 Really live morning and welcome to this public meeting of similar product safety commission. Or we start and I confirmed that all of the commissioners are here. Commissioner Feldman. Mission foil present. All right, when it were commissioner, Trump, yes, good morning. Morning, everybody also know this is our first meeting without commissioner, which brings us to a panel of four commissioners. I know that she will be missed and she does well in her next endeavors. But this morning, CPSC staff will briefing the commission on the fiscal year 2023 operating plan. This is the 1st operating plan to come up during my tenure and report to examining it with my colleagues and working with them over the coming weeks to ensure that the plan puts. This agency in the best possible position to protect consumers during this fiscal year and into the future. In a moment, I'll turn this meeting over to staff so they can brief us once they've completed the briefing. Each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions of staff with multiple rounds if necessary. Briefing us today is Jason Levene, CPSC's executive director. He is joined by James Baker, our chief financial officer also joining us today or Pam Springs, director of the operating office of communications Austin, Schlick, general counsel and Alberta mills commission secretary. Thank you. With that, I'm going to turn the microphone over to Mr. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Uh, and. Thank you for the slide. Uh, good morning. So today we are going to be discussing our proposed fiscal year 2023 operating plan. Which as we'll get into both through this slide package and discussion today lays out our major projects rule makings. Areas enforcement focus performance measures and much more. These staff proposals as part of the plan represents proposed projects. At funding level that is functionally actually lower. Than our current funding level, but also lays out a secondary funding level that matches our. 2023 performance budget request, which was passed in March. Next slide, please as mentioned, we are going to be looking at 2 separate. Funding levels today, sorry screen issue there. 1 of which is based on our 2023 budget performance request is passed by the commission in March, which is a level of $195.5 million including 672 fte's. The 2nd level is sorry, and. I should note that there has been no appropriations levels set yet for fiscal 23 for the commission and we are operating currently under continuing resolution of $139.05 million, which. Through December 16th is approximately $29.3 million. Next slide, please. We do have 2 potential congressional levels. Those are not. Layed out in the plan, but we thought worthy of note 1, the house did pass a 2023 operations appropriations level for $166 million. Which does include 2.5 million and no year funds for the Virginia grant Baker pool and spa safety act grant program. Senator appropriation proposed a level has it passed there's been a lot of time talking about that at this point in time. Next slide, please. Okay, so. Presented today is a slightly different version or slightly different methodology when we look at the plan and then we've used in the past and that we lay out 2 different budgetary levels. In the 1st sections of the plan based on the. Disparity pretty significant disparity between our requested level. And the continuing resolution level recognizing the unlikelihood. Of the number staying exactly either at. The 2022 continuing resolution level or exactly the 195.5. By the requested level 1 would expect our mid year process, which historically takes place sometime in the. Late winter or early spring to be used to amend the plan before you today based on our full years of preparation. Next slide please the document before you is. Based in large part out of 2. Separate documents 1 is the draft strategic plan. Which we considered a couple of months ago, the 2023 through. 6 plan as you see the 4 goals listed there as well as the priorities. These 6 bullets laid out in the 23 budget request approved by the commission earlier this spring as well. So the goal of the plan is to weave those 2. Documents and concepts together in a way that is reflective of the proposed activity. Next slide so this slide is as it's as it's labeled a content slide, which lays out sort of the format of of the document. And the the items I would note here in particular. I think is the appendix, the appendices to the appendice appendix see does lay out the operating plan. Alignment to the draft strategic plan, which I just mentioned, but I think throughout what you'll you'll see again is this overlay of those 2 documents together. And obviously the standard stables, the listed reports we propose to undertake this year. Next slide, please. Okay. The, so these 2 are going to be talking about the summary of changes based on again, these 2 separate levels. The summary of changes here. Does assume a 4.6% increase in pay to be mandated. By Congress and trying to keep ourselves at the 539 plan positions level. However, because at the moment, we are presuming for the sake of the process that we will be remaining at actually a functionally lower level than we were last year in that we are 139.05 and would not receive the 4.6%. We would only be funded if the number lasted for the full year at 514 fte's. Now, our current onboard level puts us in a comfortable position with respect to this level. But we would need to monitor very closely critical hires attrition rates, when positions are back filled. Again, where we'd have a full year at the 139.05 level, which we're certainly hoping is not the case. And you'll see in the document, the non payroll allowances have been adjusted. To reflect the known escalation costs and rent and a standard 2% inflationary number, which recognizing not always the sort of the full economies inflation rate, but it's sort of a standard. And be a percentage rate that we are using. And you'll note in the document, there's a $0 increase under the CR level for the grant funding, but we do have $2 million of 23 funding within the CR level as planned. And there's $3 million carry forward from prior years as part of no year funds explicitly for VGBA grant. Next slide. Continuing at the CR level, the next couple of slides are all going to have ARPA. So I do want to be specific and referencing which levels we're talking about. The American rescue plan act funding is currently being used as approved by the commission earlier this spring to fund 46 FTEs and a $2 million in recurring contract costs. There's also a 1 time cost of 900,004 phase 3 of the global data global data synchronization network and a few other items that are approved in 22 will be obligated in 23. Those would all be funded out of ARPA under the statutory bullets, as I had to call them there that they would allow that allow us to move in these different directions, both with respect to ports, e-commerce and other information and education activities along those lines. Next slide, please. Okay, so the summary of changes that you'll see in the document that respond to the budget level again, that's that 195.5 level. Have an increase, obviously, not just of the 4.6% also that 2% that I mentioned in terms of inflationary costs includes a 29, almost a $30 million increase and 87 FTE increase in those six budget priority levels, as well as additional. Inspector General supports and reflects a $9 million transfer from salaries and expenses. Those ARPA funds are being used as a $9 million to be transferred to our base salary expenses under the proposed budget. So that 46 we just talked about that are currently under ARPA would be transferred to our base budget as it were. The only change from for respect to VGB funding would be an additional $.5 million to get us a 2.5, which would reflect the house mark and that $3 million remains carried forward and know your funds. Next slide. So, again, as I just mentioned, the transfer under the budget level, as we refer to it in the document that 195 to 23 budget request would be a transfer. That 46 FTEs and the 2 million recurring costs, the 1 time costs for the GDSN would remain under ARPA, but otherwise those funds could be used for more, more of the items that are also contemplated under the American Rescue Plan Act, including e-commerce activities, 1 time contracting costs. Were we to get the full appropriation? Next slide please. Okay. So now getting into some of the meat of the document itself, the 1st item that we'd stop and reference is the mandatory standards table and just in terms of the changes from where we were. The fiscal 23 budget requests listed 9 mandatory standards rule makings. Those would be anything from notice of proposal making all the way through final rules and everything in between. So that's where these numbers are reflective of their additional 21 from that 9, but there are also 3 that have been removed from that 9, which gets us to a total of 27 rules laid out in the mandatory standards table. Obviously, even with the under the CR level, we're proposing an incredibly ambitious slate of rules and ambitious operating plan in general. And I think that's perhaps most starkly reflected in the mandatory standards table. Next slide please. Similarly, the change here as noted from the budget request and the and the voluntary standards activities is a change of an additional 7 activities, voluntary standard activities as listed here, none were removed from the voluntary standards table and the 23 budget request document. Next slide please. So, without reading, you know, each, each bullet here, we, we did want to highlight sort of for each individual organization and obviously these subsume such a significant portion of work and even if we were to read all of them. It doesn't get into all of the many, many different activities from each organization, but we do want to highlight. Some of the some of the priorities and they're listed as priorities by organization within the document, including within the XR working on and completing is the goal within 2023. NPRs on infant pillows, portable generators, furnaces, battery ingestions, as I just discussed many more items. There's the report that is an outgrowth of the work on the executive order 13, 9, 8, 5, the rate, the investigation on racial and socio-economic safety differences that that is proposed to be completed this year. We also have new statutory direction in addition to the significant section, what we call section 7 and 9 rulemaking that we've undertaken this, this past year and we're completing and some of those are working on looking at today. We also received some statutory direction from Congress on some updates that he had charged me focusing on the Reese's law on button batteries, portable fuel containers. So that's some additional work that wasn't necessarily conceived of a year and a half ago or, you know, or even a year ago and putting together some of the some of these documents. In addition to that list at the bottom, which is again just a sort of highlight list, but not anywhere close to the full list of potential safety areas and issues that we'll be working on over the course of the year. Next slide please. So for our office of compliance and field operations, again, similar in addition to the previously laid out concepts of areas of focus, there are these new areas for compliance to be focusing on whether those be by commission rulemaking, such as infant sleep rule leading to infant sleep products. Increased activity, whether it be the safe sleep for babies act and things like crib bumpers inclined sleepers, the new magnet rule. All of those are our newer activities for the office of compliance to be taking a look at in terms of enforcement. In addition to our continued effort to ramp up our online surveillance, which has increased over over the last year or two in a significant way in terms of our compliance activities. Our continued cap compliant or corrective action plan monitoring strengthening and working with companies, ideally cooperatively if not otherwise to ensure not only fulfillment of their cap obligations, but their their requirements under under those cap obligations and working towards recall responsiveness where where possible. And as I mentioned, the executive order 1395 is spread throughout the document and throughout the organizations in terms of the variety of different activities we're trying to undertake to address the issues that were identified in the equity action plan. I'm not going to read those. Some of the highlights. Next slide please. Our office of import surveillance. I would note for those watching have not yet registered. We do have a workshop tomorrow that I'd recommend you. But anyway, the goal of these variety of goals. Demonstrate another of our frontline on the ground folks in addition to our compliance and field operations are import folks who are working. Not only at the ports, but also in the e commerce. Sorry, not only at our our traditional ports, but also working at. In an increased effort to work on the ports where we're seeing large volumes of de minimis shipments as opposed to our more traditional larger shipments. That's something that is a project that's going to be. Front and center this fiscal year. In addition again to our traditional working on stopping or not the non-compliant consumer products. Including counterfeit products that pose a safety risk. Trying to expand our presence, our continued cooperation and coordination with CBP. Is obviously top of mind. As mentioned, there's the filing program. We're looking to submit a NPR this fiscal year. That would enable the CPC to fully implement the filing pilot. And there is that beta pilot that is ongoing. That's the workshop I reference tomorrow. And of course working with our small business ombudsman. To help educate. Importers because what we want more than anything else is an educated. Regulated community. Compliant on, of course. Next slide. Our international program. Which. Works to ensure again in the concept of. In the concept of helping to train both foreign governments. As well as. As foreign companies in terms of our. Compliance with CPSC. Regulations CPSC requirements. There's a real value in us going out and undertaking that training. Both sort of on a bilateral basis as well as. Through programs like the United Nations. Intergovernmental group of experts. And then they're, you know, in addition to just. Participating international forms wherever we can to spread the word about our requirements. And about how to. You know, move that safety by design. As far up the supply chain as possible. Next slide. Okay. The office communications. Really. Has really will be sorry. Forward facing really will be focusing on expanding public engagement with CPSC safety messaging. Through a large variety of means. And actually, as you see reflected. On this slide and of itself, both talking about on the digital side. Digital content online social media, but also. At the bottom, you know, at the bottom of the slide, we're, you know, we're. Looking at how do we undertake out of home advertising reaching communities that aren't necessarily always online. The underserved communities, historically excluded communities. Bush shelters. No boards looking to really expand the reach of our messaging. We've always said and continue to believe is such good content. And information that we want to make sure the consumers have. How do we make sure we reach them where they are and and the opportunities that we have. How do we make sure we reach them where they are and the office communications really focusing on pushing that forward. Also listed here are 4 of the larger information education campaigns that are contemplated within the office for fiscal 23. Next slide please. Office of information technology exit. We will be continuing the multi year project to establish the agency data lake. Which will as noted store and provide access to the data assets, both for analytical and for reporting purposes. This is it's an ongoing project, which we certainly hope to see significant strides on this this fiscal year to allow us to start to see some of the benefits. Of that activity. You know, and so much of what we've listed here are some of the sort of top line highlights. But obviously so much of what we do is built on the back of the information technology program. And whether it be developing and moving forward the long desired upgraded case management system for compliance. Or that the filing program requirements. And moving us forward we have a number of legacy. Systems that need to be upgraded and updated. And that's what we are undertaking. And then as noted though, it's the last bullet on the slide. You know, we never want to minimize the need to increase our cybersecurity. And increase our our ability to be. Fishing resistant. For particularly for external users as well, we're accessing our systems and data because we want to be able to share that data. Next slide. So, similar to strategic plan. Concept that was goal for a strategic plan where we talked about. What have traditionally been thought of as support offices. Here's it's just a very brief mention of the. 1 or 2 of the highlights for each of these many different offices the office equal employment opportunity diversity inclusion. General counsel, legislative affairs, financial management, resource management. All of these different offices have have some goals laid out. In the operating plan, but I think what's also important to notice how much of what they're doing is built in to allowing for the success of all the other offices we just talked about. So. Whether we're talking about. Working and moving forward on the equity action plan in terms of sharing what it is that we're doing. Outside of the agency and working with stakeholders to move forward on that, whether it's. Attending career fairs and undertaking our recruiting. Working on improving our freedom of information act response rates. All of these different pieces. You know, everything that that financial management does to meet our requirements are sort of laid out in the plan. I just want to make sure we highlighted those here. In this presentation, I believe. Nope, yep, that's our last last next slide. Please. And it is our last. So that is it for presentation. We're happy to take your questions this morning. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. for the presentation and for the briefing. Staff is presenting an aggressive gender for the coming year with a robust rule making agenda that includes 27. We'll make activities and an increase from the 21 list in last year's plan. So, I'm going to turn this point time over to questions for all commissioners as I mentioned before. We're going to attend it rounds in order seniority with multiple rounds as necessary. So, in looking at the plan, in addition to being a number of new activities plan also makes clear that the impact that stage that's even a continuing resolution resolutions holding us flat has. Significant consequences. Can you provide a little bit more background or why the operating plan. Prevents, excuse me presents 2 different spending levels and what those 2 spending levels represent. Sure, thank you for the question because I why I think I mentioned it. I think it's laid out in the plan. I do think it's important to spend a minute. Just being clear. These are pretty dramatically different plans, right? 1, so 1, 0 one 39. 1. That's an additional. additional $56.45 million and 133 FTEs above the CR level. So, what we've tried to be sure to do is prepare, as I say, prepare for the worst, expect the best, lay out a plan that tries to accomplish as many goals as possible under our current resources at that CR level. So the bulk of the operating plan does correspond to activities which were undertaken at that CR level. But again, that first part of the operating plan does lay out the major activities that we would see at that 195 level because we're optimistic. Certainly, we believe we've made a good case as to why those dollars would be used in that way. But importantly, the 23 is aligned with our 22 appropriation and you can see the outgrowth of those dollars and those programs laid out in a way that grows from the 22 appropriations level. But I'd also note that the, again, unless we get exactly the number 139 or 195, we will be coming back in the mid-year process to align our final numbers with projects that will be proposed based on those numbers. Thanks. I, too, am, well, I think this agency can do a tremendous amount with more funding and we certainly have advocated for that. And the White House has supported a much higher funding level for the agency. So I'm hopeful that will come through. That being said, recognizing that we are operating under a continuing resolution that will hold us steady until December, at least, and then we'll see what happens after that. But if we were held to our FY22 levels for the entire year, what's going to be the impact on CPSC staffing? Yeah. Unfortunately, were we to be held to this level for the full fiscal year, we would not be able to support our planned 539 FTE level. So what the plan to address that sort of shortfall would be, surely initially just to monitor our hiring levels, we're currently probably around 515 or so FTEs on board, not counting the FARPA funded FTEs. So as there was attrition, as there was a need to backfill positions, we would very carefully consider where we need, where those emergencies are versus where we might have to hold off on hiring. If we were to get through the whole, if we were to imagine the whole fiscal year at this level, and then we'd likely return to the commission with options regarding planned contractual obligations that we would potentially not be able to undertake in fiscal 23, again, if we were to be at this level for the full year. So it would certainly put a, it would not allow us to meet the already understaffed goal in terms of 539. And presumably if we're running at lower levels of staff, because we don't want to place people who have left, it's going to impact our ability to get the work done that's anticipated in the plan as well. Absolutely. And you mentioned the American Rescue Plan Act funds, ARPA funds, and they are separate from our annual appropriations. Can you just explain a little bit more how that fits into what you just talked about? Sure. So, again, sort of separating from the CR level and the budget level. At the CR level, we'd anticipate spending the total of 9.9 million in fiscal 23 from the American Rescue Plan Act funds, which would include those 46 FTEs that we talked about. Now, of that 9.9, just checking my notes, 9.9 million of that is for pay and recurring contract costs, that remaining 0.9, that 900,000 is that one-time cost related to the, that continued enhancement to the import targeting surveillance system, the GDSN project I mentioned earlier. Again, that's under the 23, that's under the construct of a full year's CR and no funding to help us transfer our offset from ARPA. Were we to receive the 23 budget level or something close to it, the proposed plan would shift or transfer that 9 million dollars for pay and recurring costs, contract costs, back to annual salaries and expenses. And then that would free up more of the funds for investment in one-time technology costs and other of the ARPA requirements. So, it's obviously very stark. I mean, one is exclusively coming out of the ARPA funding stream, and the other would go directly from our appropriated salaries and expenses level. So, I started by saying that the staff has presented an operating plan that is aggressive, but I'm always eager to try and do more to advance product safety. Other ways to speed up some of the timelines, but it's the work that we're doing, the other rule-making that we have laid out there. You know, there's always a balancing act for the opportunity to try and move things in a more expedited way. Some of those are obviously dependent upon, as we just talked about, funding and resources, and whether that's contract dollars or people, that obviously can always help absent those sorts of congressional interventions. You know, opportunities to move things faster. Sometimes if we're talking about rule-making, for example, sometimes using shorter comment periods can allow for a faster turnaround on rule-making and opportunities where we sometimes can examine which rule-makings are more likely to be able to move quicker in terms of our expected ability to complete work in terms of performance research. It's always something we're looking to undertake. So, you know, we're always going to be sort of re-examining opportunities to accelerate work, but importantly making sure we're making all of our statutory findings, regulatory findings, with respect to producing performance standards that protect the public, but also can withstand any challenge. I look forward to that discussion. I do want to hear from fellow commissioners, so I am going to turn to Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Levine, for your presentation and to all staff that put a lot of effort into getting this document in front of us for our consideration. Mr. Levine, I wanted to start off by asking about the top-line numbers that we're basing this plan off of. And the question is, why are we keying the best-case top-line number off of the FY23 request, which Congress has already considered and rejected? Wouldn't we be doing ourselves a little bit more of a favor in terms of planning in the realm of what we're likely to get and avoiding another difficult round of mid-year decisions where we have to contemplate cuts? Were we to key that off of, for example, the House Mark? Even that would represent about 20% in Greece. Thank you for the question. Although I would slightly disagree that Congress has rejected the offer since we don't have a full year yet. We don't know what our full year would be, but fully recognizing it is a number that exceeds what has been proposed, at least so far, by the House or the Senate. The reason the... But, Mr. Levine, they're out with the marks already. We submitted our FY23 request. The House came out with $106.3 million. The Senate was at $153 million. Out of that, they've shown their whole card on this. No, there's no question. It is unlikely that we will receive that number, but technically speaking, we haven't received anything other than 139. But I do want to answer your question, which is an important one. The reason we use the 23 budget request figures is because it is the last approved figure from the commission for which we are moving forward in terms of a planning process. At the same time, recognizing the reality of where our current funds are, which is the 139 number, it's our hope that instead of a circumstance where we are engaged and trying to withdraw items that are not able to be funded, we will be adding to this process at the mid-year. So in other words, in the document itself, nothing passed, and I want to make sure I have the right page area for you, but nothing that is laid out in the document essentially passed table two. So if you start sort of an OS 20 or page 11, all of those projects are contemplated under the CR level. So any additional funding we'd be getting would be adding to that when we talk about mid-year, as opposed to withdrawing, reducing. Does that make sense? I understand that. I think it may well be foolish to move forward with a top line number, assume that, again, a number that Congress has already considered and rendered some judgment on. I think that the best that we could expect for would be the house market 166.3. That represents at least the number that's within the realm of realistic possibility. We asked for a significantly higher number. I think Congress came back and frankly, I don't need to give a civics lesson here and who controls both branches of government right now. But they came back with a determination that we haven't earned that higher number. Moving on, I also have a question about how staff is calculating the cost of FTEs in the document. I see, for example, on page OS 14, there's a summary increasing legal capacity in the draft plan that contemplates $900,000 for this project, including funding to FTEs. We were told previously, I believe at the mid-year that the cost of FTEs was assumed at about $200,000 per attorney to increase this kind of capacity. If it's accurate, this would represent 125% increase from what we were told at mid-year. And throughout the document, there are some examples of arithmetic ambiguity and I'm having trouble, frankly, crosswalking between what I'm seeing on the tables in terms of head counts and the amounts that would be used for other purposes. So, Mr. Levine, this is to you and maybe also to Mr. Baker. Is there a commission-wide metric on the cost of an FTE that's assumed in this document? Yes, and I think I can also answer, at least generally speaking, perhaps why it's not as clear as it could be. So, the commission-wide metric is about $190,000 per FTE is the commission-wide metric that's excluding ARPA, but in terms of what's built into the outplan FTE estimates. But when you see, for example, the example you referenced on the bottom of OS 14 for page 5 of the plan, $0.9 million including FTEs. You know, those are, there's additional, maybe contract support, and you know, it's not exclusively, those wouldn't be exclusively FTEs in that example. I understand it does say including. I guess, you know, you said it, these are your words, that this isn't as clear as it could be. If I'm having trouble walking through this, and listen, I'm not the best at math, but did spend a good deal of time yesterday with the pencil and the calculator trying to walk through these numbers and make sense of it. If I can't make sense of it, you know, this is a document that Congress is also going to take a look at. You know, I think all of us believe that this agency can do more with more resources. Again, I think we need to make a case that we're spending these dollars responsibly, and I think a key part of that is putting together a document and a plan that spells out as clear as we possibly can. Where every single dollar is going towards. So, to that end, you know, recognizing that a lot of these projects are including sort of additional money over and beyond what we'd be spending on FTEs. And I appreciate the clarification on the assumed FTE costs that we're basing this on. I think that should be spelled out clearly in the document, but it probably unfair to ask you now to provide the breakdown. But as we're going through these projects, can you provide us with a breakdown of how much of the funding would be going to the FTEs themselves? And the remainder of the funding, which I assume is going to infrastructure and contract dollars and things like that. What percentage of that is going to those so that we can just have a better sense of tracking for where the dollars are. Yeah, I don't think that'd be terribly difficult, but let me get back to you. I appreciate that. I want to be respectful of the time and Mr. Chairman, you mentioned a second round. I think I got time probably to get one more question and then may want to take you up on that second round. But Mr. Levine on table 1, the draft plan lists 539 FTEs. And it's not clear to me whether we actually have 539 employees right now or whether that's the maximum level of FTEs that are contemplated under the plan. Can you let us know and tell us today what our current headcount is in terms of FTEs and given our current staffing level does the 25 FTE reduction that's mentioned on table 1. Is that a reduction that's reflecting actual jobs lost or is that sort of subsumed into existing vacancies? I'm not entirely clear on that. Sure. No, I appreciate the question. And again, it's always because hiring is always ongoing. It's always sort of a snapshot in time. But briefly, the 539 again is raised as a full time equivalence level. So it's honestly people right there. We, you know, there are there are half time people. But that's the planned number for which we aim to achieve any given moment that number because of attrition because we're in the midst of undertaking hiring maybe lower than that. And again, if you want to make clear, this is the non ARPA included number. I think at the moment we are right around 510 or 515 people as of. Or FTEs, I should say, as of today with a number of again, there's always ongoing hiring with some folks currently in the queue. In terms of that process and. You know, I'll just leave as well, but I think right at the moment we're probably closer to that 514. Right now. We're right around that again, you know, when the document was printed versus today, but. Yeah, it's right around in that range. But when we talk about the impact, it would be the ability to continue to fill those, you know, we're actively. Under normal budgetary circumstances trying to fill up those 5, we need all those bodies and all those positions filled to undertake the work. So it would have an impact on either. Future hiring or, you know, current process work to be a full year. I appreciate that Mr. Levine. Thank you. I see that that's my 10 minutes. I do have more questions. So perhaps we'll do a round 2. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Thank you for being cognizant of the time. Commissioner and Trump. Thank you. Well, first of all, this operating plan signals a very strong path forward for this agency. It's full of new ideas and bold efforts to save lives and it looks very good. And when I see these plans, I mean, it's clear that this agency is grossly underfunded. This agency's earned more and it deserves more so that we can save lives, but we're stuck with the hand that we're currently dealt. So I did want to ask a few questions within the plan was really encouraged to see the references throughout to our continued efforts efforts on AI and machine learning. And I wanted to follow up on 1 project in that space that we had a lot of extra funds to in the mid year the SAS via update. Can you provide an update on what we've done with that and any increased capabilities we may have gained so far. Sure, thank you. Thank you for the question and thanks to the commission for that funding. We are currently in the process of installing the SAS via environment as a reminder for everyone. It's a cloud based environment. Which has a variety of components that need to be integrated for us to be able to use it in a way that allows that AI and machine learning to help us with reporting with analysis and reporting. So we're currently working on the installation and integration of the environment. We are expecting that to be finalized early this fiscal year, maybe in terms of calendar wise early next calendar year. So, you know, somewhere in the second quarter we've we are already on undergoing training for staff to be able to start to use it as it is integrated in a way that allows us to take full advantage of the environment. So we're we're making progress. We're not there yet. No, that sounds great. I appreciate that update. It's also great that we're going to be working on PFAS this year. I think we absolutely need to. Can you explain a little bit about it looks like our work seems to be focused on PFAS's impact on indoor air quality. And I'm wondering, is that the biggest risk that we're concerned about with PFAS because my mind jumps to risks of ingestion and leaching and skin absorption from clothing and things like that. So, can you explain the relative risks of PFAS and the air versus ingestion versus contact? And are we going to be addressing all these areas? Sure. The it's important work and the indoor exposure work. I think it's it's worth noting includes each of those exposure routes. You just mentioned when we're evaluating the exposure and the toxicity related to the to the compounds. Our current work is, as you know, we're working with a contractor directs us to do a complete overview on PFAS chemistries, their sources, their uses. We're working with the environmental protection agency and other federal agencies to get more information on the usage of the chemicals in order to be able to evaluate. How we can take action on consumer product safety hazards and not just sort of be aware of the existence of the chemicals. So it is, it is a. It is a means to an end is probably another way of looking at. Okay, that's that's great. So it sounds like we are approaching all those areas and that's really encouraging to hear. Do you know when we expect that that work to be completed? Well, you know, I mean, there's thousands of different PFAS chemicals. So, and there are different properties and different products. So I don't know that there's a specific completion date. I mean, our work is ongoing. The one of the current contracts are working under will be completed this fiscal year in terms of their, their literature research and their other research to help us identify. Action steps and then the plan is to come back with a request for information out to the public and stakeholders to build upon what we've learned from from that work. Again, as I mentioned, there's the agency work, which is going to be ongoing, you know, far, far longer and far better resource out of EPA than we have that opportunity. But, you know, we're working within within our construct. To at least. Make use of the response we hope to leave we expect to receive this year from from the contract work. Okay, and I'm really glad to hear that we are working with other regulators here because it seems like. There are a lot of people who are working in the same space and it makes sense to borrow intelligence where we're not having to duplicate it. You know, I know that that state regulators are moving forward on addressing the issue EPA has announced plans to ban it entirely and water. And the European Commission's also moving forward. So the extent we can collaborate. It's great. It's great to hear we're already contemplating that. So that the indoor air quality work that it's going to be done this fiscal year, if that uncovers some actionable problem, how quickly could we move towards rulemaking on that? Well, really hard to speculate because it depends on what that actionable item is. And. It would require as we go through this process at this point in the fiscal year and would you again at mid year evaluating available resources and where we want to put those efforts and to put it in some level of context, you know. Our health sciences departments, a limited number of toxicologists who are not only working on this, you know, they're working on. I went on organic again, a halogen flame retardants that work on from rubber issues. They're working on. You know, a variety of chemical chemical work and kind of other compounds. So. And, you know, a relatively new project is chronic work on gas appliance chronic hazards and gas appliances. So, were we to to come upon actionable information? Obviously, we'd present to to the commission options in terms of what what we could and couldn't do and what we would have to. Again, back to the chair's question earlier reshuffled to to raise something up to move more quickly. Well, you know, I hope this is 1 of those areas where the collaborative process with with other agencies work in the same space might help short circuit that process a little bit if we see that we need to do something there. So, hopefully that's a thought going forward. Good question on on I see we're doing work on fire hazards and mattress flammability and mattress pad flammability. There is a concern that I've heard about manufacturers moving to towards fiberglass and other things to meet those flammability standards. And I wanted to see if as part of our work here we're also looking at those types of potentially toxic exposures things like endocrine disruptors that we might be exposed to as a result. So, I mean, the, the, there's, there's 2 answers to that and we continue to have in the past and continue to look at flame retardant chemical hazards. And that's, you know, again, back to that back to that list I was just going to before, you know, within that limited group of folks that we have in health sciences, looking at toxic flame retardants is 1 of the 1 of the ongoing projects. That said, the specific project that you're referring to the 1632 mattress smoldering standard. Update test update is not specifically geared to examine. This time, you know, the that particular issue. It's more working on flammability testing to try and limit the number of mattresses catching on fire, which leads to, you know, unfortunately, several hundred deaths a year. So, it's so it's a yes and a not exactly this project. Okay. Okay. Yes is good. So, question on. I think it's great. So, I saw that we have a measure for the effectiveness of our voluntary standards work, which is, which is excellent that we're measuring and that performance measure looks at the number of standards that we participate in. That lead to a change in the voluntary standard that will result in less people being injured. And our current goal there is success in 16 out of the 87 voluntary standards that we participate in, which is. 18.4% and I'm, I'm assuming and I'm, I'm sure that we've been more successful than 18% of the time. And I'd love to reflect our success with an increased target there. And to bring it in line with other measures. I'd like to listen to you as to as to what that might be, but you know, if you bring in a line with other targets, something like 90% would be fantastic to see, but I'd like to hear back from you on that. And I think we should also make this a key performance measure. That way, you know, instead of measuring just the number we're participating in, if we measure success, it's actually reflecting value added by staff. So I don't expect an answer to a perfect number there. But maybe you could follow up to me with some thoughts on what could be a more appropriate percentage for that measure. Sure, we appreciate it. I mean, I, you know, I'd note we are. We believe significantly successful in helping to guide voluntary standards to be better and help protect more consumers. In addition, obviously, of course, to our significant mandatory standards work. But there are some that allow for greater increases in success in terms of safety than others, just in terms of sort of where they are in their scope. Our involvement levels, but yeah, we'd be happy to come back and discuss. And my time is up. I think. Since commissioner Feldman brought up a second round, I might join in as well. Thanks for being talks time. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Levine for this very thorough and helpful presentation and forced all the staff. So, thank you to everyone. A top priority of agency and certainly for me has been making sure that we have safe environments for babies and children. So I do have a number of questions. See what we will be doing filled on the work that we've already done in that area. So, I would like to ask on page 3 under the applied research. Full it there's a reference to safe sleep practices that's being funded in the 23 budget request. And I just like you to elaborate on what that would be and whether it's going to be any work done. If we don't achieve the optimistic budget levels. Sure. Thank you for the question. Obviously, top priority for everyone. You know, unfortunately. This project and, you know, all these bullets, all these, you know, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on that page. Would not be funded under under the CR level. So that specifically referenced activity would not be funded under under this level. However, there is a other other work going on in that space, whether we're talking about enforcement of the infancy product rule enforcement. Baby's act working on the most rule making for bassinettes infancy billows nursing billows and our ongoing voluntary standards work on durable nursery products would be all unaffected. By a lack of receiving the fund trying to put it in the positive lack of receiving the funding as contemplated in the 23 requests. Are there other contracts in place now in 22 that we contemplate this type of work that we can use to. Yes, there's there's 2 that come to mind. There's 1 working on seated infant project. Seated infant products, pardon me, which is both a biomechanical and a human subjects study that's focused on determining characteristics that may pose hazards. Developing recommendations based on that research and testing, as I said, with human with with infants that was funded in 22. That's an ongoing project that will be unun, unaffected by by a lack of that's funded under the 139 better way to say it. And another 1 is we're also doing a child just on that 1. And what's the timeline? What do we expect to come from that contract in terms of action blind? Sure. So, the timeline is we're expecting some results. Not the full results. I don't want to promise the full results, but I believe some, but I think all the results this fiscal year. I want to say in the spring circle back with you if I'm wrong. And there is the utility of this study. We're hoping would be both of use in a regulatory framework in terms of looking at infant sleep products and related products as well as potentially. And an enforcement perspective when we talk about some of our new authorities and looking at. Design as 1 of the characteristics. Within safe sleep, safe sleep for babies infancy products. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. No, no, that's quite all right. The other 1, I'm just going to mention is we're also funded for there's an ongoing work on children's strength in terms of how to use that for standards. I need to get a little more information for you on that, but that's with the University of Michigan. Okay, thank you for another question. I just have, I think, as much of the clarification and anything, the, if it looks like we are working on an infant pillow fan. And at the same time, we are visiting that as a voluntary standard activity. So I'm wondering how square that if you could just talk in general. I think there's some confusion about the difference between what we're doing in the infant pillow world and the nursing pillow world. And if you could just address the issues, I appreciate it. Sure, I'll do my best. So these, these are the projects that are plan to go on concurrently in terms of the work within the volunteer standard activity. Pardon me, as well as the regulatory activity. The, the exact parameters of how our. Work exactly what our standards are going to look like are still being developed, but there's a recognition of a need to address what our measurable hazards. And we'll be looking to undertake that mandatory rulemaking at the same time as we traditionally have, and particularly because of the way the statute. Essentially requires the work with voluntary standards community will be on undertaking similar work with involuntary standards on the nursing pills. I mean, I think the at a macro level, what we're interested in doing is developing. Requirements that prevent babies for being exposed to unreasonable risks of suffocation when using either of these products. And so, when we're talking about the nursing feeding pillows or the infant pillows, which sometimes refer to as loungers, either of those are their separate products. I think 1 of the important pieces that we're hoping will be accomplished from the infant pillow. Dan work that's listed there is making clear what is and what is not subject to that the ban. I think there's been some some confusion in the regulated community. As to what fits in and what what is excluded from that construct. And so we believe that that will also be of assistance and making clear everyone manufacturers and most importantly, consumers are aware of what is in what is out. Okay, thank you. So just to clarify on page 12, it refers to infant support pillows, but in the mandatory standards table, it just said infant pillows. Is there a difference? I just want to make sure I'm looking at the same looking at the same line, but you're looking at the priority activity. Well, I mean, oh, the, the, the bullet that starts with focus on hazards to children. Yes. Okay. Yeah, infant support pillows and nursing support products are 2 separate products. Um, correct. What I'm saying is that it refers to infant support pillows here, but I think on the mandatory standards table, it just says infant pillows. Oh, yeah. So, I believe that's just not enough room in the table that is the same product. Okay, but I just, there has been some confusion. So, I just think. Maybe to retract at the same way it's helpful. And if we need to go back and make sure that we are being consistent. Okay, all right. Thank you so much. Just in general, can you tell me how staff does develop these priorities? Say, for HR, how the priority activities. Get identified in general. Yeah, I mean, it's a, as you're aware, it's a multi faceted process, which includes looking, of course, at something like. The approved performance budget request, looking at the 22, the work that was undertaken in 22 and what is, you know, was. Conceived of as multi year projects, whether we're talking about in the rule making construct or. The IT construct, but you asked about specifically. So, let's say in the rule making construct, if something, you know, was started as a as an NPR, you know, there's sort of a presumption that the goal is to move forward. With a final rule, the draft strategic plan, as mentioned, is a, you know, is a foundational undergirding for a lot of this in terms of trying to build in those top level. Concepts and priorities and, you know, on a much more practical level, what are the product safety hazards, which we can address based on the, you know, the existing resources that we have within our statutory authority. I hope that answers the question. Yes, it does. Thank you. I see my time is up and I think I'll join the chorus of requests for additional plans. Thank you, Commissioner start our next round of questions recognizing that everybody wanted around. I wanted to forward to to those who are here. So, I turned back to Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Levine, I want to go back to table 1. I had some additional questions and I'm looking at where it lists 46 FTEs as part of the FY 2023 are but costs. I want to unpack that a little bit. Does that represent a net increase? Is this gross FTEs that's not accounting for any staff turnover or retention or attrition issues that that we may have run into along the way? And sort of more basically, are we shifting the net FTE level from our baseline number to our to protect the current staffing levels or not? I just, if you could unpack a little bit about what's going on with with that 46 number. Sure, absolutely the similar to the to the conversation we were just having about the 539. It is a is a planned goal number that we are aiming to achieve. I believe right now. We're at 45, for example, so that's, you know, that is the number that is based on the approved plan from earlier this spring. From the commission, so the plan is it's 46, right? So, I guess that answers the, what's the is that an on board or a goal number? I think it's a goal number. Okay, close to 42, but we're in we're in the 40s and looking to maintain that. You know, the goal is to maintain that 46. If we're baselining some ARPA money, but then also coming in with with sort of new ARPA targets or goals. Can you talk a little bit about where that leaves us in terms of sort of projected ARPA burn? And, and, you know, when we would expect those funds to be fully expended throughout their life? Is this is this a glide path through sort of the exploration of those funds or. So, I believe the the plan has contemplated again. Not if we do not receive any additional funds, which result in a transfer over to our base. Budget there's the plan has contemplated gets us to somewhere in fiscal 2025. In terms of depleting. What we, you know, all of the funds based on the current plan, I don't have the exact for me, but it's it's in fiscal 25. And again, that presumes. No additional, no ability to transfer funds. Understood, I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. I'm pleased in reading through the plan to see that that that excess and. This is sort of for for Mr. Jeholski, and I'm not sure if he's on, but, but, but Jason you as well that that access is recommending increasing its key performance measure for the number of import examinations completed. The, the, the team's previous target had been 40,000 inspections and we're now looking at at 45,000 for the current fiscal. And I think this is moving in the right direction. I think it's the kind of metric that we can take back to Congress to demonstrate. To them into the American public, how we're using these are the funds and the return on investment that that that American consumers are getting. For the investment that they've that they've made in in the agency. So, Mr. Levine and certainly Mr. Jeholski, I do want to thank you for your leadership in this regard and to congratulate access in the entire team for the work that they're doing on our front lines. I did also have some questions about some of the spending that was contemplated. I, I, I know that Mr. Levine doesn't report to you. Should I correct those questions at you? I don't know if Ms. Springs was on to answer questions. I believe she is. I'm happy to try and answer, but I'm sure Ms. Springs will also be happy to answer. I'm here. Okay. Okay. Terrific. Thank you. So, I was hoping that you could discuss that the contemplated level for for under this plan. It appears that the staff is proposing to shift to FTEs into ARPA and then to eliminate 2 others. And I'm curious where these 4 positions are going and. You know, similar to the question I asked earlier, what what the current staffing level is for for the office. Yeah, currently, are we are staffed at 13 FTEs? I believe 2 of those are ARPA ARPA funded positions. I would view those positions as, you know, helping to, you know, helping to drive the broad consumer education priorities. The seasonal and the episodic consumer educations, education programs that we're trying to to to address. Someone has just message me that my camera is off. I'm assuming you don't you don't mind commissioner. I just appreciate the answer. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Yes. So that's, you know, we would be hoping to drive the the broad consumer education that that I've been charged with advancing, you know, the programmatic work. You know, we have great folks, you know, internally that that are handling that along with our agency of record. But where I see my my value is in, you know, providing that broad consumer education that makes the the consumer product safety commission a household household name. I would agree and appreciate the world that you are doing. I mean, to the extent that we're talking about a reduction in FTEs for for CM under the plan in the, in the putting together this draft, did you consider lowering the external campaign budget? To bring some of that work internal so that we're protected and your team in particular is protected against any potential reduction in force. Well, certainly, I think it's something that that I'd be, you know, more than happy to discuss. I'll be I'll be candid that I had not had that particular thought, but I'm happy to discuss it. Okay. Perhaps this becomes an ongoing discussion then. I also had some concerns and some questions, frankly, about concerns may be too strong about the the $300,000 that's contemplated to purchase a mass emailing system. I assume that this spend would would would focus on purchasing mass distribution email lists. Isn't that something that we should be relying on our external communications firm to assist with? And perhaps being able to do so under their existing contract. Candidly, this is the, you know, the 300,000 is a separate entity. It's the company's called Granicus. And I'm not sure that this is something that we want our external PR firm. Frankly, I'm not can't. I'm not sure that they would have that level of expertise. Granicus is showing great, you know, great results. They have, you know, they have been helping to helping us to distribute recall notices. We've experienced a tremendous, you know, tremendous uptick in, in, you know, sends and in performance in that area. Our email list subscriber list has grown from 8,000 to 30, you know, more than 30,000 inside of a year. So I think that, you know, that providing additional funds for that, you know, for that effort with a company that has a demonstrated expertise and demonstrated performance is is worth it. I appreciate that and thank you for the response. I do want to keep sort of the focus and our eye on the ultimate goal here with everything that O.C.M. accomplishes and frankly, consistent with the overall mission of the agency, which is, you know, what are we doing to ultimately change behaviors? Um, is there any evidence that that with, with, with Graticus and, and, and, uh, you know, perhaps external studies to validate is there anything that that you can point to that that speaks to whether a mass mailing and sort of mass email distribution is actually effective in, uh, in, in, in improving safety and changing consumer behavior. So, to the extent that, you know, someone taking the action of signing up for us for our newsletters, signing up after they receive a recall notice, signing up after they receive an initial email inviting them to subscribe to saferproducts.gov, I would say that that would be, you know, we can't, you know, we can't guarantee what consumers do with the information. But the fact that they, you know, take the action to learn more to contact us to join our email list for me is, is a, a safe indication and a positive and encouraging sign that, you know, our messaging is resonating and that people want to know more. I appreciate that I see that my, my time is expired. Uh, and I thank you for the response. Thanks for answering my questions. Uh, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you and, uh, and staff for putting this on, uh, I'll yield the balance of my time, which I've already exceeded. Thank you. Thank you for Mr. Bellman. Mr. Thank you. Uh, so I think this is a narrow question. I was happy to see that we're doing the review of the firewall lab strategy and, uh, I see that we're going to be getting a briefing package. This year, but I just wanted to verify the language says review, but that if there are action items that we staff thinks we should be taking those will be recommended in that package as well. Right. Yeah, I mean, to the extent we find items that would allow the commission to take action, those will be. Yes, absolutely presented in the package. Just wanted to verify that. So, you know, take a look at the mandatory standards table. It's the one on OS 30 and the package. This is a really robust plan to work on a lot of mandatory standards this year. And I am very encouraged by the list. And I think it's clear that we're going to save a lot of the lives with the work that we're going to do this year. Uh, and I absolutely want to make sure that we give staff of this agency. Absolutely everything we need to accomplish the items on that list. My 1st question is, are we confident that we're going to be able to accomplish everything on this list? Um, you know, that's certainly the goal. Uh, it's, it's as, as you mentioned, um, and I think a lot of different adjectives have been used. It's, it's aggressive. It's ambitious. For bust, um, you know, our goal is to. To meet the list as proposed, um, we believe it is achievable, but it is. Um, it is aggressive, ambitious and robust. And, and, you know, sometimes all the stars need to align to get everything over the finish line within that 12 month period. Certainly, um. Uh, it's our hope that we can get it across how do we go about predicting our ability to do that? I mean, do we go through an exercise where we. You know, estimate the total number of staff hours that each action might take so that we can budget staff time over the course of the year. Yeah, I mean, that's that is a key piece of of the process. Uh, part of the process is based on. So, they working knowledge of. The types of rules that generate, um, significant stakeholder comment response, uh, which would then necessitate. Significant response from the agency in the rule making package versus. Those that may be less likely to generate that sort of response. So that's a lot of a lot of time needs to be taken in constructing and answering those. Those comments from from from stakeholders. Um, so, you know, that that's another piece of it sort of our familiarity with all the stakeholder community is often. Uh, brought to an advantage by perhaps our work in a voluntary standard to the extent it exists with a given mandatory standard. So, um, you know, and I think the other sort of on. Unpredictable piece of this is what are the emerging issues that crop up over over the next 12 months, you know, whether it be. Enforcement work that necessitates more support than anticipated from from from the folks in the XR or a new congressional mandate or existing statutory timelines that are, you know, we're aware of, but you know, kick in when a durable nursery infant product, for example, that maybe we weren't expecting to to come forward with an update comes forward. So, you know, generally speaking, it's, you know, it's based on sort of an understanding of about how long things take. Um, based on history and based on current projections, but the, you know, the unknown out there always has a traumatic impact on our ability to move things across. Sure, sure. And look, I know you're not going to be able to provide this off off hand. But I think it'd be very helpful for us as commissioners to know how large of a lift each of these activities that we're thinking about here. How much each 1 is so if you could provide us with the estimated number of staff hours, however you map that number out. You know, for the next year for each of these items on the list, is that something you could provide? We can come back and take a look at it. I mean, I think what's important to understand is that. Some staff is fungible and some isn't and so, you know. The same 8 hours isn't always the same 8 hours depending on, you know, there's only 1 or 2 people to work on a project and 1 of those 1 or those 1 or 2 people retires that's different than something that perhaps a variety of people could pick up and work on. But we'll come back and make sure that you have anything you need to sort of understand the scope. Great and absolutely understand that that they may may not be fungible, but I think that top line understanding of this 1 is going to take 4 times as long as this other 1 would just be useful as we're thinking through each of those items on the list. Okay, so I wanted to look at a few of the specific mandatory items or items on the mandatory standards list. And 1 is a rule to implement the safe sleep for babies act. And I wanted to verify that the comment period on that 1 has closed. So we're currently in the process of reviewing and considering comments on that 1, right? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Sorry. Just just the safe sleep for babies act the implementing regulation on that it's on our mandatory standards list. The comment periods close so we're in the period where we're reviewing those. Yes, correct. Yes. And you know, I've looked at them and we've gotten some thought provoking comments to that rule. And some commenters suggest that Congress dictated a very broad scope to the rule 1 that includes among other things, rockers. And I wouldn't want to prejudge the outcome of our analysis on the safe sleep for babies act implementing regulations. I think certainly we all agree. We need to give those comments full consideration. And so I think it may be premature to listed a 104 NPR for infant rockers for fiscal year 23 as we do in this mandatory standards table. Because I would presume that those products aren't in scope for safe sleep for babies act, but I don't think we're in a position to make that assumption. And so the more prudent course there maybe to remove the rocker NPR now and reexamine the need for a rockers NPR in the mid-year update to the operating plan. Because at that point, we might not need it and but if there is a need, we could add it at that point and would also free up some of these valuable rule making resources for other priorities in the meantime that we've been talking about. So no question there. Just just my thoughts on that issue. I did have a question on the measure for the recall response rate and on us 40 and we set our goal for recall response rate at 25%. But we've actually been significantly outperforming that number and in both 2020 and 2021, we did a great job and we hit 33% recall effectiveness. So, I think we should raise the bar to reflect that success. And I was curious what staff's position would be on how high we could go to reflect not only our new normal, but maybe to motivate us to go higher as well. Sure, so I appreciate the question and obviously recall response is something that's top of mind for for everyone at something that a lot of people spent a lot of time working on. Our goal is to get dangerous products out of the hands of consumers. That's the purpose of recalls. And so, certainly everyone's goal is to have that achieved. I think. The, the question, the trees, which is a good one is, you know, what is the best means to measure that? What is the best way in which we can determine the success of those activities? And historically, it's been a very difficult question to raise. And some of these metrics get can be can be altered with, you know, 1 big recall that is very successful or 1 big in terms of being able to measure that response. I think that's an important piece of it or 1 that is difficult to measure the response of can really impact this sort of numbers. Because remember, it's only the ones. What this is measuring is only the ones for which we have a returned a response directly to a manufacturer as to what the disposition of that product was. So, you know, unlike, and I often use this example, unlike a motor vehicle, which has an individual vehicle identification number allows for easy tracking. When you're talking about, you know, a toaster, people may just throw it out and we'd have no way of knowing that that they took advantage of the remedy that they received our messaging. So, we are always interested in trying to find ways to improve it. Happy to discuss, you know, are there ways to improve the goals number? And we're also looking at how we can expand what we refer to as sponsoring. Because maybe it's not just simply specifically responding to the exact offer or remedy by the manufacturer, but it's something maybe a little broader or a little bit different, or maybe 2 separate measures. So, it's something that we are always thinking of ways to try and find ways to improve, but so they don't think it's a lack of effort. No, no, and certainly don't mean to suggest it is. In fact, the opposite, because we've been doing better than the measure. But, but I think my point is. Acknowledging the problems with the measure aside that it is not a complete picture, because some people will throw these things away that exists now and it existed 3 years ago when we use the same metric and 2 years ago. So, measuring ourselves on that same. Measure over time, we could still change this to reflect that we've hit 33% instead of 25 last 2 years and we hope to go higher. And then we can also work together. I'd be happy to work together on it on a way that we could better measure this. Going forward. So, if you're not ready with a number now, maybe we could follow up and see what would make sense for a number there. Sure. Absolutely. Happy to work. And, and last question that I had was on it's 1, particular aspect of voluntary standards that I've been thinking about lately. And that's where we, where we. Ask a mandatory rule and then continue participating in the voluntary standard thereafter. And I think 1 of the examples that kind of jumped out that might be a stark example of this would be magnets. And it's come to my attention that the discussions in the magnets meeting after we passed rule, I've kind of broken down into. Hey, what, what kind of rule would we wish was in place if CPSC's rule didn't exist? That doesn't seem like a very effective use of time and I'm not sure if, if all voluntary standards or many voluntary standards. Kind of devolve that rapidly after a mandatory rule. But question on that is, should we consider pausing participation and voluntary standards work for a certain period after we've addressed the issue through a mandatory rule? Well, you know, I mean, there's always different ways that commission can approach this. I think historically, the motivation to remain involved with with voluntary standards activities, which remember sort of wax and wane in terms of activity, following a mandatory rule coming into coming into effect. But is everything from trying to help improve test methods, perhaps that exceed or are. Yeah, that exceed where we are in terms of the mandatory in terms of the detail is something that is easily more easily accomplished within the voluntary standards process and trying to consistently update the mandatory rule making process. There's a, you know, a history of voluntary standards having surpassed where a mandatory standard is, depending upon the length, of course, that mandatory standard is in place and we also want to be cautious as to not seeing something that in a voluntary standard context. Strays too far away from where the mandatory standards. Now, of course, we can enforce the mandatory standard, but even better if the entire industry is on board with that standard. Now, all of that said, mandatory standards mandatory, we're going to force it as written. But generally, it's a pretty small investment of time to keep a hand in in those voluntary standards activities and trying to help guide them in a direction that is likely to result in more and better. Compliance and success in demonstrating that compliance, but, you know, there's always exceptions to the rule that that is all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Boil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. living certainly a hallmark of the agency that we take great pride in is our data and so I do want to ask you a number of questions about all data and how we're. Working to include it want to start with nice from 1 of the polarity activities involves the 21 and nice hospital sample modernization plan. So, I'd like to just ask you what the status of that is, particularly with respect to improvement. I think footnote 9 references the need to add 20 to 30 hospitals to that sample. And so I would like to ask about the status back to. Sure, thank you for the question. And obviously, it's it is 1 of our most important programs and something that we all we all want to make sure is successful. So, we're currently in the 2nd year of a contract with a vendor who has been tasked with helping us to recruit new emergency room and new hospitals to. 2 nice this past year. So, this is this. This will be the 2nd year 1st year was significantly impacted by the COVID on spike, just as they were getting up to speed emergency rooms across the country. Of course, we're inundated in a way that seem to have been quieting down and has an impact at our ability and their ability more specifically to. To deal with the non emergent issue, which, you know, which becoming a nice hospital. So, it's we are, we are hopeful as we are seeing some more. Some, some, some limited, but more success and queuing up. Some interested hospitals over the last month or so the contract was extended at mid year for fiscal 23. So, we're certainly hoping to see more success this year out of the contractor with the recruiting. That's where we currently are. And I'm certainly to the extent that those. Efforts are unsuccessful. We will be taking on additional steps. We're working with the American college of emergency physicians to try and use another methodology. In terms of recruitment staff undertake some of that recruitment as well. Can I just clarify how the funds are used for recruitment? It looks like our funds are used for the hospital sample modernization plan, but the recruitment is at the level in my right. Yeah, so right to the funds, as I mentioned for the contractor that's doing the recruiting was funded at mid year. So that wouldn't be impacted by the funding and the modernization piece, which is on the contract technical end is funded our bus. So that also wouldn't be. In fact, by the level that said, sort of future endeavors increased activity, whether it be contract support or on a staff level would be impacted by. By a full year. Okay, well, I obviously nice as well. Hallmark vehicles of our agency and whatever support we need to do. I mean, I'm, I'm keeping on the data front of the 23 budget request also contemplates a significant increase in artificial intelligence. I think it's 5.6 million. And then another point, 1 million to enhance data to sharpen our focus on vulnerable populations. And again, a similar question. Where were those priorities fall? If we do not get that enhanced budget appropriation as we hoping to get. Yeah, well, I mean, the short answer is. Were we to say it a full year CR and no funds would go to. Those projects as currently contemplated. Now, we're there to be. Again, some level between 1 39 and 1 95 commission staff would propose. Some where, where to out where to where to spend those additional resources. It's obviously a higher priority project. Which is why it's listed here that may that might could be depending on on what those levels are. 1 of those things that are put forth to the commission mid year. Concept, thank you. I actually have a sort of a specific data question and that relates to gender. We've learned in the context of the adult portable bedrails that the vast majority of victims for female and most of those incidents involved fatalities. And I wanted to ask if the agency was equipped to within its current resources to conduct an analysis of other products to determine if there's a similar impact along. Along gender lines and what the cause for that disparity, I think we have the resources for that. So, you know, this is a sort of yes and no answer. You know, generally speaking for almost all of our death and injury report data, we have at least some gender specific information. So, we generally have enough information to get to that 1st step of, is there a gender disparity? Are, you know, and even sort of beyond simple demographics, you know, certain older populations are more weighted towards female, but even within that, you know, we have the ability to sort of to sort. Against percentages because we do have that that gender data. Unfortunately, beyond that sort of that 1st step, we generally don't have the resources or sufficient data to determine what is causing that disparity within given product category. We are conducting some, you know, some preliminary research on these sorts of questions we've done with some of the recent epidemiological reports that we've put out. But quite frankly, we would expect to need some of the analytics we would get from machine learning some of the projects we've been contemplating and discussing today. Even to help us make that next leap to, you know, getting behind those numbers. You know, why we're seeing those numbers. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about bicycles. Like many during the pandemic, I started to ride a bicycle more and I know people are turning to using bicycles for environmental reasons and because of gas prices. And so I do want to ask and particularly about the bikes. I know we just had a report that came out or my ability report came out yesterday. Uh, and it showed that for all my property products. There's a significant increase in injuries and fatalities that there's 129 fatalities. We're all across all products from 2017 to 2021. Um, so I think just in general, that's a concern that we really do need to put some thought and effort into and I know that we are, but I want to drill down a little bit on bicycles and ask how we are enforcing are the sets. Requirements in our bicycle regulation at all adequate to deal with, say, oh, that's not where I thought you were going. Um, sorry. No, I mean, I think that's an open question. In fact, as a callback to what I was just discussing with commissioner Trump, right? The, the, the bicycle standard that we have is rather old. Um, generally speaking, the voluntary standard has many respects surpassed our mandatory bicycle standard in terms of some of the safety aspects and performance aspects. We are continuing to work in the voluntary standard. For bicycles, I would say currently are are neither our mandatory standard nor the voluntary standard. Are specifically addressing what you're, what you're referring to, but there have been discussions I know about within the voluntary standard context. And I think, um, you know, one of the questions at play is how much of this is a bicycle standard question and how much of this is around things like, um, the batteries that are that are powering that are used in multiple different products. As we discussed with like micro mobility products, it's the same battery in different products. Um, and so I think there are, um, it's, it's a, it's an open question that definitely deserves our attention on how much of the increased injury rate is simply a usage versus something that we can address in standard, uh, in a standard format is also a question. Well, I appreciate the answer and certainly batteries are a distinct issue that we do have to deal with across product categories. But when we say usage, is that because perhaps the bicycles, we're, you haven't looked at limits on how fast they can, for example, so presumably speed and the capacity for bicycles and users to accelerate beyond, um, uh, rates that they ordinarily would be able to do is something that we can look at within the. Conducts and advice the regulations. Absolutely, I would just note for observational purposes, they're also at some point, uh, results in a cross jurisdictional question with the national highway traffic safety administration. So, there's a lot to I'm back there, but it is certainly something that is something we're looking at and continuing to think about. Okay, well, thank you. I'm glad to hear that. Um, I just have, I know my time is about to expire. So I do want to just circle back to sort of the general. Um, issue about whether we're going to be living at the level or even slightly above, but with the inflationary increases, essentially being canned to amount to a cut. And so, I guess I would like to make a request that you have a commitment here today that you support, particularly all of our work on safe sleep environment for children and for babies. I know there are choices that are to be made here and as a priority for an open agency for these last several years, if we need personally, that's something that I would be looking forward to as we look at what made the difficult choices that I hope that the staff continues to make those priorities. But thank you again. I appreciate all the hard work and that's all I have. Mr. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle. Um, you know, it's finished a second round of questions. I would ask if anybody else has any additional questions at this time. Obviously, staff will remain available to answer more questions as we're getting closer towards the. Decisional not hearing any. I do want to thank staff for this informative briefing and the commissioners for the active participation. I think the note that Commissioner Boyle descended on is a serious and a real want given that we don't know what our funding levels are going to be for the coming year and staying at the CR levels will be hard choices and I think that does not benefit the public or safety generally. And also, I don't want to lose sight that we have and are going through our funding and if that runs out without having a corresponding increase in our base appropriations, it's going to have significant impact on exactly this sort of things. Commissioner Bell, I was talking about in terms of the good work that's going on at the ports that we're seeing an increase in products being examined. So, I know I will continue to advocate for higher funding levels for the agency because both deserves it and can do tremendous amount of good with the increased levels that we're both talking about the operating plan and. Anything less than that, if Congress to the same Congress, this doesn't agree. So, with that again, I thank everybody and forward to working with you to finalize the operating plan and this meeting is adjourned.