it I think that speaks very loudly if you want to help get this person in here. I think you're very well Positioned to help us do that I'm not sure if this Motion and I I am not speaking on the merits of this motion. Let me be really really clear But it's hard to even form an opinion when there's such broad language and this Sort of notional idea of what you're aspiring to And well, let me address it this way. I've come to you with very detailed Information on this that you've rejected. So I've put it in writing from a broad perspective to allow You to fill in areas that you were concerned with which I still haven't heard other than money Either we want this person here or we don't we can get them here and get them moving I've been asking for this person since I first learned of this situation I would ask that we vote if you want to take some time to give some edits. I'm willing. I'm open to edits I'm certainly not close to edits, but I I I don't want to Have edits change the dynamic of what it is that I think this agency needs and I feel very strongly that this agency needs And I find the the pushback very telling Well, please don't misinterpret my My interest in how we would possibly as an agency Execute what it is you've put here on paper Um, maybe it's because you're new you're a newer commissioner, but when we You everything we do It's either staff hours or contract dollars Just because of the size of this agency and just because of the limited budget that we have So if you can come back with a dollar amount and we can determine Exactly from HR whether or not this is a detail. Do we pay for the detail? What is the cost of the detail? Are you aware that our general counsel has spoken to justice has spoken to I am aware that our general counsel Is not independent Is controlling the information that we get and the last few pieces of advice legal advice I've gotten from our general counsel have been flat wrong So forgive me if I don't feel comfortable Which is why I'm moving again to get some outside independent help and I beg to differ with you I do know how to present a motion and I've presented this motion in a manner that I believe Is appropriate if you don't want to vote for it don't vote for it I think when you present a motion you have to have some concept of the cost the impact on the agency All of the questions we haven't even decided and the determined I personally disagree with commissioner Feldman that 4f1 doesn't apply here because But but that's a legal question that needs to be determined So there's just many many obstacles I won't call them obstacles. I'll call them thresholds We've got to get to before we can make an informed decision Then let's not waste the time the motion is in front of us. It's been seconded. Let's vote I would ask that you would table the motion until we get some of the answers to this question I'm not opposed to it. I'm not willing to do that. It is a valid motion seconded on and it's right for right for vote I would second the motion to table Any discussion about tabling the motion commissioner k I just want to see clarification. So are we taking the break for an hour and then coming back and then resuming Is that what the proposal is because I would motion to table as you come back and then you vote You don't put it off indefinitely. Okay, because if I'm Voting to table it would be a very small temporary table of an hour So that we would come back and we would resume with the hope that we could continue to work out Language that would work. That would be my intent Is there a desire to have staff here at the table to answer questions? Not by me Missioner edler. Yes Missioner k If any one commissioner needs to have staff and I would support that Mr. Feldman, okay There is a motion to take a an adjournment. It is now 1130 and We will adjourn until 1 p.m. Is that satisfactory for all? The only issue for me madame chair is just from previous commitments that I have to be out by two and so I would request that if we can't start earlier than we if we're not done by two then we just reconvene when Either tomorrow, I know commissioner adler is not here on thursday or whatever works next That's why I keep coming back to the point. I can see this. This is like the tip overs Let's see how long we can drag this out either you vote you have a vote for it as presented I don't didn't love the things that everybody else presents along the way Um, if you don't want to vote for it say you don't want to vote for it and and be transparent about it Well, I guess since no one else is talking I'll keep talking, but um, I actually would like to vote for it I would just like to have a lot more comfort with certain aspects of it So we've obviously gone back and forth a number of times and I don't think there's that much distance So at least speaking for myself if we can get over that final hurdle, I'd be good with it And I think the time would actually help in that regard. Let's do it We will adjourn this uh mid-year decision I think there's agreement but commissioner adler I would vote. Yes. Commissioner k Yes, commissioner bioko sure commissioner feldman And I vote yay the eyes have it so we will adjourn this meeting until 1 p.m And then we will have additional discussion We will reconvene this public hearing of cpsc We'll take back up the issue that's on the table the 2019 mid-year plan Currently on the table just to make sure we're all in the same place. Um, commissioner bioko Made a motion And there has been some discussion there was a request for time Off or time a recess so we could talk about it see if there wasn't a path forward with what she had proposed So I think at this time I'll ask whether or not there are any amendments to commissioner bioko's amendment I think maybe the the better way to do it is let me introduce the the um motion as it's been amended And um, this is this is the motion. I'm willing to put forward having considered everybody's input Well, the problem is we have your original amendment on the table. So you'll I'm happy to withdraw it and I'll introduce a new one Okay And I'll read it into the record. I moved the commission to approve the agency to use me one second Do we have copies of the amendment? I did it in black lines. You can see it I moved the commission to approve the agency to work with a detainee from the doj fbi Or I'm sorry detail e From the doj fbi or other governmental agency with the appropriate experience and knowledge to assist inform and advise the commission on Matters pertaining to the clearinghouse breach as described below Number one the detail e shall be approved by the commission and shall start immediately To the detail e shall review and investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the breach and evaluate the steps taken to date by the agency And will take in the future to address the situation Three the detail e shall brief the commission on a regular basis as requested by the commission Any briefing or portion thereof shall be public if deemed necessary by the commission and consistent with all applicable law The detail e shall notify the commission of any legal interpretations by the office of the general council That the detail e deems relevant to his or her responsibilities functions or recommendations Consistent with this with its authority the commission shall have final say on any legal determinations or interpretations associated with this matter The detail e shall report his or her finding initial findings to the commission and advise the commission on any and all recommendations on how to proceed The detail e shall also advise the commission on how to best address and fully inform those impacted directly or indirectly by the Breach the detail e shall have the full cooperation of the agency staff The members of the breach response team and any and all agencies employees who are working on the matter Is there a second? Thank you commissioner Feldman at this time, then we will open up From the commissioners any questions that they might have commissioner other Now thank you very much madam chairman, and I appreciate Commissioner Villaco trying to accommodate some of the concerns have been raised. I still have a couple of questions about this first of all During the prior discussion you had made the statement that the ig could be removed by the chairman At will and I think the I checked with the ig and I don't think that's correct I think according to the ig This person can't be fired the ig can't be fired without two-thirds of the vote of the commission I bring that up because I don't see anything in your proposal About what would happen in the event that the commission for whatever reason decided to remove the detail e Would that be done by For cause only or would that be done at will Well, I think we ought to vote on getting the detail e here instead of worrying about already firing them before they get here Well a lot of times you need to plan something before you actually move to implementation I'd like to have a clearer idea of what your notion is of what would happen in the event something goes wrong I mean in other words, we went to law school learning the dark side of every proposition in this case I'd like to have your opinion about what would Happen if the commission were suddenly to decide this person was not doing a job that we expected the person to do first of all the Motion is presented as is But if you want my opinion, I think what would happen is the commission Would discuss the matter if and when that arose and make the appropriate determination with the appropriate Corresponding agency But would that be at will or would that be for cause in other words if we're bringing this person on board The circumstances under which he or she comes ought to be clear to the detail e and ought to be clear to the members of the commission Bob, I don't have an answer for you. I'm right now worried about getting somebody in here to do the job and not firing them Well, okay, uh, let me ask a question about A paragraph five. I see that the detail e is supposed to report his or her initial findings I don't see anything in there in your motion for final findings Is that is are the initial findings supposed to be the ultimate findings? Of course not. That's why they're called initial findings Well, then where is the provision about final findings? Well, they're supposed to my thought is that they can advise the commission on how to proceed and we would do that on a Weekly frankly a weekly basis so that we can make decisions in real time to move on This is I believe the ig is going to be giving us a final report. I'm not interested in a report I'm interested in having somebody with experience get in here Already two months later in real time and respond to what they're seeing in real time Well, actually, I am interested in a report. My next question is that actually not to commissioner biakko But it is to staff and that is have we gotten clarification about whether the commission is obligated to pay the detail e or not Yes, uh, we Have had that legal guidance. We have Uh, both paid when uh for reimbursement and receive reimbursement when we've had detail ease in both those situations One of the questions that I think keeps coming up is about the cost and without knowing duration The grade of whoever the commission would select at this past. You can't give exact estimates, but If you use the worst case estimate a gs 15 step 10 the highest paid and and the gs scale For a year, you're looking upwards of $200,000 for one fte for one year So just to give some perspective on Any cost implications and may I point out that in the mid-year? We were voting in terms of priorities on items that are $75,000 and Because I don't really have a good sense of what the resources are. This does give me pause about committing sort of an open-ended Agreement with it with the detail e My final question would be This says the detail e shall have the full cooperation of the agency staff Could you explain a little more what that means if the detail e says to a staff person? I need this information from you and the staff person says it will take me four days to do that Does the detail e have the authority to say well? You must do it because the commission has approved that you provide full cooperation I I believe that's how I would read it Okay, I that's all the questions I have at this point Thank you commissioner k Thanks, madam chair Thanks commissioner baco for working with us to try to get to a common ground my sense is that you the Motion that you have offered this afternoon is is your final That's your final say on is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I have no more no more further questions Thank you commissioner felden I have no questions at this time Thank you. I do have a couple of follow-up questions particularly from This morning and our conversation about this have we Have we determined what kind of agency agreement there would be and who would be responsible for putting that agreement together We have not And to bob's question it may be in terms of the interagency agreement it may be possible to Discuss whether that person would be fired it will or for cause those kinds of details could be ironed out In that agreement is that or could Um I don't have any other questions commissioner addler I'm trying to be cognizant of commissioner k's need to Leave it to a clock and I don't want my amendments to take up an excessive amount of time So I have distributed the amendments and in the interest of time I ask that they be considered sort of in bulk with uh Without having to describe each and every one of them. I'm delighted to Respond to any questions that you might have about the amendments. Thank you. Thank you commissioner addler Yes, I am a moot. I'm moving these four amendments assuming that meets approval of the commission So you will not explain it. We'll just hear a second Uh, I'm I'm delighted to do a very quick explanation. Sure. So if you look at uh, the first amendment, uh We have a superb inspector general who cannot be easily removed from office. He is investigating this. I see no reason to Have a detail he brought in to do a simultaneous investigation Possibly stepping on the inspector general's toes possibly interfering with what the inspector general is doing until we have had a report from the inspector general So the first one is uh Let's wait to see about hiring a detaily until the inspector general has issued its His or her report the uh second proposal is to say that With respect to resources if we're going to hire a detaily I think we should do the way we do with anybody that comes in as a consultant or contractor They come in and consult with us We give them a general idea of what we would like them to do and then we ask them to submit a work plan So what I've done is listed the kind of work plan that I would ask them to submit After they've consulted with us and gotten a good idea about what we have in mind for their investigation the third one Goes to the point that the chairman was raising Detaily may have tremendous insight and information knowledge about the privacy acts and about PII but we'll have zero Knowledge of section 6b, which was the original impetus for Concern and so What I'd like to do especially if we're going to have discussions in a public forum I would like the Detaily to certify that he or she knows about 6b and that we're not going to have another Inadvertent disclosure during the course of a public forum and the fourth point again goes to resources We have a protocol at the commission now that's written down that says in the event any commissioner Wants to use up more than two hours of a staff person's time There you must get permission from the chairman, but I know that commissioner biakko Wants to have the commission involved in decisions like that. So that's why I put Will not be able to task a staff person to do More than two hours of time without getting permission from the commission. So those are my amendments Thank you. So I You are offering I just want to be clear for the record You're offering four amendments to commissioner biakko's amendment to her amendment to the mid-year. That is correct and well stated And her motion I apologize So I don't want amendments the motion I have amended it. I have considered those amendments, which is why we took the break I have presented a motion it is a second. We've had discussion the proper Form right now is to call for a vote on it. I don't think that's correct I think whenever anybody has put in an emotion even an amendment Robert's rules say you can amend the amendment and that's what I'm proposing to do I haven't gotten a second yet, but that's what I'm proposing to do And so it's my opinion. We need four seconds. You have four amendments. So four seconds to your amendments Yeah, you're gonna move them in block. Yes, I have moved them in block I second Are there questions for commissioner edler? No, no questions. Thank you Nope, mr. Feldman I have no questions other than to say that I welcome an independent investigation I have no problem with that at all And I I do think though we have an inspector general to what commissioner edler said in his comments Who knows this agency and I think it's reasonable for him to complete his investigation And then at that time whether he makes a recommendation to us or whether we Determine as a commission that we want to take further steps I have no problem with any of that But my concern is that we interfere with The investigation that the inspector general is doing and I unlike some of my colleagues I I have confidence in him that he will do an independent and a thorough investigation of this agency So I will call the vote for the nbog Amendments from commissioner edler I vote aye on all four amendments Commissioner k no Commissioner bielko. No, mr. Feldman And I vote aye on all four amendments We will now go back to The revised amendment to commissioner bielko's amendment That she has presented today. Are there any other questions before we take a vote? I apologize. I keep saying amendment, but it is a motion I have no more questions, but I just want to say that since I won't get a chance when I vote that Um, it sounds like we're not going to quite bridge the gap and I'm disappointed in that But I do think that you've raised really important issues I Having nothing to do with with the inspector general because I think he'll he can do a great job I do think this is a different assignment And that what has driven my interest in this the whole time are really two factors One is that we don't have a lot of experience with pii Breaches, which is a good thing. Nobody really wants to have a lot of experience with that And so because we don't have a lot of experience. I'm not comfortable that we necessarily Nailed it the first time and I would be more comfortable knowing that we had That kind of review and I don't think that that's also something that the inspector general necessarily One has a lot of experience with and even if he does, I don't think it's going to be a quick review Whereas if we have to correct that we'll have time to correct it immediately And so I'm particularly concerned about the people whose pii has been Put out there and put at risk and if there was a different choice that should have been made I would like to have known that now And the second aspect which I've also raised on numerous occasions is I think it's an egregious error to keep Clearinghouse under foyer Any longer that shouldn't have been put under foyer other than the immediate I get putting it under foyer right away Just as a stop, but I think enough time has passed We should take it out from under foyer and I don't think an inspector general is going to get to that And even if he does again by the time he gets to it, it'll already be solidified or people have gotten used to the custom of it being under foyer As it's been pointed out you can't create a new document under foyer And so I don't even understand even if it's under the foyer office, but it's not being run through foyer What that even means I think it's a big mistake And this is another area that I would have liked to look at By an independent person in real time to try to address that decision I think there's other areas where we haven't lined up in our interests and that is probably why we're not going to Come to an agreement, but it's not the last time that we can consider this if there's a chance to consider in the future I'm certainly agreeable to do that. Thank you Mr. Bioko, do you have any other Comments or questions Not Mr. Feldman No questions at this time. Thank you Thank you I will comment on what commissioner cages said because There has never been an intention that the clearinghouse would remain under the foyer office I think that it was done as an interim step to mitigate And to make sure that think eyes were being put on that the appropriate eyes were doing the review But I think it's important to note that that is not the way it's going to be And we will determine what the appropriate course is But I do think it's prudent very prudent to wait for the inspector general to to Give us his findings of his investigation And make it clear as to what What the next step should be and how we should handle this the entire situation Well on that note then I would like to point out that the inspector general has given us a 2015 and a 2018 Recommendation that we did not follow either that perhaps may have changed the Trajectory here. So why we would all think that this new report would be something that everybody's going to follow is beyond me but That's what I see If I could just make a point of clarification on that what was done in 2015 and I don't disagree with you There were aspects of that report that were not Executed and where the advice wasn't taken but what is being done now is is an investigation. It's not an audit And those are two very different Models from the IG and what he is trying to accomplish here with the request to investigate the situation Are there any other questions comments from the dais? At this time then I will call. Oh, I apologize I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to discuss the Amendment, but it looks like we're about to vote on it. So I do have a couple of comments first of all I just hope that in the future if somebody is going to drop an amendment on us of this Magnitude that we get it well in advance so that we can all think about it and not have to Interrupt a meeting to go back and look at it and ponder it But I also want to Make a couple of points This is a significant breach. I don't think anybody denies that I think we all share that But let's also try to put this in context. This is not the crime of the century. This is not watergate This is not russian hacking of our files This was an innocent mistake made by some well-intentioned staff who have owned up to what they've done That has led to a very quick reaction And an attempt to solve this by the agency that in Committed enormous resources of this agency That came at a cost of working on projects that relate to safety And this Detail he is just going to add to that drain on our commitment to do work With respect to resources that ought to be better spent doing safety work This is to me and I can't say it any more bluntly than that This is a direct repudiation of the integrity and capability of our staff That's been brought to bear on this issue And this is a proposition that I fundamentally reject I think we have an excellent staff that has worked In extremely efficient and competent manner to address this It's also Implicitly a repudiation of the integrity and capability of our inspector general I have tremendous faith in him. I will say that I when I was acting chair I worked closely with him. He is incredibly thorough. He is an incredibly aggressive Inspector general and I am afraid that this detail He is going to come in and immediately start encroaching and stepping on The legitimate work of the inspector general and I find that Quite disturbing This also to me Less so than when it was first Offered, but it still gets us into micro management of any investigation The detail he would do And I just can't help reflecting Commissioner k that when you were chair if you'd seen an amendment like this I suspect your reaction would not have been as supportive as it is now I certainly appreciate the good will and the good faith that this has been brought before the commission But I fundamentally deeply oppose this amendment Thank you. Commissioner other commissioner k anything to add commissioner biegel commissioner felden I just would Echo what my colleagues said and that is um It is a repudiation of The inspector general's office. It is a um And that concerns me. I think that What commissioner adler proposed in his first was the first amendment of his group of amendments with regards to a timeline and not starting Anything until the inspector general finished his His investigation I think would have been a prudent way for this agency to go It makes sense at that time And and the normal course of business from the ig would be to make a recommendation if he sees anything of Turn to him criminal or otherwise What happens in the normal course is then that investigation would take place and he would make that referral and I wonder if you if we contact just justice and we say to them we need you to do an investigation They're going to probably say to us Why isn't your ig doing the investigation? So I think that there's a lot of pieces here Uh But I have confidence in the ig and I do believe he will Provide us with the information we need and make an appropriate recommendation as to whether or not this This should be referred or there should be further action on it Well, let me be clear about something I am not this is not a repudiation of our ig in fact if I recall correctly I'm the person who informed the ig when our general counsel told us she'd get to him when he got back from Vacation I have been working with our inspector general and find him highly competent and to be an honest guy This is not has nothing to do with the inspector general number one number two I I resent the comment that this is a repudiation of our staff because the chair's office has controlled This commissioner's ability to even talk with staff members I send a staff member request to get together and i'm told either it has to go through patty hands It has to go through the chair's office and i'll get back to you with your questions Once the chair approves it. I have a problem with that and number three You can speculate all you want about what the doj would say. I actually spoke with them So I find it interesting that i'm the only commissioner who reached out to look into All the different ways we can do this in the best possible Way I think that is our obligation and the fact that I am being fought every step of the way speaks highly to me Mr. Felden mr. Adler okay I I guess then I have a question because with regards to If you were not Imputing the ig in his investigation, then why does it say Shall review and investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the breach Because I think there's more than just what the ig is tasked with looking at by your office Let's call for the vote. I'm done talking. Let's call for the vote Um, I'll call the vote. Commissioner. Adler. How do you vote? No commissioner k. No Commissioner bielko. Yes, it's b. Ako Mr. Feldman. Yes, and I vote no The nose have it the eyes are two the nose are three the motion the amendment to The motion from commissioner bielko does not pass Apologize Okay, we will now vote on are there any other motions here today at the dais regards to the 2019 mid-year This point we will now vote on the underlying Document the 2019 mid-year plan As amended by the um motion or the amendments Commissioner euler, how do you vote? I? Mr. K. I Mr. Bielko I have no idea what you're talking about. I thought we've already voted on the mid-year things No, we voted on a series of amendments And then we vote just voted on your motion or your amendment to your motion It was a standalone motion. Just so we're clear. You need to get robert's rules of orders. I I And I vote I the mid-year is a past as amended I will now Ask my colleagues if they have any closing remarks or if they will just post their statements on their website Uh, nothing nothing to say at this time Commissioner k. I'll post later. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner bielko Commissioner feldman that concludes this public hearing of the united states consumer product safety commission. Thank you